Search This Blog

Monday, November 30, 2009

Mad, I Tell You, Mad

There is now no question about it, the world has gone mad. Yes, mad I tell you, mad.

Now, I don't know if part of that madness is what follows or not but it seems when an issue arises anymore sides are immediately chosen. That starts the personal attacks and changes of arguments on the part of the Democrats; the defensive posturing and kowtowing from the Republicans. Oh, you can forget about the goal of whatever is going on because to get lost in the means is much more fun -- and expensive. The means requires investigations, committees, panels, discussion, debate, and finally legislation that has no resemblance to a cure for the ills. What the legislation does do is regulate the means to the point where the road seems to narrow. Actually, the road is the same size it's always been, the politicians just close any other route available that might reach the goal sooner, cheaper, and better.

One of the most blatant examples of the picking of sides is regarding the War on Terror. We are at war, folks. There are people that want to kill us because we ARE us. They want to, they have, and they will slice through our necks and joyously celebrate our deaths. After all their interpretation of God is the only one that matters.... just like Jesus is the only one that matters to Christians... but I digress...

The Republicans have chosen the side of defense (surprise-surprise ) and the Democrats have chosen the side of tolerance (surprise-surprise ). Dems think that if we just talk with the muslim/jihadists we will understand where they're coming from and vice versa. They think the enemy will understand and accept us if we show them how much we're willing to give aid to them. They think the 20-something Arabs will take a liking to us if they could only look into our hearts.

In the 1950s and 60s the United States' civil rights issue exploded. Should we have listened to the people that attacked blacks when they tried to live their lives in society? Would they have changed their opinions if we "understood where they're coming from?"

And now there is the 'global warming' supporters who are embarrassed by the revelation of suppressed evidence that gw isn't happening. They are not calling for an investigation of the United Nations' committee chairman but he is calling for an investigation into the hacking of their computers! Guess which side the mainstream media will take a liking to?! Soon we'll know the possible sentences and fines for hacking but we will not know how scientific facts were swept under the rug and ignored to prop up junk science.

I think we ought to listen to the hacker.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Jerry.... Jerry..... HEY, JERRY!! LISTEN UP!!

Jerry.... Jerry... JERRY!!... Put down the bong, step away from public service. What do you mean we have an expectation of privacy of our trash when you won't protect our privacy by keeping illegals out of the state?!? Oh, I'm sorry... I'm talking a little over your pay grade. I know you're the Attorney General and it's up to you to enforce the laws but there are just some laws that don't need enforced -- and YOU get to be the guy to decide which!! Certainly I want you to keep my trash sacred.

Well, we just glossed right over the fact that they're under investigation so what are they doing throwing any-fucking-thing away anyway?!?! He mentions that 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election for Obama. And what, pray tell, does that have to do with ACORN destroying documents??

You know, Jer, you might want to consider giving up the hallucinogens, too...

Monday, November 23, 2009

This Is Your President or This Could Be Your President

There was a story in the Spiegel Online International about President Obama's trip to Asia and the rewards he reaped for us. This is an independent German media news outlet, beholding to no one political faction or stated ideology.

The lead on the US Foreign Policy page reads, Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage.Other stories are: on the Opinion page, 'Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change; in The World from Berlin section: 'Obama's Soft Approach on China Won't Succeed'; Reluctant Partners: Global Crisis Makes US More Dependent on China than Ever.

Let's just suppose that those articles were published by say, the New York Times, or on MSNBC, or even in the Wall Street Journal. Would American politicians have the temerity to take a stand, to be..... a .... rogue? Gosh, who is in that role now? (Nice segue, huh?)

Sarah Palin calls herself a rogue. Rogue is defined as a vagrant, tramp, a worthless person, (now we're getting to the good stuff) a mischievous person, or a scamp. It's also a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave and I think that's just what folks have in mind when they call her a rogue. She doesn't answer questions put to her like a politician -- she actually gives an answer. She doesn't hide and to other politicians that's frightening.

The left is afraid of her and it's hilarious! Even though Obama's rhetoric was about change, he did not even posture for a second once he took office. It has been nothing but literally a sham to see the corruption in his administration. Stupid, preposterous ideas such as: spending our way to prosperity and printing money to do that; an idea like paying for health care in part by eliminating fraud in Medicare. [Hey, Barry! What's to stop you from battling that fraud today?!?]

Can you imagine the spin and positions the left would have to come up with if Sarah Palin and Ron Paul got together? Talk about rogues.....

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Hey! Those Senators Are Smarter Than We Are!!

Here's a portion of the health care bill now before the Senate:
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and 2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.





ALL OF THE ABOVE IS LEGALESE, SENATESE, CONGRESSESE, POLITICIANESE FOR....

LOUISIANA.


That's it... all of that language to say Louisiana.... and it's going to cost us $100,000,000.00. Oh, yeah, this is just so a Senator from Louisiana will vote for this stinking piece of crap legislation.

