politics-for-fun

2004-08-13T10:44:00.000-07:00

I've moved!

Visit carluva.blog-city.com for my new site!

2003-09-12T15:13:00.000-07:00

Oh, boy, this is rich!

California Governor Gray Davis takes a ridiculous swipe at gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian accent. "You shouldn't be governor unless you can pronounce the name of the state," said Davis, in a joke to a prospective voter. Schwarzenegger responded with some truly hard-hitting comments: "He doesn't like the way I say 'California' because I say Cal-EE-fornia, rather than Cal-AH-fornia. But there's [sic] many other words he doesn't like. He doesn't like 'lost jobs.' He doesn't like 'blackouts.' He doesn't like 'energy crisis.' And he definitely doesn't like 'recall."

Davis's response was to criticize some of Schwarzenegger's few views with which I agree. "I tell you it is no joke when Arnold Schwarzenegger votes for 187, and it's no joke when he tells people the first thing he's going to do is to repeal the bill I signed giving immigrants the right to drive in this state. I understand that our economy depends on work that Americans won't do." Proposition 187 sought to ban illegal immigrants from benefitting from social programs. Of course, Davis conveniently "forgot" to mention that it was illegal immigrants to whom he granted the right to drive. Basically, Davis has chosen to compromise the security of the United States by refusing to recognize illegal immigrants as just that—illegal! Somehow, opposing this disastrous and, of itself, illegal policy makes Schwarzenegger a bad person!

2003-09-12T14:34:00.000-07:00

What is with the media's obsession with Bill Clinton? ABC's number one "thing to look forward to this weekend:" "Bill Clinton's biggest, boldest return to politics, frying steak in Iowa and church-going with Gray Davis in South-Central." Number two? "David Yepsen's Sunday column on the Steak Fry." Huh?

He hasn't been President for three years, now, yet the media still drool after him like a lovesick dog! Good grief!

2003-09-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

I feel the need to give a little free promotional for my favorite e-publication: The Federalist. Many of you probably already know about it, but I'm sure some do not. Like myself, this publication does not blindly follow every movement of every "conservative" politician. It's a great deal, offering up to three issues weekly for FREE by email!

So what are you waiting for? Go sign yourself up!

2003-09-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

Two years ago! I did not even realize that I was restarting this site on the anniversary of that date until I noticed the post date on my first post…what can I say? God bless, and may he draw you to Himself.

It is actually hard for me to realize that it was only two years ago. So much has happened since. Yet the effects linger; little is the same. We will

NEVER FORGET!

So, remembering past victories (Udai and Qusai who?) and pressing towards our yet-future goal,

LET'S ROLL!

2003-09-11T17:53:00.000-07:00

First, it's time to revisit a topic I've covered in the past—the Senate blocking judge nominees. "Filibustering," they call it. A lot has happened since the last time I mentioned it!

Tragically, Miguel Estrada has removed his name from consideration; in other words, a few Senate Democrats have succeeded in eliminating a top-notch nominee by simply delaying the vote for more than 850 days! It is really outrageous!

They are not willing to stop there, though—they have held up two more nominees for more than 800 days. Those are Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. Not content with all of this, they have begun the same process on Bill Pryor, who was nominated for a position classified as a judicial emergency! In doing this, they are blatantly demonstrating their utter disregard for the well-being of our country.

What really interests me, though, is the racial and gender make-up of these nominees. Note that Estrada is Hispanic and Owen and Kuhl are both women! Only the last and most urgent is a white male! Imagine the rhetoric that would come from the left if Republicans were to even dare to speak a word of opposition against one of these first three! Imagine what the left would say if Republicans opposed all three! Why, it would be suicide! It would be the final word of proof that the Republican party was a bunch of racist, sexist, hatemongers!

2003-09-11T17:27:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm back…and I'm still here on Blogger! I changed computers, and apparently I forgot to move the files that I had completed for the new site to the new computer. I'm in college now, so I'll try to remember to pick them up on semester break. In any case, expect some new posts over the next few weeks as part of a class assignment. Subject matter will remain about the same.

