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

Monday, August 31, 2009


Why can't the publisher of the Charleston Gazette find editorial writers who passed sixth-grade English class?

Check out this pathetic attempt at composition that appears in today's paper:
After the Evangelical Lutheran Church voted to accept monogamous gays and lesbians as ministers, Charleston's St. Timothy Church protested that this change is contrary to scripture. But Leviticus says gays must be killed. Surely, nobody wants to follow that biblical command. Therefore, virtually the whole American society is contrary to scripture in this regard.
Surely, therefore, ... what?

Is there an editor at the Gazette? If so, can he or she recognize incoherent - and laughingly puerile - writing before it's printed and exposed to the world?

Good grief.

This Is No Way To Run a Country

Robert J. Samuelson (in "Ducking the Deficit Issue") on the potential train wreck that is the United States of America:

In 1946, after World War II, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to GDP was 108.6 percent. Since then, the economy (our income) has generally grown faster than the debt. In 1974, the debt-to-GDP ratio reached a post-World War II low of 23.9 percent, and even in 2007, it was only 36.9 percent. That was manageable.

By contrast, today's prospective colossal borrowings dwarf likely economic growth. The Obama administration's latest projections, released last week, show nearly $11 trillion of borrowing from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 76.5 percent. This could be too optimistic, because it assumes some spending restraint and tax increases. A projection by the Concord Coalition, a watchdog group, adds about $5 trillion in borrowing in that period. In 2019, the debt-to-GDP ratio could be roughly 100 percent.

Because such borrowings would be unprecedented in peacetime, they might go badly.

The problem of the burgeoning government debt is mainly political, but the adverse consequences may be economic. The trouble is that we don't know what those consequences may be, when they may occur or even whether they will occur.
"We don't know what those consequences may be, when they may occur or even whether they will occur."

If the people ("we") who are overseeing our federal accounts were piloting a 747, would you get on board?

Yet these same jokers are entrusted with our children's and grandchildren's futures.

For the love of God.

Quote of the Day

From former Senator Bob Dole:
Many of us were taught that the president proposes and Congress disposes. Today, Congress is doing both -- with the president relegated to the role of cheerleader in chief as he campaigns for various House committees' efforts. Certainly, Obama supports much in these proposals -- but Barack Obama is our president, not a commentator.
"Starting Over On Health Care," Washington Post, August 31, 2009

Who's The Ignorant One Here?

Katie Couric, poster girl for the blind, deaf, and dumb:
False reports about guns
Washington Times editorial

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn't carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric's gun to "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people." [link]

Noun: ignorance ĭg'nər-əns
1. The condition of being (a) uneducated, (b) unaware, or (c) uninformed.

Ignorance? Someone in this story certainly qualifies, having met conditions (b) and (c). And it's not the gun-totin' right-wing redneck in New Hampshire.

A Global Warming Skeptic Speaks Out

Scientists, he says, are not politicians. Or maybe they are ...
Global Warming Blues
By Norman Rogers, writing in The American Thinker

I spent my working life as a computer engineer and entrepreneur. I have a long history of tilting at windmills having been involved in numerous causes and crusades during my life. So when my retirement started it was natural for me to look for something to get involved with. I picked global warming. Since I had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in physics I felt that I could deal with the technical side of global warming theory. As a computer expert I though that I would have insight to the giant computer models of the earth's climate that are central to global warming science.

I smelled a rat right from the beginning.

I learned that most scientists don't have a good grasp of the big picture because they are narrowly specialized and don't think about much outside of their immediate interests. The scientists that do have a grasp of the big picture can be divided into global warming advocates, skeptics and the majority of passive observers who play it safe by not taking a position. The global warming advocates have the upper hand and the most power. The skeptics, including quite a few excellent scientists, are marginalized and frankly persecuted. They are whistle blowers. A lot of skeptics are retired. The warmers can't cancel pensions, at least not yet. The most famous promoter of global warming, James Hansen, wants to put his opponents on trial for crimes against humanity. [link]
Read the whole thing. Bottom line?

"The science behind the IPCC predictions and the scary claims is incredibly weak, really bordering on fantasy."

This from a scientist who went into this as a skeptic seeking the facts, rather than entertainment from Al Gore slide shows. To his credit, he doesn't call for those who disagree with him to be imprisoned. He doesn't belittle them. He just wants them to observe and to test their theories. And spend less time campaigning for funding from politicians and more time doing what scientists do.

So Now He's Dead & Buried

Now that the over-the-top Death Fest is subsiding, it's worth a moment of our time, just a brief moment, to reflect on that chapter in Saint Ted's life that the mainstream press has tried to avoid mentioning at all costs. And for us to consider the lengths to which the mainstream press went, when obligated, to airbrush history.

Mark Steyn:
As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”

Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of “tremendous moral collapse.” When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.”

You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty.
"Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne," National Review, August 29, 2009

- - -

"Instead of reporting the accident Edward Kennedy returned to the party. According to a statement issued by Kennedy on 25th July, 1969: 'instead of looking directly for a telephone number after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me - this was some time after midnight - in order to undertake a new effort to dive.'

"When this effort to rescue Kopechne ended in failure, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel. As the ferry had shut down for the night Kennedy, swam back to Edgartown. It was not until the following morning that Kennedy reported the accident to the police. By this time the police had found Mary Jo Kopechne's body in Kennedy's car." [source]