A personal note

Blogging might be hit and miss for the next few days. We have a new addition to the Logical Household. A mini-Australian Shepard puppy. The mini-Aussie is just what it sounds like...a minature version of the regular Aussie. Same body shape, same temperment the works. They are intelligent, hard working dogs that need "something to do". In his case the something to do will be agility.

This pup is just that...14 weeks old and spending his first night away from his littermates. While he is adapting well so far, we still have housebreaking etc to do. The good news is we have wireless at the Casa so I can blog from outdoors while waiting for the young pup to "do his thing"...

The meme turns???

As I have said in the past, progress is being made in Iraq, although the Star Tribune is loathe to admit it. It appears that O'Hanlon and Pollack aren't the only ones to see progress. Even our own freshman Congressman Keith Ellison sees progress. (H/T Captain Ed)

"Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials."The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Another Freshman Congressman on the trip, Rep. Jerry McNerney from California, who has been very pro-withdrawal is starting to waiver a bit.

"McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.
McNerney said he still favors a timeline to get troops out of Iraq — something House leaders may bring to the floor again this week as part of a defense spending bill — but is open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals' wishes.
"As long as we start at a certain date I'd be willing to be a little more flexible in terms of when it might end," McNerney said."

Our friends at the Star Tribune, hoping to dampen criticizm of their choosen Representative had this to say on his remarks.

"Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, said Ellison's statements appear to be a major repositioning in policy.
"It's one thing to run as a candidate. Now that he's in office and visited Iraq, he now realizes the complexity of everyone who wrestles with the issue of pulling out [which could] create a vacuum that would lead to blood-letting," Jacobs said.
Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College, said Ellison's comments could draw ire in his strongly antiwar district.
"I think part of his appeal as a candidate was his very emphatic opposition to the war," Schier said. "Now that has been altered somewhat, it seems. I'm sure there will be a reaction."

Mr. Schier is correct - Rep. Ellison's remarks are not going to sit well with the "withdrawal now" caucus that worked so hard to get him elected. However, it is good to see that Rep. Ellison is learning that maybe, just maybe, the generals in theatre know what they are doing.

Red Tides

Red tide and the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone (aka the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone) are conditions caused by toxic algal growth in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Tulane University website (linked to above) these conditions are caused when "greater quantities of dissolved nutrients" are carried from the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya Rivers into the Gulf of Mexico. What are these "dissolved nutrients"?

"The Mississippi River Basin covers forty-one percent of the continental United States, contains forty-seven percent of the nation’s rural population, and fifty-two percent of U.S. farms. The waste from this entire area drains into the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi River. Included in this agricultural waste are phosphorus and nitrogen, the primary nutrient responsible for algal blooms in the Dead Zone. Nitrogen and phosphorus were first used in fertilizers in the United States in the 1930s. Concentrations of nitrate and phosphate in the lower Mississippi have increased proportionately to levels of use of fertilizers by agriculture since the 1960s, when fertilizer use increased by over two million metric tons per year. Overall, nitrogen input to the Gulf from the Mississippi River Basin has increased between two and seven times over the past century."

The majority of the 41% of the Continental US that dumps into the Mississippi River basin is corn country. States like Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska - to name a few. For a while, these algal blooms only took place every 2-5 years. Now however, it is a yearly event. What has changed to cause this? Some say ethanol production...

"What has caused this sudden ecological catastrophe? The culprit is believed to be the sharp increase in ethanol production in the Midwest -- 19% more corn in 2007 than in 2006."

Now I don't know if I am ready to go this far. This problem HAS been building for 30 years. However, there is no doubt that if ethnol production goes up, the use of phosphates and nitrates in fertilizers will go up. If that goes up, the run-off will end up in the Mississippi River and eventually it will end up in the Gulf of Mexico causing the Dead Zone to grow and last longer. That is not what I would call "conserving" the environment.

More unreported news from Iraq

Gary at LFR points out yet another story that our esteemed local media outlets can't seem to find.

"On July 23, a local Iraqi man came to Patrol Base Inchon, near the Euphrates River, staffed by Company D, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) out of Fort Drum, N.Y., and elements of the 4th Battalion, 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division. He told troops that several other residents had chased a group of anti-Iraqi forces away from a weapons cache. He asked Soldiers to remove the weapons. Several local residents guarded the cache and placed a fluorescent marking cloth to alert helicopters that they were not hostile.Soldiers of Company D moved out to find the cache and were met on the road by some of the local residents, who guided them to the cache, which was next to a canal.The cache contained 210 57mm rockets, 25 82mm rockets, eight 120mm mortars, a large rocket, and a bag of homemade explosives."

To be fair to the Red Star, it did print a Clifford May opinion piece today that dares to give an opinion that will not be popular with Nick Coleman.

"For the sake of argument, imagine that opponents of the war in Iraq are right. Suppose that our military -- designed to confront a different enemy, on a different battlefield, in a different era -- has met its match. Suppose that the war against Al-Qaida in Iraq, as well as against various Iranian-backed Shiite militias, cannot be won, and that staying on in Iraq can do nothing to protect America's vital national security interests. If that's true, we must prepare for defeat in Afghanistan as well. There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles farther east."

He then goes on to lay down all the dominoes that will fall should we withdraw from Iraq - as our esteemed friends on the left want us to do.

Well, not all of our friends on the left are calling for withdrawal. Two writers from the Brookings Institute (hardly a "conservative" think tank) had an op-ed in the New York Times of all places and they are saying that the surge is working!

"VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. " (emphasis mine)

They then go on to talk about the successes in Ramadi, Baghdad, Tal Afar and Mosul - something you have yet to see here in Minnesota.

Look, I fully understand that good AND bad things are going on in Iraq. I do not want to through a tit for tat series of comments say "well this is what is bad" and "well this is what is good" because we can play that game all day long. What I would like everyone to do is take a good hard look at what our local papers are covering and what they are not covering. What they are not covering is as telling (vis a vis their inherent bias) as anything else. Until they start covering the good AND the bad, all Minnesotans should eschew the local media in favor of sources like the International Herald Tribune or the Times of London. You might get a truer picture of what is really happening in Iraq.

(cross posted at Anti-Strib)

Investing in America

A long, long time ago - when the Logical Husband and I were relative newlyweds, we had to roll over an 401(k) plan and a employee stock purchase plan. The Logical Husband had only been employed by his employer a little over a year when he was offered a better job, in the same industry, for a larger salary. Because there were only a years worth of contributions into the 401(k)/ESOP the roll over was not that big. Thankfully, for us, there was Chuck.