2002-12-13T13:22:00.000-08:00

Just had to post a "LOL" to the recent article proclaiming in all seriousness that perhaps global warming isn't occuring after all…it might be global cooling instead! Do these "scientists" actually expect us to believe them?

2002-11-26T08:53:00.000-08:00

As you can see, it has been quite a while since I had a chance to blog. I probably would have found more time to get here if the people at Blogger would have answered my questions. In any case, expect the site to move somewhere else before you see any more updates. It could take a while to work the bugs out, because I'm going to do everything myself, so don't hold your breath.

2002-10-15T12:29:00.000-07:00

As much as I hate to take the side of a leftist environmentalist wacko, I have to do it here. Green Independent gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Carter has been accused of being anti-Italian because he ran an anti-casino ad (hey, I agree with him there, too!) which uses phrases from "The Sopranos" to make his point about organized crime. How come "The Sopranos" is not considered anti-Italian, but he is for simply capitalizing on its popularity?

2002-10-15T12:22:00.000-07:00

Oh, boy, more "global warming" doomsayers! This time it is Knight Ridder Newspapers. The article, from yesterday, says quite truthfully that 2002 is likely to replace 2001 as the second-hottest year on record, exceeded only by 1998. It goes on to say, again quite truthfully, that the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1987.

However, the article draws some conclusions that are highly inappropriate. "One year does not make a trend toward global wraming, but putting 2002 together with past years and decades does," says the article, citing Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate monitoring at the National Climactic Data Center as the source of this very biased information. As any meteorologist who is worth his salt can tell you, the earth goes through long-term climatic cycles of decades and even 50-year and perhaps 100-year periods. This means that it is very common, in fact, it is normal, to have a decade of well-above-average temperatures. We are in fact, nearing the end of a predicted decade of warmth! So much for global warming!

2002-10-08T18:12:00.000-07:00

I must apologize for two things: The lack of updates and the messy look of the site, presently.

The first is due to how busy my life has become and will probably continue until I actually have time to read the paper again! The second is not my fault at all, as I have tried several times to solve the problem, and in several manners, and have gotten absolutely no response from Blogger's shoddy support system! If this continues for much longer, as I suspect it will, I will certainly switch from Blogger to Freeservers (I already own carluva.freeservers.com, although it is not currently used for anything) and just come up with my own method of posting and archiving and so on.

2002-09-24T05:23:00.000-07:00

Ah, the bias of the news media. I love how the Portland Press Herald dedicated a small article to the criticism of Bush's Iraq policy by a former Presidential candidate and former Vice President (namely Al Gore); but only gave a tiny two-paragraph blurb to the support of Bush by a current world leader, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

2002-09-17T04:54:00.000-07:00

Oh, this is surely an objective article! But what else could I expect from the Los Angeles Times?

"Stabilizing Social Security: How?" proclaims the headline. It gets even better, though. Get ready for the subtitle: "Both parties are committed to fixing the system, but their proposals are short on details." How nice of them to interpret the news for me! I don't even have to think, I can just absorb what the LA Times tells me to think! At least they did mention the flaws of the Democratic plan as well as the Republican plan; they certainly spent more time on the Republican plan, though.

Of course, the Times isn't exactly generous with its facts, either. It conveniently "forgot" to mention that the stock market has increased the last three quarters, and that even while the stock market in general was declining, bonds and money market accounts that generally earn about twice as much as Social Security investments were still gaining money.

2002-09-12T16:49:00.000-07:00

Oh, great! The Senate passed the "drought relief" bill Tuesday. How ridiculous can this get? Besides the fact that it's not up to the government to cure all ills, they already incorporated emergency disaster aid into the $180 million farm bill in May!

By the way, my apologies for not posting much lately—I'm extremely busy.

2002-09-12T16:34:00.000-07:00

In memory of the more than 3,000 persons who died one year ago yesterday.

2002-09-06T16:27:00.000-07:00

Senate Rejects Another Bush Judicial Nominee

In explanation for the rejection of Priscilla Owen, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said, "The message is this: We will confirm qualified judges. Don't send us unqulaified people." No, the message was, "We will confirm leftist judges. Don't send us conservative people." Or maybe even, "Don't send us qualified people." How could Daschle possibly call a judge whom the American Bar Association called "well qualified" "unqualified?" Does he claim to have more wisdom than the Bar? Incredible!

