What's the Truth now, Al Gore?

As Washington DC is facing over 40 inches of snow in what will be its snowiest winter in recorded history, it seems like a good time to revisit global warming. The Drudge Report recently had a link to an article whose title caught my eye. This OpEd was written by columnist Margaret Wente of Canada’s The Globe and Mail which I have quoted or paraphrased extensively in the following. (The Bush quote and sarcasm, however, are all mine.) Oh yes, the name of the article? The Great Global Warming Collapse.

We all know about Climategate, the revelation about the emails on destroying, ignoring or manipulating data in order to support the global warming cause. Then there was the verdict that the tropical rain forests would be wiped out due to global warming. It turns out that the source of that claim, according to the Sunday Times of London, was an article by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a left wing environmental activist group. This wasn’t the first or last time that global warming claims are based on data from activists with little to no scientific proof.

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary advocate and source on climate change, cautioned that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035. A spokesperson for the WWF warned of dire results if a deal isn’t struck in Copenhagen to save the Himalayan glaciers. It turns out, however, that the glacier report, along with many other global climate “studies”, was completely fraudulent. Yet again, UN IPCC based their findings not on any impartial scientific analysis but on articles written by World Wildlife Fund activists. No, really? What a surprise….

The head of the IPCC learned of this shortly before the Copenhagen summit but ignored it. There might be a reason why Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head, dismissed any reports contradicting these claims. You see, he is also part of the Energy and Resource Unit division in New Delhi, which just happens to be the division that received millions in grants based on the premise of those melting glaciers in the Himalayan’s. Cosy arrangement, yes?

Eventually Pachauri retracted the claim regarding the Himalayan glacial meltdown, but he indicated that the error was an anomaly. He defended the IPCC saying that the attacks are political. But, as Wente wrote, the tide is definitely turning against Pachauri and global warming itself. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Pachauri’s resignation and India is establishing its own group as they “cannot rely” on the IPCC. Ouch.

As the whole global warming foundation begins to crumble I can’t help but remember Al Gore’s famous statement: “The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.”

Yet no one remembers this quote by then candidate Bush during a 2000 Presidential debate against Gore where Bush said: “Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.”

Although Bush defeated Gore in the election, Gore continued to win the debate on global warming. True to his word, over the past decade Gore and his global warming activists continued to silence any scientific debate which countered their stance on climate change. And anyone who questioned his views was labelled an obstructionist, a bad scientist and worse – a conservative right wing nut and some lost their grants and even their jobs by speaking against man made global warmth.

Now, however, in the face of all the damaging news that is beginning to surface, many climate scientists sense a sinking ship and are bailing out according to Wente. Some scientists and environmentalists are starting to admit that the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. One such scientist, Andrew Weaver, goes so far as to actually say that the climate body has crossed into the line of advocacy. No, really?

Wente concludes by saying that none of this is to say that global warming isn't real. But the strategy pursued by activists and the scientists desperate to prove global warming has turned out to be fatally flawed. By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. The first casualty was Copenhagen where amidst the growing scandals it was apparent even before the first meeting that Copenhagen was never going to produce any agreements. It was a dead end and yet another wasted trip by Obama.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” wrote Walter Russell Mead, a Kissinger senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Affairs and professor at Yale. “It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.” Or as Mr. Mead succinctly puts it in his blog on The American Interest: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” Yes!

(And I can't help but add that it may have taken ten years, but once again Bush has been proven right. Although this is probably too inconvenient of a truth for Al Gore to ever admit.)

Hasn't Got A Prayer

How hypocritical of the President to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast after not only shunning the National Day of Prayer last May but also never once stepping inside a church since his election! I still might have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had spoken a short prayer, as past Presidents have done. But no, this is President Obama, who with teleprompter in place gives, not a prayer, but a lecture.

I thought it telling that he began his lecture by stating that all Americans “of all faiths and no faith… share a recognition, one as old as time, that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives." Excuse me? How could someone of no faith have a commitment to prayer? And why are they even being mentioned at this National Prayer Breakfast? Let the unfaithful have their own day of unprayers, oh wait, they do, it’s called Earth Day.

After this past year in office, no one should be surprised that President Obama took a bi-partisan prayer meeting and used it as a platform to give yet another diatribe. During his speech, Obama seemed to be scolding his listeners as he once again came across as the superior, condescending professor who is frustrated that his “students” continue to dare to disagree with him. It was telling that the President and his group in DC concluded a few weeks ago that the problem with the health care bill wasn’t the bill itself but rather that they didn’t communicate the benefits of it to the public in spite of all the press conferences, townhall meetings and speeches on health care. Running underneath these conclusions is the darker belief that the American people are just too stupid to understand the bill or to appreciate why it is good for them. This would explain why Speaker of the House Pelosi arrogantly stated that she will do whatever is necessary to pass the health care bill because she knows what is best for us.