"Perhaps no one on the globe has come to symbolize the rise of the investor class in America in recent decades more than Charles Schwab.
When Mr. Schwab, or "Chuck," as nearly everyone calls him, opened his first brokerage office in 1971, the stock market was pretty much the exclusive sandbox of the richest 5-10% of Americans. Today, thanks in no small part to his company's financial market innovations, investing has been thoroughly "democratized," as he puts it, with more than half of working class adults now owners of stock.
Creating wealth is what Mr. Schwab has come to regard as his "life's pursuit." He's accomplished that not just for himself--his stake in the company is estimated at $4 billion--but also for the millions of small investors who first came to be owner-capitalists by opening a Schwab account. So who better to discuss the future of financial markets and investing than the man who revolutionized the brokerage business? "

The premise of business was simple.

"...He replies that the stock market today is "an open tent for anybody to come into." Ever the salesman, he adds: "For as little as a thousand dollars, you can open an account at Schwab. I mean, it's not a big barrier to entry."

With that first minimal roll-over, the Logical Husband and I became investors. At first we really didn't know what we were doing, but with a lot of patience and a couple of financial advisors who really wanted to teach us about the market (thanks PZ) we have learned and have managed to put a tidy sum into a college fund for the Junior Logician and a retirement fund. Today that is all in danger.

"Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy."

Oh sure it sounds nice - take those "windfall profits" and put them into renewable energy, but where do you think those "windfall profits" normally go? They GO to the share holders. They go to toward growing YOUR 401(k) plan and mine. Those "windfall" and "excess" profits are your retirement fund.

Senator Clinton will tell you that she is doing this to reduce the price of gasoline, however, if she really wanted to do that, she would help make it easier for oil companies to build refineries. That way the next time that a hurricane or a flood comes around, the price would not jump thirty cents a gallon becaue of a shortage in supply.

Debating the debate

Tony Blankley is one of those Washington pundits that does actually manage to maintain an air of impartiality in his columns. He points out the abject insanity on both sides of the political aisle with great regularity. His latest column looks at Monday nights debate of Democratic Presidential contenders. He finds the candidates "wanting".

"Most of the rest of the debate involved the candidates showing little genuine emotion or conviction and no new ideas. Questions about healthcare were handled with outrage at President George Bush and a total evasion of the challenges of actual cost controls (Medicare, for example, is unfunded through 2070 to the sum of 40 trillion dollars or more). When one questioner asked the candidates whether they would cut benefits or raise taxes, they all agreed that neither was really necessary. Although, admittedly, Obama looked far more sincere as he emoted about the terrible problem than did the others."

He saves his harshest words for the candidates stances on Iraq.

"Bragging at how quickly they could retreat seems to be a peculiarly liberal inclination. While, as I recall, conservative little boys practice quick draw with their cap guns while playing cowboys and Indians, apparently liberal little boys practice how fast they can throw up their hands to surrender to the guys in the black hats."

He also reminds us of the possible consequences should we just "pack our things and go" as the Democratic candidates are proposing.

"Removing 250,000 Americans from Iraq over even a year on perhaps 20,000 flatbed trucks through a sniper-, mortar- and road-side-bomb-infested two-lane road may result in more casualties than anyone wants to imagine."

Blankley chastises a Democratic Party that is (in his words) "hell bent on surrender". The more the Democratic contendersrace to the left to mollify the anti-war base, the more that this statement becomes the truth. Hopefully more Americans will start seeing that as we race toward the 2008 election.

Universal Healthcares dirty little secret

Progressive Wisconsin decided to take the lead in providing universal health care to it's citizens....and uncovered a dirty little "secret".

"This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.
Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined. "

That $510 a month in additional taxes can buy a family of 4 a lot of health insurance under the current system. I'm just saying.....

We LOVE the troops

So the left claims time after time. Yet they never fail to show their true colors when they think they are among fellow travelers. A KOS Diary, titled "KILLITARY: How America's Armed Forces Create Serial Killers and Mass Murderers" was posted last Thursday. The author, Corey Mitchell, also posted this to his personal blog "In Cold Blood" but he pulled it from BOTH sites after he started taking heat from both the right and the left. Charles Johnson at LGF has the Google cache of both posts, as does the USA Today blog who interviewed Mitchell yesterday. Mitchell, of course, said that the readers "misunderstood" what he said.

"The piece was completely misinterpreted by the readers," he says. "I don't know if that's because I did a bad job writing it? ... My piece was pro-soldier all the way."

Gee - you don't suppose that the title "KILLITARY" in all caps had anything to do with the "misunderstanding" do you Corey?

Not to be outdone, A Whitney Brown discussed his love of the military in a diary dated Monday July 23.

"Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should.... I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded. Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?" That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for. A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head. So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You. " (emphasis mine)

With support like that how can we lose! To his credit, it appears that Markos Moulitsas (Kos of the Daily Kos) has had enough!

"There has lately been an alarming rise in diaries and comments that seek to impugn (without evidence) the motives of those they disagree with on various issues.
Yes, there's the impeachment stuff, but this nasty rhetoric is also rampant in the primary war diaries.
This points to a serious breakdown not just on civility, but in the ability of people to properly debate various issues. As such, it presents a serious threat to the integrity of this site."

Of course a lot of this probably has to do with the fact that Markos desperately wants to be "mainstream". JetBlue Airways was supposed to be a sponsor of the Yearly Kos Convention, a convention that I am sure takes a lot of money to run. That sponsorship was pulled last week when people on the center right said "I will never fly on an airline that sponsors this kind of lunacy!" Markos knows that if he is ever going to get the mainstream recognition he craves he is going to have to get the "nut"roots under control FAST. The problem is that there is several years worth of archives for people to go through.

When I started blogging 2 years ago, I too was put off by the incivility in the debate. That factored largely in my pseudonym. Regardless of our differences, I wanted to keep the discussion civil. I knew that maintaining a "ladylike" persona would help me keep my oft volitile temper in check.

It is very easy to demonize the other side when you are dealing with the impersonal internet. However we can and will change the tone of the internet, as long as site owners strive to keep the discussion civil. I wish Markos well in his drive to clean up the atmosphere over at the Daily Kos. I do hope that he means what he says.

Political correctness run amok

When I heard Dennis Prager talking about this story today, my blood pressure went through the roof!

"The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.
But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.
After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days." (emphasis mine)

The girls who were slapped also took part in the highly inappropriate "slap butt day" at their school. In total, 17 students were questioned and only these two were charged because they also admitted to "poking" a female student in the breast.

The Junior Logician is also 13 and also in Middle School. As an active parent, I have been in his school on many occasions and seen some rather inappropriate behavior in the other children. However, rather than reporting it, we talked about it, discussion what was appropriate and what was not.

The problem with this over-reaction by the school (and it was an over-reaction) two-fold. First, as the Oregonian reports.

"Researchers at the American Association of University Women seven years ago published a landmark study of middle school harassment and bullying, finding that eight of 10 students surveyed had experienced some form of unwanted sexual behavior at school, primarily verbal. But half also admitted harassing somebody themselves -- testament to the basic ambiguities of middle school. "

There is a certain back and forth that goes on in middle school. You have to watch it to be sure but this is a little over the top.

