It's always refreshing to see a real name here. I have gladly aimed at many a Hanoi Jane urinal sticker in my day, but I never allowed my anger over her youthful actions to cloud my judgement on all who were outspoken on Vietnam. Again, Terry, the point is this: If you say the Purple Heart selection process is flawed, you are calling your medal into question and everyone else's. Question for you, Terry: How do you know how Kerry got his first medal? Did you talk with his commander? Did you talk with men on his boat? Or did you read an account by one of Kerry's political adversaries? Do you have certain, first-hand knowledge that allows you to say Kerry's medal is illegitimate? And even if that medal is for a flesh wound, should it EVER be placed on a bandaid and used at a political convention? I just can't imagine the conscience of a person that would place such a bandaid on their face mocking a veteran while voting for two men who did all they could to avoid combat service to their country. I don't believe words exist to ever make this seem like an appropriate political attack. Remember, this same group of conservatives have targeted Max Cleland and John McCain previously. That gives me the impression that "support the troops" comes with an asterisk * (some restrictions apply. Support may be denied, revoked, or withheld based on political necessity). But your service, Terry, no matter how politically opposite we are, will never be used by me as fodder. And I would never support anyone who attempted such "nitpicking" of your record.

Kevin "Hack" King

Kevin, if you put politics in your back pocket and sat down for a long talk with John O'Neill, you would surely come away from that discussion believing and knowing he is one of the most genuine and decent guys you've ever met. But he was vilified in 2004 as the Swift Boat spokesman and his virulent opposition to Kerry. Of course his critics are quick to point out John was invited to the White House to meet President Nixon in the 1970s after he debated John Kerry on the Dick Cavet show about Vietnam vets being a murderous lot ravaging the countryside like Genghis Khan - Nixon's handlers thought he did well and mistakenly took his performance as promoting the war. What Nixon and his people didn't know then, and what John's critics didn't know in 2004 because they were screaming "dirty politics" too loud to listen, is that John is a Democrat.

I told John more than once in 2004 that my opinion was they were making a mistake by hammering on Kerry's medals, because the public wouldn't get the details especially since the media would be unfriendly to the story, and the public wouldn't like it either. All of which leads to an answer to your core question.

I tracked down Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commander who said no to the first Purple Heart request and laughed him out of his office, and asked him what happened. He told the story I summarized above, the same story the Swift Boat vets were telling the reluctant media. If you want to call him yourself, when I found Hibbard in 2004 he was living in Gulf Breeze, Florida, area code 850.

For each of the medals awarded to Kerry there were questions and sleazy stories, but Hibbard is the only one I knew how to contact as an original source, though O'Neill and other guys in his unit in VN knew much more about sources than I did. I just wanted to hear it from the horses mouth, so I shared the same curiosity you raised. How much of the stories about his other medals are true I can't vouch for, but consider this.

Kerry scored 3 Purple Hearts in a few months without spending a day in medical care. After Kerry scored his Silver Star, which is given for "Gallantry," one step above medals given for "heroism," which in his case was chasing down and shooting one enemy soldier, he took his crew back to the site with a movie camera to film a "re-enactment." The film taken was used ten thousand times in the media, showing him walking in the jungle with M-16 and steel pot, but never did I see any commentary about the source of the film. What kind of guys films re-enactments of his heroic adventure?

The unsavory truth is, like all other life experiences, when in a war zone you find a whole lot of decent people, and a few creeps. As one example of creeps and medals, not too long after I started flying combat missions I flew co-pilot with a guy I'll call Mr. M. We had a night mission trying to support friendlies in a firefight with the enemy, but the jungle was so thick and the night and terrain so dark we couldn't see where to shoot and when the friendlies tried popping smoke and using flashlights, we couldn't see it for the jungle. We couldn't shoot for fear of hitting our guys. When we were out of fuel options and had to return to base Mr. M. did a rocket run and salvoed about 50 rockets in one run a safe distance away, he said to keep the ground troops' morale up. But as we returned to base, listening to the ground commander switch to artillery for the support they needed, Mr. M. said to me on the radio that we should write each other up for a Bronze Star. I asked him "What the hell for?" As my senior he gave me his lecture about accumulating medals. It was the kind of discussion that makes good people feel like a shower. I said no.

Mr. M. was always a medal-monger and a showoff, which is dangerous in a pilot, and he ended up killing himself and a friend of mine doing something stupid.

