Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Today's Quiz

Question: What do John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush have in common?

That's right. They lost (in sequential) presidential elections. In 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992.

But what else do they have in common?

Hmmm.

No. The fact that they're all male is too easy.

They're all old?

Come on.

Hmmm.

It's this:

All are military combat veterans (Al Gore makes it in this category despite the fact that he wasn't a "combatant," per se. He was, though, a soldier stationed in theater during the Vietnam conflict).

Here are their backgrounds (briefly):

• John McCain - Navy fighter pilot

• John Kerry - Navy swiftboat captain

• Al Gore - Army, 20th Engineers Brigade

• Bob Dole - Army - 10th Mountain Division

• George H. W. Bush - Navy fighter pilot

They were defeated (in order) by a lawyer, an Air National Guard pilot, ditto, a draft dodger, and ditto.

For you "strategists" out there who think it's a great leg up for a candidate for the office of commander-in-chief to have "war hero" experience, you might want to think again.

In fact, it's been twenty years ...

Worlds Apart

There was a brief moment after 9/11 when all Americans (well, nearly all) were proud of their country. Most of us for traditional reasons, best expressed by Ronald Reagan when he referred to the USA as "that shining city on the hill" and when Abraham Lincoln regarded it as "the last best hope of Earth." Because that city on the hill, that last best hope of Earth had been attacked and thousands of Americans had been murdered.

But there was also a large swath of the American populace that seemed to appreciate - if fleetingly - in this weird, masochistic, supplicatory way - the fact that foreigners - meaning Europeans - were expressing profound sympathy for our grievous loss. Whether it was sprinkled with a bit too much schadenfreude or not. They felt sorry for us and these people ate it up.

I didn't understand the need for recognition - their blessing - then. I don't understand it now.

The following drivel comes from a Radford University teacher, writing in this morning's Roanoke Times:

We have given the world hope

I don't need to tell you what he's orgasmic about.

We elected a president based upon the color of his skin.

As David Duke would have wanted it decided.

But I encourage you to read John Knowles' piece. (It's written in college-ese, so take your time and read carefully. You'll face virtually incomprehensible sentences like:

"The election results of the presidential race created both the necessity and opportunity to ensure my college foreign language students paused from euphoria, despondency or ambiguity, and pondered the significance of the event within a frame of reference outside themselves."

"Ensure" that they "paused"? I'm not even sure that makes for a good sentence, and I know sentences. But then I only have a Masters ...)

But, to the point: Mr. Knowles dreams "that [his] students can move beyond their personal feelings to glimpse [Obama's election] for all those children scattered around the world."

Me? I could give a shit what they think.

As U.S. Automakers Sink Beneath the Waves ...

A seriously agitated John Jacob Astor, one of the wealthiest men on the planet, rushes into the wheelhouse of the sinking luxury liner Titanic and exclaims to Captain Edward Smith, "Sir, I have a suitcase here in my hand that contains $200,000. I wish for you to distribute it to your men so that this ship doesn't go down and I and my pregnant wife may be saved."

Captain Smith, watching as the sea starts working its way onto the bridge and up to his ankles, replies, "That's gentlemanly of you, sir."

He turns to the speaking tube and calls down to the engine room, "Boys, I have additional bonus money for you from a large-hearted benefactor." All will be well now."

"Boys?"

"Boys?"

The Roadmap Is There

The Republican Party begins its inevitable exercise in soul-searching, now that the voting has been done and crushing defeat in elections local and national has taken place. And, as expected, some Republicans are calling for a back-to-basics conservative makeover while others are demanding that the GOP, in order to win future elections, adopt Democrat positions on issues social and fiscal. (Which proved to be a winning strategy for President McCain).

Here's my offering to those lost in the wilderness. The answer lies in all that exit polling data that was amassed over the last few weeks, and can be found in the headlines even today.

Let's turn to California for the answer.

California?

Yes.

First a couple of questions: In what demographic did the GOP do its worst on November 4? Minorities, right? Blacks and Hispanics went overwhelmingly for Obama across the nation. And, by the estimates of the experts, who decided the Prop 8 pro-traditional marriage constitutional amendment in California?

Blacks and Hispanics.

Another question: Which political party owns that issue - should the really smart leadership thereof wish to pursue it aggressively?

That's right.

You hear a lot of talking heads on TV set forth that Republicans are suicidal if they focus on social issues and ignore the monetary/economic/pocketbook concerns of "the average American." Really? Tell that to the minorities of California who, despite the tremendous effort that was exerted to stop them, voted their principles. They voted in favor of marriage. They voted overwhelmingly on the basis of a social issue that is of utmost concern to them.

Memo to GOP: You want to win black (when a black candidate isn't running) and Hispanic voters? Want to win elections? Ignore the pundits. They want you to lose anyway. Align along traditional conservative economic precepts and take WINNING social issues into the minority communities across this country. Let the mainstream media howl.

Victory awaits.

- - -

* The downside: The GOP may lose the liberal and media vote. Something worth considering.

Like Keystone Kops

To think, the Obama administration is going to develop a global warming strategy, involving massive new taxes built around something called cap-and-trade, based upon data provided by these clowns:
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker, London Telegraph

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month ...

But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that ... GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that ... (link)
And we're going to tax the planet back into the Stone Age based on this? Are you kidding me?

A Distinction Without a Difference

Being Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion

I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself, Mrs. Schwarzenegger, but someone still dies in that scenario.