Then there are the mixed messages that we tell our middle school students. They learn sex education in middle school (note to self - I sense a good tie in to something Barak Obama said this week.....) and they are told that everyone does it so you had best have protection and then when the kids act on it, they are labeled sexual predators! Then there is the fact that several girls who took part in "slap butt day" were not prosecuted but the boys were!

These boys spent 5 days in jail and are faced with multiple felony counts for slapping fellow students. Meanwhile, in the Savage lands, the three boys threatened to blow up their middle school (the week after the Virginia Tech shootings) are facing no felony counts. One was expelled from the school and is not allowed back, the other two were suspended from the school for the rest of the year and had to take summer school to make up the work that they missed. Which school district do you think has a total lack of common sense?

Stiffling dissent

Earlier this week, I wrote about the hijacking of Let Freedom Ring blog. While we don't know for a fact who did this, we do know that shortly after Gary hammered hard on a very influential member of Congress a few days before the site was hijacked.


Robert Spencer had an enlightening op-ed in the Washington Times yesterday that talks about censorship in the fight against jihad.

"One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance."


Mr. Spencer has himself been the target of people trying to silence his free speech. A couple of weeks ago a self proclaimed "hate watcher"asked readers of his blog (which I will not link to) to file reports with filtering organizations flagging Jihad Watch as a hate site. Jihad Watch is a site that points out the atrocities performed by the so-called "Religion of Peace". Mr. Spencer's detractor, who claims to be an ordanied minister uses his blog to stifle the speech of those who do not speak in a manner that the minister deems appropriate. It appears that, where the reverend is concerned, any criticism of Islam is "hate speech".

Which gets us to the crux of the current debate on hate crimes legislation. What is hate? Some say that speech that says a certain lifestyle is unBiblical is "hate speech". Some say that calling for the extermination of an entire race of people is hate speech. The dictionary defination is "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such group." Is reporting on the bad actions of a social or ethnic group "hate speech"? Is reporting on the beheadings and homicide bombings hate speech? WHO is going to determine whether the speaker is "bigoted" or not?

I am a firm believer in free speech - even when it is speech that offends me to my core the speaker has the same First Amendment rights that we all do. This legislation, while well meaning, is yet another assualt on the First Amendment by the Democratic controlled Congress.

Dog Bites & Breed Specific Legislation

In my prior posts, I discussed some of the triggers that can "cause" dogs to go bad. Now it is time to discuss solutions. Here are some FACTS for Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St Paul) on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from a lawyer.

"A study reported in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Ass’n (JAMVA) showed that over a 2-year period, 82% of all human dog bite-related fatalities, involved unrestrained dogs who were either on or off their owners’ property. Analyzing these statistics, it would be prudent to stay away from dogs that you are not familiar with if they are off a leash.
Despite concluding that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for a 67% of all dog bite-related fatalities between 1997 and 1998, the JAMVA study concluded that “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.” (emphasis mine)

My point exactly! The Fordham Law Review takes a reasoned look at BSL and quickly finds the shortcomings of BSL.

"Though all breeds of dog can and do inflict severe injury and death, extensive media coverage of serious pit bull attacks has resulted in public fear of these dogs in particular. [FN10] Despite the existence in the majority of the United States of dangerous-dog laws, which regulate ownership of dogs based on the animals' prior conduct, [FN11] legislators have proposed an additional quick-fix solution in response to public outcry and extensive media coverage of pit bull attacks. The solution is breed-specific legislation, a type of law that restricts or bans ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly the pit bull terrier. [FN12] Unfortunately for Diane Whipple, however, legislation targeting ownership of pit bulls would not have protected her. She was killed by Presa Canarios, [FN13] a breed which does not fall within the common statutory definition of a pit bull terrier. [FN14]" (emphasis mine)

Best Friends Animal Society of Utah has a document that shows the REAL stats regarding these "dangerous breeds".

"Statistics are also flawed as to naming pit bulls as the instigators. It appears that in many cases in which pit-bull-type dogs are blamed for fatal attacks, the dogs were few of the recognized pit bull breeds. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC and for the other breeds, AKC/UK statistics, found:
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%" (emphasis again mine)

Now these are fatal attacks. What about attacks that do not result in a fatality.

"Americans are feeling the bite of a growing dog population. There are approximately sixty-eight million dogs kept as pets in the United States. [FN17] Every year, these dogs bite an estimated four to five million Americans, representing about two percent of the population, and that number is on the rise."

Hmmmm that is what...a whopping 7.35% of the dog population in the country??

The other thing that BSL proponents forget is that the folks that want a "tough" dog are going to ignore or otherwise work around these laws as they already do existing laws such as dangerous dog ordinances and leash laws.

"On the other hand, irresponsible owners and criminals could care less about BSL. They really don't care about the laws anyway. They already fail to license and vaccinate their dogs. They don't follow leash laws. Their dogs are unsocialized, untrained, and neglected. How can BSL change the way these owners act?"

BSL treats all owners the same, whether they are responsible law abiding owners or not. Rather than go after the responsible owners, I wish Rep. Lesch would do something to make it harder for the irresponsible owners. Most current dangerous dog ordinances don't have a punishment for violations of the ordinances other than a minimal fine and the loss of the dog. That hardly does anything to change the human behavior....change the human behavior - make it painful for the owners of dangerous dogs and you just might fix the problem.

Of course we "support" the troops...

So say the Democrats in Congress. But when you ask them to do the right thing for the troops all of a sudden the troops needs take a back seat to scoring political points!

"(Sen. Elizabeth )Dole wants to force the secretary of the Navy to locate and notify Marines and civilians who were exposed to the water up until the mid-1980s when the base shut down contaminated wells.
The notification requirement was in an amendment she offered Wednesday to a broad military money bill before the legislation was pulled from the floor in a showdown over Iraq. The larger bill may be back as soon as September.
Government health officials have estimated as many as 1 million people may have been exposed during three decades of water contamination going back to 1957, a situation examined in a recent Associated Press investigation. The numbers include Marines in barracks and military families living on the sprawling Atlantic training and deployment base, and civilians who worked there."

But whatever you do, don't question their patriotism or their support of the troops......

Dog bite statistics and common sense

In my last post, I introduced you to some of the canines in my life. That information will be handy to remember for this post.

When this story came out this week, my hackles went up to be sure. I just knew it was going to be used in Rep. Lesch's dog ban debate. But the more I read the article, the more the common sense jumped out at me.

"The study found that children between the ages of 1 and 4 had the highest rate for both hospitalization and emergency room treatment. "

Of course, any time a child between the ages of 1 and 4 has an accident they are bound to get hospitalization/emergency room treatment.