Medals don't always tell an accurate story. Skip Davis lives in Woodstock. Skip was leading a flight of slicks (Huey helicopters transporting troops) in the 1970 incursion into Cambodia. Skip lost an aircraft three times that day to enemy fire, left the birds shot up in the LZ three times, scrambled to another aircraft and made it back in one piece to ask for another aircraft because he knew his brothers on the ground needed him. Skip didn't get any medals for what he did and how he led that day, but he did take a bullet in a tender spot and refused the Purple Heart because he didn't want to be tormented by his buddies.

There were a lot of guys like Skip in Vietnam, and there were a few guys like Mr. M. and John Kerry, just a few rotten apples among a lot of very decent guys. That's the bottom line and that is what is hard to convey when everybody is shouting "politics!"

Terry Garlock

I just got back in country and I sense it's about time to drive a stake in the heart of this blog. I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts. Let's not stray too far from the premis: You can attack a person's ideas without attacking an award they receive, be it a Purple Heart or a Nobel Peace Prize (the original subject). If John Kerry was such a repugnant person, certainly one could attack his character and ideas without besmirching the Purple Heart by band aiding i9t. If Al Gore is out to lunch, one doesn't have to opine the Nobel Prize invalid because a person they don't care for received it. Think of this. If the GOP wanted to attack the sincerity of Al Gore or John Kerry's christian faith, would they desecrate the cross to do so? Would they put it on a pornographic magazine cover to ensinuate these men were fake christians? No, out of respect for the cross, they wouldn't. It is my belief that the Purple Heart, Nobel Prize, Pulitzer, etc. should not be disrespected simply because a political foe received one. This tenacity to attack an oponent at any level has lead the GOP down some questionable paths.

We found them championing a very large federal government intervening in family matters with Terry Schaivo, interfering with the rights of a father to raise his child with Elian Gonzales, questioning the rule of law and validity of courts with Schaivo and Roe vs wade, and flip-flopping on line item vetoes depending on the party of the president wielding such power. Now we lampoon congressional oversight of a war effort in Iraq and marginalize the Nobel Prize. You would think patriotic Americans would be proud that their former vice president received an international honor, but alas, he is a democrat, so some will refuse the association with VP Gore and the pride it should bring. Interesting behavior for those who so profess their love for country and countryman, don't you think?

Kevin "Hack" King

If Limnaugh had gotten the prize, it would have been great.
If Bush had gotten it it would have caused a ten week celebration.
And, if Cheney had gotten it, we would have bombed Iran and Syria in the same day!
It is the old story of whose ox is in the ditch on Sunday.

Thank you for your participation in a futile effort in Vietnam. You honestly tried.
Now, Is this comment of yours more of Limbaugh's fake soldiers?
Was Kerry a real fake in all he did in Vietnam? Were the other two purple hearts fake also?
Would they have been fake if he were Republican? I ask again because I don't believe you! I suppose John Kennedy (democrat) was also a fake soldier?
Sometimes medals ARE awarded, undeserved, and you must know that. They don't mean much anyway. Only a few fight for the medals (North, and that kid from Oklahoma).
The military needs and must have heroes to survive due to the recognition needed to get money. Ever see a general with few medals?
Do you know how many medals buck sergeants, and even privates, now have been awarded in Iraq? There are about four for just being there, plus one for each skirmish. They have been cheapened.
By the way, I don't want Mr. Kerry as President either since there are so many others who are better, not qualified, but have better ideas. Yes, I served, got four medals, only one deserved--good conduct.

doesn't confirm you are $ the sun don't rise in the east. The contempt you feel for the military shows up every time you post about it. You ever thin that a general might have a chestfull of ribbons because he's served for 25 or 30 years, check out a E-8 or E-9 in any branch and I bet they will rivel anything a General has. You'll never sdmit that kid gave up the money because he was a patriot. You're just a cynical old so and so. I've noticed something over the years and that's people who ascribe certain traits to other people do it only because they would do the same thing if they had the chance and can't believe no one else would.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Can we forget this one, too? Been 65 years!
How about the Indian wipeouts in North and South America by us and the Spaniards?
Oh, and slavery everywhere should by now be forgotten!
I know we need the mean Turks right now, but they haven't really been much help, have they?