2002-09-06T16:16:00.000-07:00

Oh, boy, this is a good laugh! I can't read it without cracking up! Former--no, ex-President Bill Clinton told President George W. Bush that he should "finish the job" of getting Osama bin Laden before he attacks Iraq. This from the guy who had numerous opportunities to do away with Osama and didn't do it! He didn't even start the job!

2002-09-06T16:06:00.000-07:00

Apparently it's possible to have accomplished your main goal in a mission, besides having achieved some other positive results, and still be failing. That's right, the media are portraying the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as a failure, even though they admit that we have achieved our main goal--driving al-Qaida from Afghanistan--and, in addition, have driven the Taliban from power! On top of all of this, we have lost only 39 soldiers, which they of course are portraying as a huge number, and have killed only a few hundred Afghan civilians, mostly because the Taliban liked to put them up as targets. All this has been accomplished in only eleven months, which they are again portraying as far too long. We were in Bosnia for how long? Certainly, we aren't done yet, but we knew it would be no picnic when we started this.

2002-09-06T15:53:00.000-07:00

Well, how about that, they managed to keep Iraq out of the headlines for two whole pages in this morning's newpaper!

I was glad to see as one of the newsworthy front-page stories that the Senate approved allowing pilots to carry arms in the cockpit. I hope this "weapons training" doesn't turn into a bunch of red tape though. Note to President Bush: You better pass this one…

2002-09-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

More Drought Aid Hogwash

Senate Leftists are trying to push a bill that would give an unlimited amount of drought aid to farmers (estimated at $5 billion, but with "no formal price tag"). They seem to have forgotten that they passed a $190 billion dollar farm bill in May that included emergency disaster aid. Tom Daschle said, according to the AP, that "he was 'mystified' that the administration would oppose drought aid while supporting extra money to battle wildfires." Listen up Tommy: drought is an emergency that is already covered by current federal funding; forest fires are not!

2002-09-05T07:48:00.000-07:00

Iraq Opponents Will Never Be Satisfied

The leftists have been saying for a while now that Bush hasn't shown enough evidence to convince them that Iraq poses enough of a threat to us for us to attack them. They wouldn't know evidence if it bit them in the face! The real fact is that they will never be satisfied because they don't want to be satisfied!

2002-09-04T16:39:00.000-07:00

Now the unions are getting in the way of our national security. Here are some organizations we could do without. Socialist organizations that use "optional" dues (yeah, right!) to support wacko left-wing causes--I'd like to get rid of them completely.

If the unions were a group of organizations that I supported, I'd certainly understand the concern with waiving union rights for workers when national security is at stake, though I still might not oppose it. But I don't support them, so I have no pity for them.

2002-09-04T16:34:00.000-07:00

I'm getting sick of the media acting like it's some incredible, horrible thing that the Republican party isn't in 100% agreement over Iraq. It's gotten to the point where that's all that is in the newspaper, which is why I've not been updating much lately.

2002-09-04T16:32:00.000-07:00

This is a little amusing, I guess...

A Polish sailor who can hardly speak English is in jail because someone at baggage check-in at the PIJ told him not to bother to check in his small bag, which turned out to have a knife and a Leatherman in it...poor guy! This is the same airport that Mohamed Atta rushed through just a few minutes before his flight was to leave with no problem...

Oh, well...

2002-08-30T18:34:00.000-07:00

Taking the Editorialization of "News" to a New Level

This morning's paper contained an article from the associated press that is the most blatantly editorially written "news" article I've seen to date. "As elections near, Bush sets fund-raising record," reads the headline. Although the first paragraph is questionable--"President Bush set records in raising campaign cash Thursday as events in two states pushed his total to nearly $110 million."--the obvious editorializing begins in the second paragraph: "Republicans once accused President Clinton of trading the office's prestige for donations. Now the GOP controls the White House, and Bush is cashing in on his cachet, too." It doesn't get any more biased than this, folks!