"The study also said that in 75 percent of the cases, the victim was familiar with the dog or dogs involved. "

Very good point - dogs are pack animals by nature. Sometimes, when interacting with their human "pack" they forget that we are humans and not dogs. I have more than a few wounds on my arm (over the years) from wrestling with my dogs. I will never forget when Kessa (Doberman) and I were playing one day and she put her mouth around my wrist to "capture" me - I had her toy in that hand. Her canine tooth happened to hit the crystal of my watch and crushed it. Kessa was devistated. She really thought she had hurt me. If my watch had not been there, that could have been a serious injury.

"Dog bites also occurred 48 percent of the time in the home and 18 percent of the time in yards.
Among other findings:
- Dog bites were most common between May and August.
- 96 percent of bites to children younger than 1 year of age occurred when the child was provoking, teasing or approaching the dog.
- Among children ages 5 to 14 years old, the leading cause for getting a dog bite (31 percent) was walking, running or biking past a dog." (emphasis mine)

Kids do not know how to behave around dogs. A lot of their squeeling and carrying on sounds like prey to them and it triggers long dormant instincts. Running triggers instincts - especially in herding breeds (like German shepards and Border Collies). It is canine nature.

Just as parents teach their children how to safely cross the road, they need to teach their children how to safely approach a dog - whether the dog is a stranger or not! Which is something all of the radio and tv reports mentioned. I have lost count of how many children have come up to Lucky (who is a very docile, well trained dog and the Junior Logician gets all the credit for that) in a manner that would have been seen as aggression by a lesser trained dog! I have many times corrected kids not to run up to Lucky or bring their hand "down" toward her head to pet her (a dog that has been abused will ASSUME you are going to hit them and they will bite). When the Junior Logician was growing up, I taught him that he was to walk to a dog and ask permission to pet the dog FIRST - just in case the dog was not as friendly as his were. It takes work and vigilence. Something many parents just don't seem to have anymore.

Going to the dogs!

Much has been said about the Michael Vick situation. Much of it has been from the political realm, but I think instead of going there, I am going to go at it from a little different direction.

I make no bones about the fact that I am crazy about my animals. I have shared my life with (in no specific order) 2 horses (Shadow and Dizzy), several cats and dogs Penfold (Pug), Jessie (Brittany Spaniel/Coon hound cross), Heidi (Belgian Shepherd), Poo and Kessa (Doberman Pinsers), Streak (a Heinz 57 - her dam was a beagle) and Candy (beagle cross and dam to Streak) and now Lucky (the worlds best Border Collie). All share a special place in my life. I grew up around Boxers and Labradore Retrievers and Malamutes and just about every other breed under the sun INCLUDING a white Pit Bull Terrier that was our unofficial mascot for our dorm in college! The dogs that have come into my life have all had various levels of training. ALL (except Spot - more on him later) were well socialized to the point of while possibly appearing to be mean (Poo and Heidi scared more than a few trespassers off of our farm even though they were both the biggest babies) they were all pussycats inside.

Spot was another story. Spot was a Labradore Retriever. Labs are not a"dangerous" breed. Spot was the exception to the rule. The reason that Spot was mean, the reason why many so-called "dangerous" breeds are mean is how humans treated him. We had a gaggle of boys in our neighborhood who would stand in the middle of our back yard and simultaneously tease Spot and Streak. Both dogs disliked those boys, but Spot's dislike turned to anyone on our side of the fence. If you walked by the fence and Spot was out, you ran the risk of him jumping (or in the case of my 8 year old sister and her 6 year old friend) him running right through the chain link. If the girls were not right next to our back door where I was standing, those girls would have been dog bite statistics!

Fences too, can cause a dog to act more aggressive to someone on the other side. Our pug (talk about a baby...he would lick you to death if you were not careful) went from being a farm dog to a city dog. When he had the fence between him and the neighbor girls, he would bark and act very mean....when he was out front on the leash. Lucky has alway been a city dog and she is the same way!

How does this all tie into the Michael Vick situation and the John Lesch breed bans you ask? Simple - the human trainers (Vick and his cohorts) used fear and intimidation to turn the dogs mean. The dogs (like Spot) were not born mean - THEY WERE MADE TO BE MEAN!

Rather than banning the breed, we need to make the punishment for the behavior harsher. Right now, animal abuse is a misdemeanor offence - regardless of the extent of the abuse. There needs to be a harsher punishment depending on the offense. The dog will be punished to be sure - once a dog has been "made mean" you have no choice but to euthanize them. However, banning breeds is not the answer. It will not address the underlying human behavior...the behavior that says "It's cool to have the toughest dog on the block". It's always easy to blame the "dumb" dog, but dogs are what we make them to be. It is high time to put the blame back where it belongs.

What happens when you mess with the "powerful"?

A blogging friend of mine found out, this week, what happens to those who hit a little too close to the secrets of the rich and powerful. Earlier this week, Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring blog and California Conservative blog, published a post about how the governments case against the Haditha Marines had essentially fallen apart. Gary's post was picked up by the Instapundit and Michelle Malkin (among others). Gary called Congressman John Murtha's (D-PA12) office for a statement, since the Congressman had declared the Marines guilty on national TV, and got blown off - something he again published in his blogs. Then a couple of days later, he had a post on Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL MN5) that got picked up by Powerline AND Michelle Malkin. Yesterday, someone hacked both of Gary's sites, re-directing the URL's to a suspended website. Obviously, he hit a nerve somewhere.

So the Dems have tipped their hands and sent a warning. They know that they can't go after the Michelle Malkin's and Hugh Hewitt's of the world, but they can make life miserable for the "lesser knowns". Oh to be sure, you will never see Congressman Murtha's or Ellison's fingers directly on this attack on free speech, but make no mistake, they are not displeased that this detractor has been shut up - even if it is for a couple of days. The Democrats in the Senate have already shown that they are "afraid of the people". They showed that when they defeated the Coleman/Thune Amendment that would prohibit the FCC from re-instituting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". They said it loud - they DON'T want the American people to know what they are doing because THEY DON'T want to hear from you!

Keep it up - we ARE making a difference. Yeah it might get hairy from time to time but we are making a difference.

Oh and for Gary - while he is working on getting his websites back you might want to say a prayer for him - if you are so inclined!

UPDATE AND BUMP: Well - Gary was back up for a couple of minutes....keep checking back at LFR. Once he's back up, Gary promises to give us an update!

Calling all dog lovers

Beth DeLaForsest from AWholeRottaLove sent me the following email today. If you are interested in joining Beth for the event, please do so. I will not be able to attend (our County Fair starts on Tuesday and the 4Hers are very busy Tuesday night) but if any Ladies Logic readers who go I would LOVE to have a report of the event!