Please do not think that my lack of responses to your, umm, posts is not intentional. It is purely my intent to keep the mud of your posts off of my flight boots. On the rare occaision you give us something to work with, I'll step up. Otherwise I'll avoid your fecal matter like dog droppings on a side walk in Italy.

Kevin "Hack" King

Hack, Both of those articles brought up some very valid points. Why can't you acknowledge that? The editorial regarding the issues with Turkey and how they affect our perfomance in Iraq is undeniable. Even if you're against the war, the tactics that the Democrats are accused of employing just might have some validity to them. I don't know that for sure. But could it?

And why does it equate to "fecal matter on a side walk" when someone offers up their research countering the unchallenged Global Warming theories?

Good grief. You have to admit that these so-called discussions between the Left and the Right are like DIGESTING SOME REALLY, REALLY, REALLY COLON SIZZLING HOT SAUCE.

Don't forget to scroll down on the link.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

I'm sure you can understand that time is money (or time spent here is time away from family). If I want a book, I'll go buy it or get it from the library. I like the way you digest material and then state your opinion and why you have it. Folks that simply link to an article reflecting someone else's ideas, I don't waste time with. If I wanted to go to a right wing online site, I'd do it myself. Simply moving the door to that site here will not make me walk through it. And Git, Beav has to offer more than this:

"And if there was more than an ounce of Truth to any of Al Gore's claims to global warming, then there wouldn't be anything to joke about."

My post or the cartoon it addresses say nothing of the Turkey/Armenian issue. And to think that global climate change came from the mind of Al Gore is not even worth addressing at this water ban point in time. I often wonder how bad life will get before some at least aknowledge what the rest of the wold sees to be a growing change in the world's climate.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: I did check out the ring of fire, and I can relate!

I come to expect this type of thing from the Warthog. Present him with some coherent, reasoned argument, and he resorts to throwing mud like all liberal democrats do. (do) They can't help it, it just comes so naturally for them.

----------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

Beaver claims that global warming has been debunked by "most" scientists...this statement is only true if you use the "Huckabee Republican" definition of the word "most".

(Mike Huckabee, the fringe Republican presidential candidate, said this week in a debate that "most" signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen. When it was pointed out that exactly one out of fifty six signers were in fact actually members of the clergy, Huckabee said he was still standing by his claim).

Sooo 1 divided by 56 is, oh, roughly 1.78%, so using the Beaver/Huckabee/Republican standard, Beaver is technically correct.

The only scientists I know of who say there is no warming are on either the FOX and Limbaugh payroll, or are radical republicans!
Of course it is getting warmer and if we hadn't put in at least some controls 40 years ago on industry we couldn't live here now!
Guys like Limbaugh just want to be sure corporations have money to pay him!

is a typical Lib. Don't address the issue of Gore's lies, just deflect by bringing up something that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a complete and utter fraud.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds

Problem is, this is not even a response from Gore, but from his spokeswoman Kalee Kreider. How about a response from Gore himself or, better yet, an actual climatologist.

-----------------------------------------------

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

Here are some actual climatologists which can answer your questions:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Warming

As to your "coherent, reasoned argument" source, Christopher Monckton, here is what his colleagues in England (where he lives) and others say of him:

Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has criticized Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary". Sound familiar?

Dr. Stephan Harrison Associate Professor in Physical Geography Senior Research Associate, Oxford University Centre for the Environment and Director of Climate Change Risk Management criticizes Monckton’s articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples".

The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."

Most of his writings on global warming have been published by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), part of Frontiers of Freedom, an organization funded by ExxonMobil.

The Royal Society's (the National Academy of Science of the UK and the Commonwealth) senior manager of policy communications, Bob Ward, analyzed his website among others and found, “Of those organizations whose websites feature information on climate change … some 39 organizations were featuring information on their websites that misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change. My analysis indicates that ExxonMobil last year provided more than $2.9 million to organizations in the United States which misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."

After being caught lying for money in a house selling scam, Monckton responded to a question posed by a reporter as to whether or not he minded being made to look like an “absolute prat” for having been caught lying by saying: “No - I'm quite used to that. History is full of stories that aren't actually true.”

Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt

I did find his opinions on another field for which he is also not qualified to speak to be very interesting though. In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult").

As for climatologist, Monckton’s degree from Cambridge is in English classics literature.

The history is -- this almost half of the signers of the Declaration (24 of 56) held what today would be considered seminary degrees.