This continues for some time, but then the writer's contempt for Bush comes through in a comment that is totally unrelated to the story: "Republicans paid $1,000 for a chicken-and-beans lunch and to hear Bush promote his domestic and war policies in almost the exact words he uses at every fund-raising event." I thought this story was about how much money Bush was raising; now you're giving me commentary on what he said?

The story does mention the difference between Clinton's and Bush's forms of fund-raising...near the end. That is, that Slick Willie did such favors as rent the Lincoln bedroom to donors and sell state secrets to China for money. The writer spoils this attempt at fairness, however, by making this comment: "Though Bush has been more subtle about doling out White House invitations, several prominent GOP donors have spent the night." Of course, he conveniently "forgot" to mention that all of Bush's invitees to the White House have been persons with whom he has had close relationships since long before he was elected President, while Clinton's "friends" were people who he did not even know until his election as President catapulted him to the forefront of Democratic politics.

2002-08-30T18:07:00.000-07:00

Hypocrisy is not very difficult to find these days. Just look at the people opposing President Bush's plan to attack Iraq. The same people who criticized the President for not paying attention to a questionable lead that could have lead to the prevention of the terrorist acts on 9/11 (hindsight is always 20/20) are now saying that he should wait for more proof that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons! As if we don't have proof enough!

2002-08-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

Correction: On August 22, I incorrectly identified the newspaper in which an editorial by Dr. Henry Kissinger was printed as the Wall Street Journal. It was actually printed in the Washington Post.

2002-08-29T16:08:00.000-07:00

A-hah! In the postscript of the local paper here this morning is a very interesting post-publication news update. It begins, "Drug companies asked a federal judge on Wednesday to stop states from limiting low-income patients' access to more expensive medicines."

Apparently Michigan recently approved a "preferred drug list" program, which applies to Medicare recipients. "A medication can only get on the list if its manufacturer agrees to offer the drug at a steep discount. If doctors want to prescribe a drug not included on the list, they must get prior approval from the state."

So Michigan passed a law that makes it harder for doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs for their poorer and/or older patients—in other words, the state is denying the best care to Medicare recipients. Doesn't that unfairly benefit the rich? In any case, it's another example of why government beauraucrats should not be interfering in health care.

2002-08-29T08:28:00.000-07:00

If you read nothing else this week, you must read Cal Thomas's editorial on the teaching of both creation and evolution in public schools. It is excellent!

2002-08-29T08:26:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm getting sick of Congress whining every day that Bush has to let them give him authorization again to attack Iraq. Congress already gave him authorization on September 14! He does not have to prove that Iraq is involved in terrorism to anyone other than himself, according to the Joint Congressional Resolution. Get over it already!

2002-08-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

Oh, great! Now the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing are asking for government handouts! Since when is it the government's responsibility to heal all ills? Give me a break! Sure I feel sorry for them, but why should they or the World Trade Center victims get extra money from the government? Is the government somehow responsible for terrorists who attack us? If they want to sue al-Qaida et al, fine, but why should I pay them for something somebody else did to them? It's just another example of how the liberals have gotten the American public hooked on socialistic government handouts...

2002-08-27T17:28:00.000-07:00

This is very ironic. The Dallas Morning News reported today on Dick Cheney's speeck at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, saying that it was "by far one of the administration's most detailed cases for another war against Iraq." Besides the fact that the subtitle calls Cheney Bush's "spokesman" when I haven't really seen him much at all lately, since Bush pretty much has been speaking for himself, this seems to me to be, ironically, the shortest Iraq-related article in the Press Herald since the issue came to the forefront.

2002-08-24T08:19:00.000-07:00

The "Science" page in Friday's Portland Press Herald seems very unscientific to me: "Global warming could delay ice age" blares one mixed-up headline, while the other proclaims "Catastrophic asteroid shook young Earth." The "young Earth," according to them, was already a billion years old, and that was 3.47 billion years ago.

According to the first article, the Earth is due for another ice age, since it has been 10,000 years since the last one. Of course, if you believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and that the anomalies scientists interpret as evidence of an ice age was really caused by a worldwide flood, global warming would have nothing to do with it. Make no mistake, scientists have admitted that the past occurence of a worldwide flood would explain the data just as easily as the past development of a worldwide ice cube.