Rep John Lesch will be at the Town Hall Meeting Tuesday July 24 2007 at 6:30 PM. It will be held at The Model Cities Building 849 University Ave in St. Paul. He will be taking questions and comments including those on his proposed Breed Bans. The moderators might want to moderate the questions so please have questions written down before hand. St. Paul Animal Control will also be there.

***I want to stress how IMPORTANT it is that you take the time to make it to this meeting.

***Below is posted how to deal with a representative…that was sent in the initial e-mail I sent…I edited it a bit for this situation…good reminders as this can be a highly emotional topic for a lot of us.

***Please remember that you represent the breed…so we need to put our VERY best foot forward!

***I have attached a few items to read through (directly below)to look at so you all can compile as much ANTI BSL information as possible! (Please forgive me as a lot of this will be on pit bulls…since that is what most BSL is aimed at).

Web Sites: http://www.mydogvotes.com/ http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html http://www.realpitbull.com/pits.html www.atts.org http://www.pitbulllovers.com/site-map.html http://www.ducksoupplayers.com/rubyatwork.htm http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/BSLindex.htm http://www.defendingdog.com/ http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/home.html http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm

Also, if you go to the A Rotta Love Forum (www.arottalove.org/forum) there is a section on BSL that says Web Sites. There are a lot more there to check out as well.

***If you would like to meet up with a group of us we will be meeting at 6:00pm sharp right outside the main doors. In case you can’t find us and you want to meet my cell phone number is 651-592-9591.

1) Keep it short and to the point.
2) Steer clear of stereotypes. In politics, appearance is everything. When you talk face-to-face about BSL to politicians and the media, you must also adopt that same philosophy. Hide your tattoos, brush your hair, put on some nice slacks and a dress shirt, stand up straight, and use good grammar. I know it doesn't seem fair that you can't just "be yourself", but the fact is, life isn't fair, and this isn't about you. It's about your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a dog owner. If you don't convey an attitude of respectability, you will get two negative results: first, you won't be taken seriously, and second, you will be reinforcing a negative stereotype, thereby making it much harder for all the rest of us.
3) NEVER speak or write rudely - ALWAYS be respectful and mature. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Or like my mom used to tell me, "if you want to be treated like a grown-up, you need to act like a grown-up." If you want your views to be heard, you need to be patient, open-minded, and mature. If you name-call, swear, threaten, or lash out, you risk losing your audience. Not only that, but you are reinforcing a negative stereotype ("all pit bull/Rottweiler owners are uneducated and immature"). Denver council members recently expressed interest in a non-breed-specific alternative to their draconian pit bull ban - until they started getting angry hate mail and threats from some pit bull owners. That just confirmed to them that pit bull owners are scary, angry, dangerous individuals; they now defend their BSL with fervor, and hundreds of family dogs have been put to death as a result. Don't let your passion and emotions carry you away when you speak!
4) If you choose to mention your dog, be very careful what you say. When you speak out against BSL by arguing "My pit bull is the friendliest dog on the planet and everyone loves him!", that is not helping your case. Your pro-BSL representative believes you own a ticking time bomb. Your protests that your dog "loves everyone" only confirms in their mind that you are in denial - and anything else you may try to say becomes more crazy talk to them. On the other hand, if you speak to the representative as a concerned citizen - not a dog owner - you are more likely to be heard and respected as an equal rather than discounted as a nut job. Mention your dog only if you have proof - a title, certificate, award, or other evidence - that your dog is capable of "above average" good deeds and is highly unlikely to be a "ticking time bomb." If you have a therapy dog, a search-and-rescue dog, a hero dog (which received some sort of recognition from a major group), or an obedience-titled dog, you can mention it. If your dog's credentials are average (i.e. Temperament Tested, took some agility classes, lives with a child and hasn't eaten him yet), that's great - but not good enough to get out of the "could snap at any moment" category, so it's probably best to leave him out of it. Yes, you have every right to be proud of your dog, and yes, you should tell people all about your great dog - but not when you're talking to a pro-BSL legislator. They have a tendency to tune out words from pit bull and Rottweiler owners in particular.
5) Join your representative in worrying about the human victims. Aurora Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald gives us a wonderful quote regarding his reasons behind supporting a pit bull ban: "The thought of one kid getting hurt is too much for me." If we think further about the context in which Fitzgerald gives this comment, he seems to be implying that he does not care about children who are attacked by dogs other than pit bulls. In fact, some months prior to Fitzgerald's insensitive comment, in a city very close to Aurora, a young girl was killed by two Alaskan Malamutes. This child's needless death was apparently not "too much" for Fitzgerald, since he shows no interest in banning Alaskan Malamutes.This sort of exclusionary thinking is pervasive among legislators who support BSL. They are so focused on the victims of attacks committed by certain breeds of dogs that they tend to overlook victims who were attacked by less "controversial" breeds. In effect, they are minimizing the danger posed by non-targeted breeds, the fear suffered by individuals who live near a dangerous dog of a non-targeted breed, and the pain inflicted on victims of attacks committed by a non-targeted breed. Ultimately, pointing this out to representatives is helpful; politicians do not want to seem insensitive toward victims, and the only way to treat every dog attack victim equally and fairly is through non-breed-specific legislation, where all victims are entitled to the same justice and retributions regardless of the breed of dog that injured them.
6) Provide good examples of non-breed-specific legislation that works. Identify some possible solutions to the problems your community is having with dangerous dogs. Perhaps your animal control department is under funded and understaffed, resulting in paltry enforcement of laws. Maybe your community has a blasé attitude toward leash laws and other dog laws. Perhaps school children are not getting any lessons in dog safety. Try to identify what areas need to be worked on in order to improve public safety and reduce dog bites. Offer model non-breed-specific dangerous dog legislation to replace breed-specific proposals (the AKC and the HSUS can both provide this). Our government representatives need to look like they're doing something - anything - to protect the public against vicious dogs. They automatically default toward BSL because it seems so easy, but if you give them something better, safer, and more effective...

I am working on a set of posts that will address the different problems of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) that I will be posting over the next few weeks. Beth links to a lot of the information that I am using (but I do have a few other sources up my sleeve) so you can get up to speed fairly quickly through her links. If you have the time, I urge you to go. Speak out for the 4Hers who will be very busy getting ready for their annual rite of summer!

Cherry Picking

For the last four years, the Democrats in the House and Senate have accused the Bush Administration of "cherry picking" the intelligence in order to justify the war with Iraq. Yet on Tuesday the Democrats did the same thing with the NIE data. The breathless headlines told the tale of a resurgent al Qaeda.

"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.
But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary."

A couple of intellectual heavyweights, John Hinderacker at Powerlineblog and Ralph Peters of the New York Post, shred the cherry picking. First let's here what John has to say.