During his National Prayer Breakfast lecture Obama continuously scolded the listeners and asked for “a return to civility”. This reminded me of Rodney King’s plea of “can we all get along” but in Obama’s case it really means that the bad conservatives need to get along with the wonderful democrats who are doing God’s work, such as the health care plan. And it was hard to miss Obama’s meaning when he “urged leaders to be empowered by faith, to step outside their comfort zone to bridge divisions and unite around their common goals.” What common goal? Or perhaps I should ask whose common goals? He further talks about the “erosion of civility” which “poisons the well of public opinion” and “makes politics an all or nothing sport” and that our crisis, such as health care become “contests for power”. Duh. Politics is a contest for power and the only time someone complains about it is when they find themselves on the losing end!

Barack Obama also took a slight detour in his lecture and provided some interesting insight into the man we call our President. During his civility lesson 101 he stated ".. surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith or for that matter my citizenship.” Oh my. The birthers are a small fringe group and yet liberals seem to love to talk about them; although not sure if mentioning them during a lecture on civility and on everybody getting along is really appropriate. As for questioning Obama’s faith, well, of course we will, in fact he has made it easy for us. As I stated earlier, he skipped the National Day of Prayer last year and has yet to attend church since his Sundays with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So President Obama has given us cause to question his faith. Granted, I might be accused of being a similar hypocrite as I am a Christian who also hasn’t set foot in a church in years. Then again, I am not the President of the USA, who appears to turn his “faith” on and off as the situation requires.

Within all this talk of civility was another plea – to not question his motives. “Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy but when we challenge each other’s motives it becomes harder to see what we hold in common.” Does he truly not get it? Americans thrive on challenging not just ideas and policies but the motives behind them. There has never been anything wrong in asking a politician “why is he doing something”. You can’t truly understand a person unless you understand his or her motive.

I wonder, though, if having his motives questioned has been a new and uncomfortable position for the president. He is no longer surrounded by people of similar motives nor is he the darling of the media any more. People actually are daring to question him. How uncivil! Instead of blindly agreeing, they are questioning his motives, his faith, and wondering if his goals are our goals.

Obama's decline in public opinion is due to the public beginning to realize that Obama’s actions are not matching up to his words. And you don’t resolve this by talking even more. Obama may give a great speech but we’ve stopped listening to what he says and are watching what he does instead. So yes we are starting to question him, no matter how uncivil it might seem.

A Tale of Two Coasts

During the President’s State of the Union he touted job creations and announced a plan to build a high speed train from Orlando to Tampa. To further emphasize this initiative, he arrived in Tampa the very next day to announce it again. Now if you’re not a Floridian then you may not know that the idea of high speed trains is not new to this state… In 2002 there was an amendment to build a similar high speed train which was passed. Just one problem. There was no mention of how Florida was supposed to pay for this thing. Two years later, after everyone came to their senses and realized how much it would cost the state, we voted it down. I guess that citizens’ wishes are now irrelevant as the President has just forced it back on us again.

Obama said that he was “giving” us $1.25 billion to build this, except that is only half of the full cost of $2.6 billion. Who is going to pay for the rest? If it is up to Floridians, forget it, we don’t have that money. So we may end up with a high speed train from the Orlando International Airport to Disney, which is Phase 1 of the project - a great boondoggle for Disney World but useless for Florida’s citizens.

But what about all the jobs it would create? It was stated that there would be 23,000 construction jobs and 1,000 professional jobs needed for this project. Let’s take the professional jobs, first. We would need to look to Europe or Japan for the expertise and professionals to oversee this project. The trains themselves, would also most likely be primarily built overseas, too. But there would still be the 23,000 construction jobs which would help Florida’s employment, right? I don’t think so.

Everybody jokes about seeing a group of construction workers standing around and watching one guy work but what about 229 men watching one guy? You see, there are approximately 80 miles between the Orlando International Airport and Ybor City, the proposed final destination. Let’s even say there is another 20 miles to go over to Disney and other tracks needed at the airport and Lakeland, another destination point. The proposed 23,000 jobs works out to 230 men per mile! I don’t’ know about you, but the 23,000 projected jobs seems as out of whack as most government projections.

Even if they found the money to complete it to Tampa, there is still the question of who would ride it. I just don’t see that there is enough demand for people going between Orlando and Tampa to support the $2.6 billion cost. I’ve driven this route frequently and it simply is not a bad drive.