I didn't hear the speech, but this is most likely what Huckabee is referencing.

BTW 24/56 = 42.85%
______________________________________________________________________
Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should,
therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.
Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties
which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
Thomas Jefferson on the courts

The "elite" of that time generally were semi-educated in the humanities, then medicine (of a kind) and then religion studies.
They usually followed none of those professions---just raised cotton or ran factories.
Sure didn't make them certified preachers, doctors or PhDs!
By the way, anybody could preach: then and now!

By categorizing a holder of a "divinity degree" as a "clergyman", you are correct sir.

Applying your criteria to colleges today, a person graduating with a PhD should be considered a "philosopher", regardless of his field of expertise.

In the 1700s, most private schools (Harvard, Yale, etc) conferred "Doctor of Divinity" for most majors.

There is a very good article explaining the discrepancy at
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/10/
david-bartons-myths-strike-mike-huckabee.html

This may be a "glass half full/glass half empty" argument, and there may possibly be more than one ordained clergyman in the original signers, but I stand by my characterization that clergy were in a distinct minority ( less than 10%) of the signers.

I notice that you did not address the two points I made: The Congress exercising oversight is not "meddling" and winning a Nobel Prize for leadership on global climate change would not "appear" to be pie in the President's face if he were exercising any leadership at all on this issue.
Denise, why did you simply swing by this post to dump some internet refuse? Your post was at a beaverish level; not your norm. If your point is that I, as a regular reader of this paper, am not allowed to call a cheap shot a cheap shot, then I respectfully disagree with you. Your mind seems a bit narrow here, Denise. But I will still feel free to express my opinion. Feel free to sophmorically call this "whining."

Kevin "Hack" King

What I notice is that YOU are sounding a lot like Basmati: telling others how they should or should not write their posts (what makes you the expert in that area ) and your intellectually stimulating response to Beaver's attempt to explain the cartoon: "your fecal matter like dog droppings on a side walk in Italy." (Isn't that "internet refuse"? )

Sophomoric? Re-read your own posts for examples of "great immaturity and lack of judgment." If my mind's "narrow," then what is yours? You strongly implied that you didn't even read any of the Science and Public Policy Institute's "35 Inconvenient Truths: The Errors in Al Gore's Movie."

I know; you can't waste your time with any "right wing" facts or opinions although the SPPI is a "nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science" and "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party." Can't say that about Al Gore or Robert Kennedy, Jr. What were you saying about "an insult reason and reality"?

"I'm sure you can understand that time is money (or time spent here is time away from family)." -- Perhaps you'd be soooo kind as to allow others that same option. My intent was never to address the underlying issues at that time, but I am quite capable of doing so. My intent was to point out liberals’ hypocrisy and lack of t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e and suppressing diversity of opinion.

Seems to me that banning Ann Coulter and Glenn McCoy's editorial cartoons is "fighting the free flow of information and ideas." The Citizen has run numerous anti-Bush cartoons, but I haven't seen one complaint about those. Have you? I didn't say that you should not be "allowed" to express your opinion (although it is becoming monotonous -- "Cartoons sink to new low" and Drop Ann Coulter Letter to the Editor) but that you should "allow" others to express theirs.

I eagerly await your addressing the points made by Terry Garlock and others, but I won't hold my breath. BTW, "do you have certain, first-hand knowledge that allows you to say Kerry's medal is legitimate?" You should use the same standard yourself that you demand of others.

"I notice that you did not address" Hillary's calling Dick Cheney "Darth Vader," Stark's saying that soldiers' "get[ting] their heads blown off" is "for the president's amusement," or RFK Jr.'s calling those who oppose his political agenda "traitors" guilty of "treason." Do any of these qualify as "an insult reason and reality"?

Sadly, this is your "norm": selective outrage and "expressing negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment, in a childish fashion" (i.e., whining: "logic and factual argument have no effect here," name-calling, and scatological references).

______________________________

"Pelosi Backtracks on Armenia 'Genocide' Bill" (Here's an article from MSNBC about Pelosi's "meddling"; it's not a BOOK, so it's "safe" for you to read, but I'll include excerpts here in case the entire article is too taxing.)

Pelosi "backtracked on her support for a congressional resolution that has infuriated Turkey's government, amid doubts over whether the measure would ever be approved."