" But let's see what the NIE really says. This is the opening "key judgment":
We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially alQa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.
Um, yes. I think any American fourth-grader could have told us that. It's a fair paraphrase of what President Bush has said countless times.
Remember all those news stories about how a secret report--still secret, I guess--said that we were now in as much danger of terrorist attack as we were prior to September 11? Well, that's not what the NIE says. It says the opposite, in a paragraph that I have yet to see quoted in a newspaper:
We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
OK, let's add that up: the intelligence community is saying that our counterterrorism efforts have made us safer than we were before September 11, that a number of terrorist plots have been disrupted, but that al Qaeda is still a threat. And this is supposed to be inconsistent with the position of the Bush administration?"

Peters weighs in with the political side of the equation.

"DEMOCRATS on Capitol Hill have complained for years that the White House "cherry-picks" intelligence. Yesterday, that's exactly what the Dems did themselves with the just-declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.
While preparing for their congressional pajama party Tuesday night (D.C. escort services reportedly had a slow evening), the Dems showed once again that, as wretched as the Bush administration can be, it remains a safer bet in the Age of Terror.
The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda. "

Peters then reminds voters of the potential consequences of the upcoming election.

"In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.
Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos. "

The current government of Pakistan is a quesy ally. Talk of invasion will be a sure fire way of turning them completely against us.

John wisely reminds us that the NIE is:

"This NIE, like all the others we've seen, is a compendium of conventional wisdom that reveals no apparent secrets. There is nothing in it that would require "intelligence" to divine."

Playing politics with the safety of the American people is not something that either party should be doing. Sadly it is now more important to score cheap political points than it is to keep America safe.

Crying wolf

I just don't get it.

"I don't agree with this," she said. "This wasn't right. I think it is just discrimination."

IT is a law in Waukegan Illinois that will turn illegal immigrants that have been arrested for breaking other laws to ICE for deportation. The law does not specify that it is going after Hispanics or Asians or any other nationality of people - it simply says that if you are an illegal immigrant and you break the laws in the city of Waukegan, you will be sent back to your home country.

The illegal immigration problem is not strictly a "Hispanic" problem. There are Irish and German illegals too - people who came on a visa and over stayed. Illegal immigrantes come from every nation, but I will admit that "Hispanics" have become the face of the problem because there are so many that come here from Central and South America.

Come to think of it, there are people who are making this a race issue, but they are not the people who are trying to enforce the laws in Waukegan.....it is the people who are fighting this law.

My new hero

Senator John Thune (from our neighbor to the West - South Dakota) had this to say on the floor of the Senate this morning (HT Laura Ingraham who had the audio and Michelle Malkin who live blogged the debate - poor dear).

"Update 7/18 1:38am. Sen. Thune is up, and he’s a terrific injection of energy and clarity. He takes on the Dems’ false “Afghanistan war is good”/”Iraq war is bad” dichotomy. Notes that casualties are fewer in Afghanistan because we have fewer there and because the main fight is in Iraq. If we move soldiers to Afghanistan, they’ll kill more of them there. That’s what the enemy does. The Dems don’t understand that this is a titanic war between good and evil…the problem is it is the same enemy…intent on the same objective…we have to fight al Qaeda every place we can…History has shown that fighting wars by committee does not work…” (emphasis mine)

I think I said something similar recently.....I'm just glad to see I am not the only one thinking along these lines.

The real health care crisis.

Today's New York Times has a heath care story on the front page of their dead tree edition that bears our interest.

"Cres has spent almost half his 32 years working in the United States, in the fields of California and Texas and the factories of Chicago and New York. His wife and three children were with him some of the time. But he was alone for long spells, and it was during one of those periods that he figures he contracted H.I.V.

“I don’t know how or where or when I got it,” said Cres, who spoke on condition that he would be identified only by his nickname."

Ummmmmm how do you contract HIV if you are "alone" - unless you are doing IV drugs which are illegal in this country???? And if you are doing the IV drugs, don't you think you would know the how???

"But AIDS is spreading quickly in rural Mexican states with the highest migration rates to the United States, researchers say. The greatest risk of contracting AIDS that rural Mexican women face is in having sex with their migrant husbands, a new study found, a problem that is compounded by their husbands’ refusal to use condoms.
Research has shown that migrants have more sexual partners than those who stay at home. For women, life on the road brings risks of rape and sexual abuse. For many migrants, being displaced from their homes and families is a lonely experience, one that prompts them to form new relationships in the United States."

While I totally agree that it is horrible that HIV is spreading in Mexico, let's also talk about the outbreaks of tuburculosis and other communicable diseases that are coming in to the US from legal and illegal immigrants.

"According to Dr. Laurence Nickey, director of the El Paso heath district “Contagious diseases that are generally considered to have been controlled in the United States are readily evident along the border ... The incidence of tuberculosis in El Paso County is twice that of the U.S. rate. Dr. Nickey also states that leprosy, which is considered by most Americans to be a disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border and that dysentery is several times the U.S. rate ... People have come to the border for economic opportunities, but the necessary sewage treatment facilities, public water systems, environmental enforcement, and medical care have not been made available to them, causing a severe risk to health and well being of people on both sides of the border.”1
The pork tapeworm, which thrives in Latin America and Mexico, is showing up along the U.S. border, threatening to ravage victims with symptoms ranging from seizures to death. ... The same [Mexican] underclass has migrated north to find jobs on the border, bringing the parasite and the sickness—cysticercosis—its eggs can cause[.] Cysts that form around the larvae usually lodge in the brain and destroy tissue, causing hallucinations, speech and vision problems, severe headaches, strokes, epileptic seizures, and in rare cases death.”2...
Typhoid struck Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1992 when an immigrant from the Third World (who had been working in food service in the United States for almost two years) transmitted the bacteria through food at the McDonald’s where she worked. River blindness, malaria, and guinea worm, have all been brought to Northern Virginia by immigration.3 " (emphasis mine)

Once upon a time, this country used to do health screenings of ALL legal immigrants. Now we are not doing that and someone needs to ask WHY that is no longer happening. Someone also needs to ask just how much these illnesses are going to cost their respective host countries. Now the NY Times article had some figures for the AIDS cost to Mexico, what are these other diseases costing US taxpayers?

I heard a very good common sense outlook on what needs to be done - make the walls high and the door wide! We need to know who (and what) is crossing back and forth across the borders. It is an issue of national security AND public health for both the Mexican and American governments. This way we can also quaranteen those folks like Andrew Speaker putting people at risk! It also is a way to help control health care costs for everyone! It really is a win/win for both sides of the Rio Grande...

Defeatocrats

Well now we know why Senator Reid is in such a hurry to get the surrender vote done and over with. (H/T Gary at LFR)

"CNN's Michael Ware said in a broadcast Jan. 30 that Ramadi is "the true al Qaida national headquarters." If that were true, al Qaida is in bigger trouble in Iraq than most of us realize.
Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt devoted his show last Wednesday to the (overwhelmingly negative) opinions of Iraq war veterans on the demands of Democrats that U.S. troops be pulled out. One call was from "Bruce in Upland," whose son is a soldier currently serving in Iraq.
"I will speak for my son who right now is bored out of his mind in Ramadi, because he hasn't heard a shot fired in combat now in about six or seven weeks," Bruce said."