Additionally, a worldwide flood is much more likely than evolution in light of the geological and paleontological evidence (that's the evidence from rocks and fossils, for those of you in Rio Linda), and that is why it disturbs me that the theory (or not) of evolution appears to be so widely accepted. Even the evidence for an old earth is not "rock-solid." For example, the carbon-14 method of dating has given new wood from growing trees as 10,000 years old, and the potassium-argon method has dated 200-year-old lava flows at 3 billion years! Moon rocks have been dated as between 2 million to 28 billion years; that's quite a range!

Now, I could go on and on about evolution (I've only read at least eight books on the subject!), but I won't. In short, my considerations are twofold: I am bothered by the fact that the media and "science" at large accept evolution as true and by the growing acquiescence of the Christian community that, if science says it, it must be so; examine the evidence, and you may discover that "science" is not as certain of its statements as it seems to be.

2002-08-23T18:23:00.000-07:00

More Media Distortions

I'm sure you read an article somewhere in your newspaper this morning about the findings of a law-enforcement surveillance court that the Department of Justice had overstepped its authorization to spy on domestic terrorists. If your newspaper is like most of the others in the country, it probably blamed the violations on John Ashcroft. It may or may not have mentioned, as the Los Angleles Times and Associated Press did and the Washington Post did not, that the violations were actually committed in the year 2000. That's right, those violations are actually the doing of Jenet Reno's Department of Justice! You'll not find this in the mainstream media...

2002-08-23T17:09:00.000-07:00

Another great Bush speech...with Rush's enlightening running commentary! Speech this afternoon in Stockton, California.

2002-08-22T08:45:00.000-07:00

Bush Blasts the Press...Gently

Ah, how I love it! Listen to the sound bites, along with Rush Limbaugh's commentary, here. Be sure to listen to the whole thing, because the best is near the end.

One thing angers me, though: in the wake of this burst of ironic eloquence, the Associated Press continues the media's perpetration of the idea that Henry Kissinger is opposed to using the military to effect regime change in Iraq. Listen to Sandra Sobieraj, most of whose paragraphs consist of a single sentence, editorializing in her article about Bush's and Rumsfeld's statements: "The high-level gathering at Prairie Chapel Ranch...took place against the backdrop of broadening doubt about his Iraq policy. Among those urging caution of late are fellow Republicans Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush's father; House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas; and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger."

Scowcroft is the national security adviser who told Bush-41 that he should be content with keeping Saddam out of Kuwait and shouldn't try to oust him from Iraq; now that was really good advice, wasn't it? The inclusion of Kissinger in the list, however, is an absolute falsehood; Kissinger has twice stated, both in an editorial in the Washington Post and in a television interview, that he agrees with the President; in fact, the purpose of his editorial was to point out the flaws in Scowcroft's reasoning!

2002-08-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

I think Kashif Mansori's op/ed column in today's edition of the local newspaper of Portland, ME, the Portland Press Herald, successfully summarizes the opinions of the opponents of President Bush's plan for "regime change" in Iraq. Certainly it gives me a good opportunity to respond to these critics.

Mansori first makes the claim that our attack would be unprovoked, and therefore a violation of international law. Now this may be technically true, but it is not hard to argue that the presence of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq is a threat to our national security. He also makes the highly improbable statement that we would lose the support of our allies; I believe that many of our allies are smart enough to see that Iraq poses and equal threat to them and would at least not attempt to hinder us in the conflict.

His next assertion is that "the war would be costly, both in terms of money and lives." Certainly it could cost many lives, but perhaps not as many as inaction would. As for money, Mr. Mansori certainly ought to know, as an assistant professor of economics at Colby College, that war has always proven a huge boon to the American economy.

Mansori next asks, "(Why) single out Iraq for attack, when we ignore other terrible (but non-Muslim) dictators who would love to acquire weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea?" Here's why, Mr. Mansori: those other dictators are not presently posing a direct threat to us or to any other nations because, as you stated, they "would love to acquire weapons of mass destruction," while Saddam already has them. As for Mansori's assertion that such a regime change would create further disturbances in the Middle East by giving them the idea that the United States is anti-Muslim, quite the contrary is actually true. We are loved by the Afghanis for having dethroned the ruling Taliban, and we would be likewise loved by the Iraqi citizenship if we were to defeat Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the citizens of all the Muslim countries would realize that we are actually helping the Muslims by replacing their hated tyrannical governments with benevolent ones "of the people." Certainly, we would alienate the other tyrannical governments in the Middle East, though they would be unsupported by their citizens, but do we really want their friendship?