"But, on Wednesday, facing increasing criticism and high-profile defections from among the bill's supporters, she toned down her commitment to take it to a full House vote."

"'If it came to the floor today it wouldn't pass,' said Representative John Murtha, an influential Democratic legislator, at a press conference on Wednesday with four other Democrats who also called on Ms Pelosi not to proceed with the bill." [So, even Murtha's backing away from Psycho's meddling.]

"'Congress has more important work to do than antagonising a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day,' said President George W. Bush yesterday."

"Pelosi’s Most Dangerous Ploy" -- "The lack of concern [by Democrats] for ongoing mass murder [in Darfur and Myanmar (Burma)] proves the Democrats’ only purpose is to enrage the Turkish government and end their cooperation on Iraq. The timing couldn’t be worse."

"'This is just one more example of Democrats in the House being either oblivious or indifferent to the welfare of American forces serving in harm’s way.'"

"'And frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrats’ string of back-door attempts to force a retreat from the war against al Qaeda, it’s certainly the most dangerous.'"

Since Mrs. Pelosi represents the "diverse" San Fransicko area, the cartoon perhaps is an indirect reference to the cross-dressers and other attendees at the recent Folsom Street Fair since Norman Bates was also a cross-dresser. But that's just a wild guess.

______________________________

"Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment"

"An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

"Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors . . . . 'alarmism and exaggeration'"

"The 'apocalyptic vision' [religion anyone?] presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change."

“'It is built around the charismatic [Jim Jones?] presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade [religion again] it now is to persuade the world of the dangers [an "armageddon scenario" = the last battle between good and evil before the Day of Judgment spoken of in Rev. 16:16] of climate change caused by global warming."

“'It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film . . . but that it is a political film.'”

"He agreed it could be shown [in every secondary school in the UK] but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s 'one-sided' views."

"An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore"

"Climate change skeptics wish that such a debate would take place [Gore refuses because 'the debate is over']. In addition to challenging Gore to a debate with Chris Horner, the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, some critics have offered $125,000 to anyone who can prove global warming."

Challenging Al Gore, RFK Jr., & other extremists is vitally important because "at stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the habitability of the earth for our species." (Thanks for the great line, Al Gore! )

______________________________

Greenland (presently about 81% of its surface is covered in ice) was named GREENland by Norse settlers (Vikings) because it was once very green (abundant trees and plants). Between A.D. 800 and 1300 the southern part of the island had a mild climate suitable for farming and raising cattle. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age when glaciers began advancing southwards. [Mankind did nothing to affect these significant climate changes.]

"The three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. There is anecdotal evidence of expanding glaciers almost worldwide." [See what those eco-unfriendly Vikings did by burning all of that fossil fuel! ]

When climate researchers drilled into Greenland's interior ice sheet, they obtained a visual record of climate change "in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences." They found that Greenland was once much warmer [the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer], and its climate supported a lush boreal forest.

Researchers also found that "when temperatures were on average 5° C (9° F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away." So, the polar bears didn't all drown and all of the islands and coastal areas of the world didn't flood.

______________________________

"Chill Pill" -- "Combat global warming? There are better things we can do for the Earth."

"There is both global warming and global cooling on the planet Earth. There always has been and there always will be, because temperature change is cyclical: The Earth's temperature oscillates up and down, ebbs and flows, over decades and centuries. Sometimes the earth warms, as it did in the Roman Warming period (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the Medieval Warming period (900 to 1300) and in modern times from 1910 to 1940. And sometimes it cools, as it did in the Dark Ages (600 to 900); the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) and from 1940 to the late 1970s."

______________________________

Danish scholar Bjorn Lomborg in his book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming contends that "global warming saves lives rather than killing people."

"If instead the resources [$180+ billion per year spent to end global warming] were used for combating malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, indoor and outdoor air pollution, and dirty drinking water, the world would be a far better place for humans."

"Mr. Lomborg calculates that about 200,000 people die in Europe each year from excessive heat, and 1.5 million from excessive cold. So global warming will save human lives. 'While cutting CO2 will save some people from dying from heat,' Mr. Lomborg concludes, 'it will simultaneously cause more people to die from cold.'"

"Cool It makes the case for helping the world's individuals rather than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] goal of reorienting our lifestyles away from consumption and individual ownership and toward free time [How much "free time" is there in a primitive society?] instead of wealth."