It seems like word is finally getting out that we ARE winning, the surge IS working and he does not want to wait for General Petraus to appear on the nightly news in two months declaring victory in Iraq. Even the UN Secretary General is on the record saying that the Senator Reid's insistence on immediate withdrawal is a foolish idea.

"(CBS News) NEW YORK United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to meet President Bush in Washington Tuesday, a day after publicly weighing in for the first time on the debate raging across the United States about when to pull American troops out of Iraq. Ban warned Monday that an abrupt U.S. troop pullout could deepen the crisis in Iraq, and he urged the United States to keep the Iraqi people in mind when making decisions on the increasingly unpopular war. Ban, who said Iraq would be a major point of discussion at Monday's meeting with Mr. Bush, said both the United States and the international community have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people. "

If it isn't obvious, by now, that the Democratic Party is more concerned about scoring cheap political points - as opposed to working for the good of the country, I don't know what it will take for the American people to get that point. How can they, in good conscience, given the news that is coming out of Iraq and given the warnings of General Petraus (among others) and Sec'y General Moon, continue to push for this "immediate withdrawal"?

Their agenda is showing and it is not pretty.

Harry Potter can teach us a lot about the media...

OK - I borrowed heavily from Learned Foot, but it fits!

As I said yesterday, we took the Junion Logician to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Like "The Chronicles of Narnia" before it the Harry Potter series is a story of good and evil and how easy it is for evil to triumph over good if we are not careful.

One of the many subplots that the author covers in this story is how the government of the Wizarding world uses the press to supress the "threat" that the return of Lord Voldomort brings to the Wizarding world. The heros of the movie (and the book) use every opportunity available to them to tell of the upcoming threat and the government and the "MSM" call the brave whistleblowing wizards ridiculed and slandered. Called "stupid" and "liar", the hero presses on undaunted and unbowed. The government even holds rigged "hearings" intending to frighten the hero into changing his story but in the end the truth prevails. Then, when the government can no longer hide the danger from the rest of the world the headlines scream "what did the government know and when did they know it?" Sound familiar? It should.

Like it or not, there is evil in the world. In the 1940's that evil presented itself in the form of Adolph Hitler. Today's evil appears to be the Islamofascists that are trying to blow the rest of us back to the first century. We have a press that is blissfully (willfully?) ignorant to the dangers of this new form of fascism until the time comes when it rears it's ugly head and then they cry "what did the government know and why didn't they try to stop it?". Then - as soon as the threat subsides they go back to their blissful state of denial! How long do we keep riding the roller coaster of ignorance and denial before we finally demand that our press starts to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

What hath sanctuary cities wrought?

I heard Jason Lewis talking about this story and I could not believe my ears!

"A St. Paul man tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he felt like a prisoner in his own home as he watched another man attack his property with a truck. But, he wasn't the only one watching. The unblinking eye of his security cameras caught the attack on tape.
Mark Daggy says Carlos Noe Rivera-Portillo threatened him, then took aim at his home with a truck. He says Rivera-Portillo, 18, attacked because Daggy told him to stay away from his 16-year-old daughter.
Video from Daggy's home security cameras shows a man throw a beer bottle at the home and then ram his fence repeatedly with a truck.
Daggy equipped his home with security cameras in an attempt to deter and prevent crime n his St. Paul neighborhood. In this case, the video led to Rivera-Portillo's arrest.
River-Portillo is in the Ramsey County Jail tonight, held on $2,000 bond. Daggy says repairing the fence will cost him $2500 dollars. And, he worries about his safety when Riveraportilla gets out.
Riveraportilla has a court date July 23." (emphasis mine)

KTLK-FM is reporting that Rivera-Portillo has had previous run-in's with St. Paul Police, but nothing was ever done with him because of St. Paul's "sanctuary city" law (a law that Senator Coleman tried to get outlawed during the Senate immigration debate last week). The latest report (and I will link to it as soon as KTLK posts it on their website) is that ICE has informed the St. Paul Police that they expect Rivera-Portillo released to THEIR CUSTODY to be deported back to his native Ecuador.

THIS is the crisis of illegal immigration. We need to get the gang bangers and those who have no interest in contributing to a civilized society out now and THEN, once the borders have been sufficiently closed, we can deal with the remaining illegals who are working hard and trying to make a better life for themselves. It should be a real no-brainer!

Senator Coleman on the 1st Amendment

On Friday, I promised you video of Senator Coleman remarks on the floor about the "Fairness Doctrine". Here is video of the final remarks - the "money remarks".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NSsqZbLGN4

Again, I must say, "Bravo Senator Coleman!".

The sun is shing bright on Minnesota today

Minnesota's 34 Infantry Division is finally coming home after 22 months in Iraq. Leo over at Psychmeister's Ice Palace is celebrating the fact that his son Doug is mostly home. Driving home from work today I saw a sign in a neighbor's yard that said "HONK! Welcome Home Amber 34ID!

Welcome Home Amber and Doug. You are loved, you were greatly missed and a thankful nation welcomes you back to the loving arms of your families.

Why?

Last night was the 3rd Annual MOB summer bash at Keegan's Irish Pub in Minneapolis. It is a chance for people who normally only converse in the cyber realm to get together and enjoy a good Irish Whiskey or beer and just enjoy a lovely Minnesota summer evening. The Logical Husband and I were there as were Janet and King from SCSU Scholars, Michael from MDE, Mitch from SITD, AAA (and his lovely GF who is another horse person like me) from RF, the whole pack from Freedom Dogs, Barry formerly from Water Cooler Wisdom, Learned Foot from KAR, Kevin from Eckernet and many, many others were there. And these are just the ones I got a chance to stop and visit with!

Michael introduced me to a friend of his who asked my "why" I do this. We got into a lot of issue specific reasons, but the real reason came to me this afternoon when we took the Junior Logician to see "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". At the end of the movie, young Harry tells his friends why he thinks that they will succeed in their fight against Lord Voldomort..."because we have something to fight for" and I realized that was why I do this. Because I have something that I care about so deeply that I must fight for it. Pure and simple, I fight for the ideals that our Founding Fathers fought for....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It may sound hokey, but it really is that simple. I think that the ideals of liberty, prosperity, security, and family ARE worth fighting for and so I blog.

What the press doesn't tell you.

This week has been an interesting week in the mainstream media. Not so much for what they told us, but for what they didn't.

Did you know that on July 4, a US airman stationed in New Jersey was shot by a "peace activist"? You wouldn't if you relied on the Star Tribune or the alphabet news media for your news.