I do agree with Mansori that the President ought to make sure he has the approval of Congress before attacking Iraq, but he can legally do so without an act of Congress—they have already authorized it in a vote passed with only one dissenter shortly after September 11. So do "let us continue the public debate." I think in the end it will be obvious to all that a regime change in Iraq is of utmost importance.

2002-08-20T08:12:00.000-07:00

The Christian Science Monitor has published an article which gives me a great opportunity to rave about the encroachment of evolutionary thought to the point where it is assumed to be true.

"Voyagers mark quarter-century of space exploration" tells of the 25th anniversary of the launching of the Voyager spacecraft and the possible direction that future space exploration may take. It is a very interesting article.

In the midst of this journal of science and learning, a very disturbing statement stood out to me. It is attributed to Carolyn Porco, a planetary scientist who was involved with the Voyager mission. She tells of a photograph the spacecraft took in 1990 of six of the nine planets, in which the earth appeared as a single white pixel. "That, to me, spoke of evolution—that humankind had reached the point where we could send a robotic explorer that far away to see ourselves," she said. This bothers me. Never mind the fact that, were I to see such a thing, my thoughts would probably be more along the lines of "What is man, that God is mindful of him?" Even more disturbing is the implication that an unproven theory that really doesn't even fit the scientific definition of a theory, as it has very little support from either science or mathematics, has come to be accepted as fact in Western culture.

Had Ms. Porco said that the photo spoke to her of the progress of human knowledge—that we could acquire in such a short time such incredible knowledge—I could have accepted it as the ruminations of a secular mind, and even agreed to the wonder of it. This focus on, and assumption of the factuality of, evolution, however, disturbs me greatly.

2002-08-19T15:36:00.000-07:00

Well, I never thought that my first blog would be in criticism of a fellow conservative, but so it goes...

Samuel Francis wrote an article which I read on page 3 of the issue of the Conservative Chronicle dated August 14, 2002, entitled "Police powers could endanger government." I agree with his main point, that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 should not be amended. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from performing law enforcement functions and arresting civilians in the United States.

However, near the end of his article, Mr. Francis makes the following statement: "What no one seems to have noticed, in the 11 months that have passed since Sept. 11, is that there has been no need whatsoever for most of the drastic 'emergency' counter-terrorist measures that the administration has insisted were needed to fight terrorism and prevent future attacks." With this statement I must disagree. I live in the Northeast, where we get much snow and ice in the wintertime (despite what leftists may say to the contrary). I may drive for three, five, or ten or more years without ever using the anti-lock brakes on my car, but if a small child (or an adult for that matter or, yes, even Bill Clinton) slips and falls in front of my car on an icy road, I want the ABS to be there and functional. For 22 years after the completion of the World Trade Center, the wisdom of building them to withstand the force of a collision with a commercial jetliner was never realized, but who knows how many more lives would have been lost last September had not the architect designed it with that capability.

In short, just as while most people will live their entire lives without ever seeing one of the airbags in their cars (unfortunately I cannot say the same for those in Congress) that does not mean that there is no need for their inclusion, we may never see the use of these laws that are made for our protection from terrorists like the members of al-Qaida, but that would not mean that they should not have been implemented, or even that they did not have any effect in deterring terror. (If airport security had not allowed the September 11 hijackers to board the planes, we might never have known what a great disaster had been averted.) Nor should the fact that we do not approve of some of the proposed laws cause us to cease all efforts to increase the existing protections.

2002-08-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

Getting started: Don't look for multiple updates daily from me--I'm a busy guy. But when I get the urge to editorialize, I'll be here...

Whether it's about gun control, socialism, environmentalism, or evolution, you can count on the fact that every blog from me will be truthful, blistering...and CONSERVATIVE!