______________________________

“Live Earth's Hypocrisies”

The key word missing from the socialist future Gore here describes and desires is "free."

With massive carbon taxes and regulation of every aspect of your life in the name of environmental concerns, society may be as "sustainable" and "just" as totalitarian ant colonies. And Big Brother government will define justice as it wishes and suck enough life energy out of its serfs — you and me — to make the government prosperous. But in Al Gore's collectivist utopia, all individual freedom will be outlawed.

This is why Gore carefully left any mention of freedom out of his pledge. But Gore's was not the craziest, most self-serving, or most hypocritical statement made to the TV cameras during Live Earth.

That statement came from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who assailed as "nothing more than corporate toadies" the politicians who have not embraced global warming alarmism and the rest of Gore's radical environmentalist agenda.

"This is treason," snarled the third child of assassinated Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, "And we need to start treating them as traitors." [No, he's not referring to Murtha and those who've made similar statements.]

He did not say whether among these traitors was his late father's brother Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who used every political manipulation he knew to prevent the building of an environmentally clean wind farm miles offshore from a Kennedy mansion on Cape Cod.

Read the rest of the article to find how RFK Jr. got into environmental activism.

______________________________

UK’s Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle VIDEO

The Great Global Warming Swindle Website

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis"

DOWNLOAD DEBATE TRANSCRIPT or LISTEN TO THE NPR BROADCAST OF THE DEBATE

______________________________

Michael Crichton is best known as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of "ER." Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He has been a visiting instructor at Cambridge University and MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, challenged extreme anthropogenic [caused by humans] warming scenarios.

"Global Meltdown"

Crichton insists that pressing real-time problems trump an iffy, long-term one. “Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty,” he tells the crowd. “A third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now.”

______________________________

Global Warming Myth VIDEO

______________________________

"Nuremberg for Global Warming Skeptics?"

"The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives."

“I'm reminded of a passage in Shakespeare's Macbeth where after Macbeth listens to the predictions of the witches, Banquo warns him that ‘Oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence.’ That is, gain our confidence with trifle truths to set us up for the big lie.”

H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) warned, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

[A very recent "hobgoblin" was the "Global Cooling" media-hyped scare during the 1970s (such as Newsweek's "ominous" article "The Cooling World"). A slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s brought about dire predictions of the imminent cooling of the earth's surface and atmosphere, leading to wide-spread glaciation and a new ice age. The article emphasized sensational consequences of imminent "Global Cooling": "resulting famines could be catastrophic," "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," and "impossible for starving peoples to migrate." Sound familiar? ]

______________________________

"Global Warming or Global Cooling?"

"A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. 'We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.' The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

"In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

"Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence."

"It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future. That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

"The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals."

______________________________

"Climate Change Scenarios Scare, and Motivate, Kids" [Big "Kids" Too] -- And that's really the goal: to brainwash (propagandize) the next generation

______________________________

"An Inconvenient Truth: Eco-Warrior Al Gore's Bloated Gas and Electricity Bills" (The Guardian - UK) -- "Household consumption 20 times national average" = Liberal hypocrisy at its very best!

______________________________

For country music fans, enjoy the Goracle singing "Ball of Fire" and "Al Gore's Horrible World" (parodies by Paul Shanklin).

As far as Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts, SEE HERE (some objectionable language, such as "liberal wiener").

More "internet refuse"?

Quick Denise. Guess one very long post that Hack did not read. You're getting warmer... warmer... very hot!!! If you want a "tolerant" response from me, Denise, I recommend you not start out calling my opinion "whining." That approach won't smooze the conversation too well. If you have an opinion, state it. Don't expect me to click your links and bridge gaps and read other people's opinions drug into your reply. Think of this as the lightning round. And Denise, if my replies to the paper are sooo monotonous, why are you always here joining me in this banter filled with a certain, unmistakeable tension that exists between people who don't want to admit that they actually look forward to responding to one another's blogs? I freely admit it, Denise. I see your name and click click away .

Here is where I ran out of gas:

"I notice that you did not address" Hillary's calling Dick Cheney "Darth Vader," Stark's saying that soldiers' "get[ting] their heads blown off" is "for the president's amusement," or RFK Jr.'s calling those who oppose his political agenda "traitors" guilty of "treason." Do any of these qualify as "an insult reason and reality"?"