Also, there is the rumbling to make the Senate clerks read the entire bill aloud, perhaps as many as three times before it's finally brought to a vote. Hell, no Senator is going to sit and READ the entire bill let alone listen to it. In fact NONE OF THEM EVEN WROTE THE THING. It was written by the Apollo Alliance. They are an environmental group founded to promote a 'green society.' The list of founders reads like a playbook for the left, too:


The founding board members of the Apollo Alliance are:

* Senator Maria Cantwell, US Congress (D-WA).
* Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers.
* Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., US Congress (D-IL).
* Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

National Steering Committee

* Ruben Aronin, Global Green USA
* Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations
* Robert L. Borosage, Institute for America's Future
* Dan Carol, CTSG, Young Apollo
* Maggie Fox, Sierra Club
* Bracken Hendricks, Apollo Alliance
* Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* Mindy Lubber, Ceres
* Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
* Joel Rogers, Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS)
* Marco Trbovich, United Steelworkers of America (USWA)

There's not a Republican nor a Libertarian in this group lending no credence to a bi-partisan effort. Now there's a bit more Hope and Change for ya!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

News Article Published Today

Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."

According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."

The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.

A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.

And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.

"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.

"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.

"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."

Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."

He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"

Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"

"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."

But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.

There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:

— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.

— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.

— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."

On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."

"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.

Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.

This time, he said, "They listened."

Fox News' Jana Winter contributed to this report.

Another Article Not on MSNBC

Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."

According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."

The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.

A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.

And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.

"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.

"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.

"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."

Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."

He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"

Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"

"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."

But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.

There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:

— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.

— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.

— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."

On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."

"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.

Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.

This time, he said, "They listened."

Thursday, November 5, 2009

The New York Times article from November 5, 2009

Check out this story from the New York Times today. Isn't it cute the way he revealed a personal anecdote from America's First Family who's just like you and me? Following the story are a couple of comments I made on the page awaiting "approval." I sure hope they pass muster with the Times.

______________________________________________

The Caucus - The Politics and Government blog of The New York Times
November 4, 2009, 4:31 pm
Obama Uses Malia’s Test Scores as a Teaching Example
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

MADISON, Wisconsin – President Obama marked the first anniversary of his election on Wednesday by calling on states to toughen their education standards – and wound up calling on parents to toughen theirs, too, as he confessed that his 11-year-old daughter, Malia, recently got a 73 on her science test.
...... toward the end of his speech, Mr. Obama diverted from his prepared text to talk about his daughter’s experience in school – a rarity for a president who has tried his best to keep his children’s lives a private matter.
“Malia and Sasha are just wonderful kids ,and Michelle is a wonderful mother,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But even in our own household, with all the privileges and opportunities we have there are times when the kids slack off. There are times when they would rather be watching TV or playing a computer game than hitting the books.’’
Then, to a chorus of oooohs from the crowd, he said that Malia, a sixth-grader at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, had come home with a 73 on her science test not long ago. He recounted how, a few years ago, she had come home with a grade in the 80s, believing that she had ‘’done pretty well.’’ He and his wife corrected her, telling her that their goal was “90 percent and up.’’
“So here’s the interesting thing: she started internalizing that,’’ the president said, adding that when she came home with a 73 on the science test ‘’she was depressed.’’ He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn’t match up with the test. So she vowed to study harder.
“So she came home yesterday, she got a 95,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But here’ the point: She said, ‘You know , I just like having knowledge.’’
The moral of the story, in the president’s view: “Don’t just expect teachers to set a high bar. You’ve got to set a high bar.”

_________________________________________________
Now on with the comments:

Wait a second...... so let me get this straight: a while back this girl got good grades on her own without any "special" attention, just being raised by loving parents. Then, on her own, she floundered a bit. Her loving parents encouraged her to work harder and earn a better outcome. I notice they did NOT have someone else come in for the assist; they did NOT give her money, another book, a desk, food stamps, general relief, WIC, or any other entitlements -- they just taught her to work a little harder and put her nose to the grindstone. And then the outcome was a better grade and sense of accomplishment, true pride, and willingness to keep doing better?? Is that what this story says?!?!?!
In that case what the kid SHOULD do, because it’s her moral obligation, is give 28% of her score to spread amongst her neighbor’s kid who’s out skateboarding at the mall, the fat kid lying on the couch eating Ho-Ho's while dad's with his buddies drinking beer on the porch, the girls at the mall watching the boy skateboard, and the poor minority kids playing basketball at the park. Then she needs to give 8.125% to the government so she’ll have a retirement income to supplement her own savings, and the school needs to chip in the same amount. She also needs to devote about 7.5% to the District of Columbia even though she doesn’t go to school there but, again, it’s that moral obligation thing. That should bring her in line with the mainstream — but we encourage her to keep doing better so she can “give back” more to the society that handed her all that good fortune.

But that ain't gonna happen. She's gonna keep it all because she earned it; she worked hard for it and it instilled self esteem and a desire to continue to do better.


Daddy is actually raising a capitalist.

Monday, November 2, 2009

An Article from April 2008 by Thomas Sowell

This is an old article but is certainly appropriate today. After you read it, check out the author.


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.