"At around 5:30 pm on July 4, 2007, just a short few hours prior to nationwide fireworks celebrations in honor of our Independence Day, 22-year old Senior Airman Jonathan Schrieken was standing in the driveway of his rented home in Willingboro, New Jersey. Having just returned from leave in his hometown of Columbus, Ohio to continue his duties as a Loadmaster with the 6th Airlift Squadron at New Jersey’s McGuire Air Force Base, the last thing on the mind of this young veteran of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was the imminent and potentially lethal peril he was confronted with in the next minute.
Another 22-year old man approached from behind. That man was Matthew J. Marren, of nearby Pennsauken, N.J. Marren had driven the approxmately nine miles from his Pennsauken home to Schrieken’s Willingboro residence. He pulled up and walked over to inquire of Senior Airman Schrieken, “do you live in this house?” Schrieken replied in the affirmative, to which Marren responded “not any more” and proceeded to shoot him point blank in the chest. Marren then shot and killed himself."

According to local media reports, the shooter was active in the anti-war movement. Yeah those wacky peaceniks....

Captain Ed has another one of his usually high quality posts up on the sloppy out of context reporting that happens regularly over at the New York Times. The Washington Times tries to pick up the slack, but when that happens they usually are derided as being a "right wing tool" so the left usually ignores them. Apparently that whole "listening to the generals" thing is important when the general speaking supports withdrawal....

Still other stories don't get published in the US at all, which is why the fact that jihadists aren't "poor and oppressed" comes as such a surprise to many. Some are even suggesting that certain members of the media are not acting in the best interests of their own country.

Is it any wonder why ad revenue and readership are down at most of the "big" newspapers across the country? Is it any wonder that the viewship of the national nightly news broadcasts are sliding? Is it any wonder that news consumers are turning more and more to the alternate news sources for the news of the day? Do you think the day will come when the "MSM" figures it out? Only time will tell.

The McCain Meltdown

Back in 2000, the conventional wisdom was that John McCain was "THE Man" for 2008. Today he is running a distant 3rd among declared candidates and a disappointing 4th if you include Fred Thompson. Many have speculated that age, immigration and the "Gang of 14" are to blame for his polling and fundraising doldrums. Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel has another thought in today's Wall Street Journal.

"John McCain's campaign fell into disarray this week, kicked off by the news it had raised a scant $24 million so far. Mark these money woes down to any number of problems, but don't entirely discount the McCain-Feingold effect.
Let's stipulate that most of the good senator's troubles stem from high-profile policy disagreements he's had with his own base. He's tweaked noses on global warming and slapped faces on immigration. His admirable decision to stand strong on Iraq has been undermined by his tendency to stand weak on national security issues such as interrogations and enemy combatants. And economic conservatives just don't trust a guy who won't admit that cutting taxes is good.
Yet while each of these issues has undoubtedly taken its financial toll, Mr. McCain has labored under yet one more burden: McCain-Feingold. He was the prime author of that 2002 law, which took direct aim at his own party and its activists, making it harder for them to collect money, register voters and voice opinions about candidates. It left the very people so vital to a campaign in its early stages--those who write checks, knock on doors, turn out for primaries--furious with him. Talks with party officials and activists today suggest that hostility remains, and has played into his money difficulties. "

I have not been shy about the fact that BCRA is the major reason why I will never support Senator McCain in his quest for the White House. My friend Amendment X has made it quite clear which of the Bill of Rights he is most partial to. Mine would have to be Amendment 1! There is a reason that the Founding Fathers put free speech FIRST, because without it all the other Amendments are at risk. John McCain's bill puts free speech under the thumb of a government that is hostile to said speech.

I won't say that this BCRA is the main reason for McCain's fall from grace. I can more certainly claim that his support of the amnesty bill was the final nail in the coffin. Perhaps it should be said that campaign finance reform was the first nail - a nail that can never be undone because of the very limitations that Senator McCain put on his own campaign.

Sen. Coleman BLASTS Sen. Durbin on the floor

Senator Norm Coleman has done much, in the last two days, to give conservatives a reason to cheer. In a dust up between Senator Coleman and Senator Durbin of IL, Senator Coleman had this to say about the "Fairness" Doctrin. (H/T AAA via Capt. Ed)

"The government does not -- does not -- have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That's what the first amendment is about. It's exactly what the first amendment is about. Government's not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we're in 2007. We're at a time where we've got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be -- I -- I can't even conceive -- I can't even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end -- in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that's ok okay. And I think it's very dangerous, I say to my -- my friend from Illinois, I think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned -- hopefully learned individuals who've the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of -- out of the -- the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that's my concern. ...
John Kennedy stated, "we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Mr. President, I’m not afraid of of -- of the people. I'm not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That's the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor." (emphasis mine)

I'll look for audio/viedo later, but in the meantime I have to say "Salut" to Minnesota's senior Senator. Well done!

Stay the Course

This is good news.

"Sen. Norm Coleman says he will not support an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Coleman said he wants to see a change in policy but believes U.S. troops will be Iraq for a long time. Democrats have been trying to pressure Coleman this week as the Senate debates war strategies.
Washington — Coleman said during his 30-minute conference call that he will not support any plans that call for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq. He did say he wanted to see a significant change in military strategy by next year but stressed that he expects U.S. troops to remain a part of that strategy.
"We will have a long-term presence in Iraq, but with a change in mission," he said.
Coleman called it "irresponsible" to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq. He said doing so would cause a civil war, would allow terrorists to establish operations in Iraq, and would give neighbor Iran greater influence in Iraq.
Coleman said he understands the public frustration with the war, but he won't vote for anything that he believes would cause greater harm to the United States. At the same time, Coleman said the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops have to take a greater role in securing the country. "

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the 7:00 hour of his program today. Senator Lieberman laid out clear, concise and compelling arguments for why we need to stay in Iraq. You need to read the transcript or listen to the interview (once Hugh has them posted) over at HughHewitt.com.

"Fat" Government

The folks that want to control how you live, what you drive and what you eat are at it again. This time in Britian where they are pushing a "fat tax". (H/T: the Logical Husband)

"Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes."

Now I have struggled with my weight all of my life. It is not something to brag about - I am stating this as a fact. Part of it is lifestyle choices, I will admit, and I am trying to make better choices - less fat, controlling my intake of "bad" carbs, walking the stairs instead of taking the elevator, but another part of of the problem IS genetics. That is something that Nanny State government can not control! Both of my parents have weight problems, my grandparents have weight problems on and on and on.

"Sin" taxes (taxes on cigarettes and liquor for example) have been around for as long as the sins have. The rationale has always been "If we add a supplimentary tax to it, people will stop using it" How wrong can you be! "Sin" taxes have done nothing more than line the pockets of money hungry politicians who want nothing more than to control how you live. Is that a life you want to lead? Or would you rather put the fat, bloated government on a "diet"?