Since you brought it up, Denise: Hillary calling VP Cheney Darth Vader is as applicable to this blog as VP Cheney telling a Senator on the floor of the Senate to go @#$% himself. That's why I brought neither up. And speaking of Congressman Stark, I did address his comments elswhere. I mentioned how STARK APOLOGIZED (unlike so many republicans who throw internet falsehoods and absurdities.) And Stark was out of line, which he was man enough to admit. Did Dick apologize for his comments? Did the President apologize for saying "a vote for democrats is a vote for terrorists" in 06? Don't think so.

Denise, pretend I'm an ADD, short attention span theater kind of guy, and you'll "have me at hello" and all the way till "goodbye."

Kevin "Hack" King

What? Didn't read one little article or watch one little video? Just think how much better informed you could be! Isn't "know your enemy" a basic battle strategy?

Besides, you missed all of my (mildly amusing?) editorial comments and my serious discussion of glaciation and the recent Little Ice Age. You should at the very least go to Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts -- SEE HERE (some objectionable language, such as "liberal wiener"). There's enough Bush-bashing to keep you amused, and it's just right for all "ADD, short attention span theater kind of guys"!

What's monotonous (and so predictable) is liberals' constantly calling for the suppression of the free exchange of ideas, i.e., banning conservatives (Rush, Ann, editorial cartoonists . . . ). YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Instead of “whining” would you prefer “grousing” or “bellyaching”?

Of course, I'd never expect the same amount of t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e that’s extended to people such as Stark (whose "apology" is about as sincere as Bill's "romantic" dental bracelet for Hillary -- Stark's known for his foul mouth and going way beyond the bounds of decency and civility, even for Washington "standards").

I must have missed your addressing Stark's comments. Perhaps I'll come across them sometime. This very rare criticism of a Democrat (once in a lifetime?) deserves special attention.

Now, if you'd chastise Dems' nefarious deeds at least once a month, you could be so much more multifarious! It would provide a much needed catharsis. How about Hill's newest Chinese laundry scheme? The money laundering one where all of those Chinese dishwashers were soooo grateful for the minimum wage increase and the promise of free health care that they sent her their spare change -- $1000 & $2000 "donations" coming from the very poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx? Why, a single fundraiser extracted $380,000 in protection money, I mean, "contributions" (with a little "help" from the Chinese version of the mob: friendly "neighborhood associations")!

Shady deals and phony donors from a Clinton! Who would've guessed?

"Boss" Hillary carrying on a proud NY tradition!

How sad that Nanny (Nurse?) Hillary is exploiting the hopes of so many desperate, vulnerable Chinese immigrants. I wonder how many presidential pardons she's already pawning?

See ”An Unlikely Treasure-Trove of Donors for Clinton” or Hillary Fleeces a Fortune (and not from selling cookies) in Chinatown.
_____________________________

Donation Hsunami: "Hsu Is Accused of Ponzi Scheme" or "Flying High with the Clintons"

"Although Hsu was unknown on the national political scene before 2003, his ability to provide campaign donations whenever he was asked earned him invitations to exclusive events with Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton and their friends.

“Sen. Clinton's top campaign aide, Patti Solis Doyle, and three associates spent several days in Las Vegas as Hsu's guests to celebrate the New York Democrat's 2006 reelection."

“He pressured investors to make campaign contributions. In at least two cases, he used investors as ‘straw donors’ -- reimbursing them for donations made in their name, a violation of federal election law.” – I can see that Hsu learned the basic requirement to be a HillRaiser.

See also ”Is the Other Hsu About to Drop?” -- Hillary's Donor Linked to China Missile Trader (or Chinagate Is Alive and Well).

Isn't it shocking what you can learn from the LA Times?

Birds of a feather flock together, and so will pigs and swine.

_____________________________

Fundraising Fun with the Clintons, Part 1 (Video)

Fundraising Fun with the Clintons, Part 1 (Video)

The Really Truly Hillary Gallery -- Visuals for all "ADD, short attention span theater kind of guys"

One bite at a time, of course. I've made it to the mid point of your mammouth. Aside from the fact that I have addressed Mr. Garlock's post (you can exhale now), I also have another question for you.

You said:

"What I notice is that YOU are sounding a lot like Basmati: telling others how they should or should not write their posts (what makes you the expert in that area )"

No, I never told you how to post. I just hoped you would address the issues at hand; knowwhutI'msayin?

