At RCP there’s an article by Reid Wilson, House Republicans Face Late Exodus, goes along way on how bad things are for the Republicans:

A wave of late-breaking retirement announcements have left beleaguered House Republicans swamped in recent days as five members have told House leaders they will not seek re-election this Fall. The announcements bring to 27 the number of open seats Republicans will have to defend throughout the year, and some believe the end is not yet in sight.

Looks even grimmer when he gets into some of the details, but

The National Republican Congressional Committee, ailing financially, has at least some good news to point to: Democrats targeted two special elections earlier this year, both of which the Republican candidates handled easily. Thanks to those Democratic losses, NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said, “the DCCC has been forced to face the reality that 2006 has come and gone.” This month, too, seven serious Republican challengers have entered races the party thinks they might be able to re-take or hold.

Spain says the retirements aren't going to be the straw that breaks the committee's back, either. “Nearly all of the open seat races this cycle will occur on favorable Republican turf in a presidential election year,” he said.

But, there always a but:  

But surveying the national climate, Republicans are not hopeful of a recovery next year, and some think the retirements will continue. “A lot of people are looking at the political landscape” and deciding to drop out, said GOP consultant Craig Shirley. “Everybody on the Republican side is having a tough time raising money.”

But I have my own but, and that is locally there are two new men running--out loud as conservative Republicans.  About those dropping out, I’d like some ideological details but no one is offering.

Putting the rest of the article aside and by all means read it, but I do believe we’ve reach a defining moment.  Follow me on this:

We have a Democrat Congress which is the ironically the Lame duck.  Keep in mind Harry Reid’s approval is lower than Bush’s.  We have Republicans who threw away their majority by acting like Democrats.  Now, some of these Republicans are retiring.  Is that all bad?  Yes, this does force the RNC to scramble, but so what!  That’s their function. 

I see a shift going on, and shift is in the mind of the voter, right or left, and that shift is toward candidates which will do what the people elected them for.  The new crop of representatives will have to listen--actually, listen to their constituency.  

Sometimes, it seems that the people have a better sense of their own security, a better sense of the law and of justice, and of right and wrong. 

GOP consultant Craig Shirley joked:   â€œWith all the corruption of Congress, some might think it resembles a jail break more than a massive retirement.”

But, maybe, the public doesn’t get the joke. 

Posted by: at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 6 kb.

What I find interesting about atheists discussing free will is the fact that they don’t have free will anyway.  They can’t.  It’s impossible.  Atheists don’t understand the concept of free will and they should recognize that fact, but again, they can’t because they don’t have free will.  

But putting that little conundrum aside, I will begin by quoting Albert Einstein, Atheists always like quoting him, so Iwill start there with something from Einstein’s Out of My Later Years:

“If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?”

Let’s start with the first line: 

“If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; . . .”

First of all omnipotent means: “having unlimited power or all powerful.”   It does not mean or even imply that that power will be exercised.  So the rest of the paragraph is pointless.

So, here Einstein got it wrong.

Don’t misunderstand me.  Albert Einstein was brilliant and his work outstanding, but that doesn’t make his statement unassailable.  His understanding of the word omnipotent was wrong. 

There’s a gentleman by the name of Lawrence Louis who wrote something on free will for American Atheist, and he says what Einstein really meant was:

“This quote was made by Einstein in relation to theistic beliefs. Einstein wrote this in terms of the more commonly postulated arguments for God’s existence. Einstein used omnipotence not in the sense that God exercised direct control over our judgement and choices, but that all choices we make can draw their ultimate cause to the God. You have to read this statement in the context in which Einstein wrote it - that is from the concept of causation.”

Here we are faced with the redefining of the word omnipotent.  Mr. Louis wrote that Einstein meant “that all choices we make can draw their ultimate cause to the God.”  Now, if that is really what Albert Einstein meant by “If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; . . ,” why didn’t he just say so?

Okay. Let’s look at it this way.  Omnipotence makes people do stuff God’s way.  This smacks more of coercion . . . which doesn’t negate free will.

I’m a purist when it comes to word use, and the word was used incorrectly.  The poor usage shows, especially when an atheist comes along to explain what Albert really meant.  It seems like Atheist Apologetics.

I’ll go back to the beginning.  Atheists don’t believe in God.  Everything is an accident.  Human beings only behave in accordance with their environment and genetic make up.  There is no free will.

So, why are atheists so caught up with it?   That’s the question.

Posted by: at 12:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 7 kb.

The fact of the matter is Hillary Clinton will get the nomination.  That is still written on some stone tablet left in a filing cabinet in a dusty office in Arkansas.  Right next to where those FBI files, before they mysteriously appeared on a table in the White House.

Barack will not get the nomination.  At forty-seven, he still doesn’t have the Federal experience, only being in the Senate since 2004.  He needs time in the Senate to balance out the fact that he was no private sector experience.  Being a civil rights lawyer and community organizer (whatever that is worth.) isn't enough and outside of Illinois no one cares that he was in the Illinois Senate. 