You feel:

"You strongly implied that you didn't even read any of the Science and Public Policy Institute's "35 Inconvenient Truths: The Errors in Al Gore's Movie."

Denise, the global climate change ship has sailed without you. The only debate is how much man has contributed to what the science community overwhelmingly agrees is occurring. Do you know the percentage of scientists that don't feel global warming is occurring or is worsened by the activities of man?

Relating to my spat with beaver:

"My intent was never to address the underlying issues at that time, but I am quite capable of doing so. My intent was to point out liberals’ hypocrisy and lack of t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e and suppressing diversity of opinion."

If you feel like beaver's saying "there isn't an ounce of truth to Al Gore's movie" is a diverse opinion, I agree. And we are so far apart on that bargain, there is no need for me even to negotiate with him. There is no common ground. Besides, beaver has so much enmity in him that I usually need to shower after communicating with him.

Finally:

"Sadly, this is your "norm": selective outrage and "expressing negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment, in a childish fashion" (i.e., whining: "logic and factual argument have no effect here," name-calling, and scatological references)."

Okaaayy, Denise. Please give me an example of a baseless anti GOP or anti-Bush cartoon in this paper, and I'll address it directly. And since you are most certainly not a hypocrit, perhaps you can tell me what you think of the latest gay republican resignation (Rep Richard Curtis, R-La, for cross-dressing and gay sex with a man he met in a video store). Odd news on the same day there is a record judgement against the Kansas Church that, like you, feels gays are destroying the fabric of our society. Do you feel soldiers are dying because we tolerate gays too much? Do you have an idea why there are so many gay republicans? Just curious

Kevin "Hack" King

I'd rather watch them in the circus!

A friend told me recently about her newly acquired pet miniature burro. She's very fond of him but doesn't feel the same way about Democrats, especially Hillary. After listening to its frequent, very loud braying and trying to overcome its stubbornness, she does think that the Democratic Party's symbol (Equus asinus) is quite appropriate, though!

I'm too tired to even coherently read your entire post (no coffee yet) and probably can't get back to you for a while, but I'll try not to forget. I have typed a partial response to an earlier post, so I'll try to finish it.

Editorial / Political Cartoons -- I don't save the papers, and I barely glance at the 'toons, but if I notice one in the future, I'll be sure to call it to your attention. They just don't rile me but can bring a smile to my face and a twinkle to my eyes and maybe even an outright laugh but (almost?) never outrage!

A quick answer to your last question (I just can't resist ), "Do you have an idea why there are so many gay republicans?"

Because we’re just so lovable and fun to be around?

"Exit polls showed that self-identified gay people made up 4% of the total electorate in the incomparably close election of 2000, and nearly one third of those homosexual voters cast their ballots for George W. Bush. In other words, more than a million gay citizens voted for Bush-Cheney, in a race that ultimately turned on a mere 527 votes in Florida, and a national margin in the popular vote of just 537,000 for Gore."

I've heard almost nothing about Richard Curtis; so, I'll not comment on him except to say that I feel very, very sorry for his wife and children. I can't imagine what they're going through. Pornography hurts so many people today, and it should be fought against instead of encouraged and viewed as harmless.

Here's a very good reason:

"[Ann Coulter] joked, gay voters should be natural Republicans, because the party advocates low taxes for the wealthy and an aggressive approach to crime. 'Gays make a lot of money [they're twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more] and are victims of crime,' she said. As always, her gibes were met with riotous laughter and applause."

But if you are "gay" (or an adulterer or promiscuous) and don't want that fact broadcast (i.e., you don't want to be "outed" and your "private" life kept private), you'd best be a Democrat or the "Official Republican Humiliator" and others will put you on their hit list. Just ask Jeff Gannon (who looked much better with hair -- image at Daily Kooks), Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, etc.

Jeff Gannon: "I've made mistakes in my past. Does my past mean I can't have a future?" "People criticize me for being a Christian and having some of these questionable things in my past. I believe in a God of forgiveness."

"AP: No Mention of [Political] Party for So. Dakota Democrat Accused of Sexual Misconduct" (sued for "allegedly groping a male legislative page")

Thanks for the honest reply. You got a giggle or two. What's say we stick a fork in this one. With the rate Faycounty is generating news, this post will be absolutely buried in a matter of hours. G'night!

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King