But put eight more years behind him, not four but eight, Barack will be very difficult to beat.  That’s assuming he stays in the U. S. Senate or leaves under his own power.  I say eight years simply because I don’t believe Hillary Clinton will be elected president.  The stone table doesn’t guarantee that.  

Barack Obama is by default a Baby Boomer, but being born in 1961, he was only six during the Summer of Love, 1967  and at the high of the student protests in 1968, Barack  was . . . well, you get the picture. 

Barack is viewed as part of a different generation.  At age 47, he’s not seen by younger people as old.  But the other candidates have, if not an age-issue, some years under their belts:

Hillary Clinton Age 61

Mitt Romney Age 61

Rudy Giuliani Age 64

Mike Huckabee  Age 53

and  John McCain, an old codger at 72, has a definite age issue if the voter takes the time to look. 

 . . . Oh, I forgot:

John Edwards  Age 55

Factually, Barack isn’t that young but he has the energy of youth.  In eight years, he will only be 55 and a man to watch.  Not just his age, but his experience will show.

But all is not lost for the Republicans.  For down south, we have Piyush "Bobby" Jindal who is the current and very popular governor of Louisiana.  A mover and a shaker.  In eight years the clash may will be between two non-white candidates.  That will be an election to watch. 

Posted by: at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 6 kb.

Romney wins in Michigan!

And  . . . so what?

But again, the same can be said of McCain’s win in New Hampshire. 

And remember Huckabee in Iowa? 

Do you remember when Giuliani was the shoe in? 

Might I add that Thompson is hovering out there?  He’s still in the high teens, around 17 percent, which isn’t a bad number considering how fluid the race is. 

Also, how relevant are Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan to the entire national scheme?  Two are Midwest and the third is New England.  I won’t get into the color coding, but just the same, how can they be any kind of national reflection, considering the fact that Michigan is in deep and localized recession and lags behind the rest of the nation all because of a ruinous Democrat governor’s policies. 

The Democrat candidates aren’t fairing any better and may just be worse of for the fact that the DNC got into a snit and didn’t even recognize the Michigan primary.  Rule breaking or not, ignoring voters isn’t a way to win friends and may have a negative effect in the long run.

A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal and the Dems are running three of them.  All the voter has to do is mix and match age, gender and color. 

For the Republicans it’s a different story in the sense there’s a good deal of left/right shifting going on.  So, who knows what is going to happen in the southern primary states.  With his first place finish, Romney may have a solid second chance and Thompson maybe end up being the candidate to beat.  McCain has to face the reality that the South isn’t as liberal as he is, and he may have to slide on the ice and see if his bid survives. 

This election cycle started way too soon, and that’s Hillary Clinton’s fault.  She figured she was the shoe in, too, and would spend the year beating on the Republican candidates. 

Obama is probably surprised his bid is still alive, but will his populism hold out when push comes to shove?  

But it is interesting to see the MSM play the game of explaining and re-explaining something they don’t seem to understand, and that is, they don’t have any idea of what is going on.  Nothing is falling into place. 

This maybe the year of the voter, especially after a primary ‘fatigue’ settles in, and the voter just doesn’t want to listen anymore.  Flipping the lever in the voting booth may just be the only way to get a goodnight’s sleep by ending the long march and shutting the mouths of the political barkers.   

Posted by: at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 6 kb.

Generally, my blog and I have been dormant for the Holy Season and New Years, and now, I’m not.

To start off the New Year, I would like to proceed to my favorite subject of popular fakery The Global Warming Crisis.

From the New Stateman:

Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

This piece is golden.  As always read the whole thing, but the last line: 

“We must explain why global warming has stopped,” 

deserves comment, because how can we explain why global warming has stopped when we don’t understand how it ‘began’ to begin with?

In the Northeast, it was one degree this morning.  The chicken soup froze in the pot kept out on the back porch.  If there was Global Warming the stuff should be rancid.  Instead, pieces need to be chipped off for lunch. 

If Global Warming was a ‘done deal,’ why are the done-dealers always annoyed when someone says, “Hey!  Look at this!” 

In the TV series Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genesis (. . .yes, I have kids . . .), a character by the name of Sheen Estevez  (a great name), who’s not the sharpest knife, still has the wisdom to say, “Don’t argue with the data.”  Okay, it’s a cartoon, but the point is data is data.  It’s no crime to just-look-at-it!

The world is round for a reason--because it is.  A ship progressively ‘disappears’ over the horizon.  The mast being last!  That’s data, isn’t it? 

Back to Global Warming.

The ‘hockey stick’ is wrong:

Despite proof that the official 1,000-year temperature history (the hockey stick) is wrong, government scientists refuse to correct the flaws in the data.

Commonsense dictates that if the data is flawed, it’s wrong, and should not be arduously defended. 

Now, the real question isn't Has global warming stopped?.  It's:  When did it start?

Posted by: at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 6 kb.