They say the train will halve the current trip of about 90 minutes to roughly 40 minutes. But that omits the added time to get to the train station and find a parking space. Nor does it resolve the practicalities of getting where you need to go without a car if you arrive by train. Then add in our Florida weather. I read that they are thinking of powering it with electricity. Hmmm. I am not sure if I would want to get on a metal train attached to an electric line during the daily summer lightening storms. Not to mention how often we lose power which would mean the train could frequently be stranded somewhere in the middle of orange groves… Driving straight over would make more sense and would probably be quicker in the long run, all things considered.

In the shadow of the “excitement” for the Orlando to Tampa high speed train there was another quieter announcement this week about the other coast of Florida. Obama has proposed that NASA use its budget to maintain the International Space Station and keep it viable to 2020 and abandon the effort to return to the moon. In one stroke Obama will effectively destroy NASA’s future. This change in focus will cancel NASA’s Project Constellation which was working on replacing our aging space shuttles with new capsule based systems. This simply does not make sense and is not only detrimental to my state but to the whole country.

This new change in the focus of NASA is expected to result in the loss of 7000 jobs in Florida, on top of the 900 people let go last fall. And these are skilled engineers and scientists with high paying jobs who will be now removed from Florida’s tax base. There would be comparable losses in Houston, California and other states which have facilities that support NASA.

Obama’s budget would destroy our space program as we would no longer have any shuttles and nothing in the works to replace them. Even worse, it means that we would end up funding Russia’s space program as they would have the only remaining transportation to the ISS and our astronauts would have to hitch a ride with the Russians, for a price, of course. Thus Obama would destroy our space program while supporting Russia’s.

Last week, on the west coast Obama proposed a high speed train at a cost of at least $2.6 billion, which nobody wants or will use. He is giving us only half the cost so this state, which had already voted down a similar project, will now be saddled for the other half. On the east coast, NASA has been told to abandon our space programs which will loose 7,000 high paying jobs. We need to tell the President he has it backwards (again). Abandon the ridiculous and unwanted high speed train and instead support our future space programs. For in the long run, probably more men and women will fly into space then will ever ride that train.

Farewell 2009

A lot of people, including myself, will be glad to see the last of 2009. It has been a year of fears and terrors, economic recession and emotional depression, political hardball and hard court presses, where reality couldn’t live up to unrealistic hopes and hero’s were tarnished and cut down from their lofty perches. No, not much good occurred in this ninth year of the new millennium.

2009 nonetheless began with hope and optimism even in the midst of the continuing financial meltdowns. No matter your political affiliations you had to be touched and inspired by this great country which has become color blind after a history of injustices. You could understand the tears streaming down the upturned faces alit with hope and optimism when Obama was sworn in.

And yet Obama has turned into a fun house illusion. It is part arrogance and part inexperience and the combination has resulted in a multitude of errors. Perhaps the greatest is that he simply has yet to become the President. Oh he may sit in the Oval Office but he does so as a usurper. He still is playing the roles he knows best – Community Organizer, lawyer, Chicago politician, Ivy League alumni and always the mantle of being black in America lies across his shoulders instead of the mantle of the presidency.

The surprising thing is that this man, who can inspire with his speeches, has actually turned out to be cold and distant without his teleprompter. It feels as if he is treating this country as some lawyerly experiment; setting up new policies giving untold power to the government in the supposed goals of helping the citizens. And yet has any of this truly helped? What has his stimulus package stimulated other than more work for the bureaucrats but none for the people?

Somehow Obama has managed to offend both the left (Guantanamo Bay still holds prisoners, increased action in Afghanistan) and the right (health care, stimulus packages) and everyone in between with the handouts to the financial giants. Time and time again he misjudges situations – siding with his friend and calling the police stupid, going to plug Chicago for the Olympics, going to the climate convention which ended in complete failure by the participants to agree with anything measurable, not going to the memorials for WWII etc. etc.

There was an overall undercurrent of disgust and anger running through the citizenry this year. People were appalled by the ACORN debacle when up and down the Eastern coast employees of the ACORN organization showed their lack of respect for the law with their disgraceful and disgusting fawning over the alleged pimp and Madame who were trying to purchase a house for illegal underage prostitution.

After watching the inept Congress try to destroy the democracy this country was founded on people finally rose up and said “Enough!” The Tea Parties, ignored for the most part by the main stream, were a true phenomenon harking back to earlier times of rebellion by the people, of the people and for the people. Average citizens had reached the tipping point and their anger and frustration had evolved into action.

Yet Congress continues to blindly push through their agendas. In their arrogance they justify their actions with the rationalization that they know what is best for the country even if it is at odds with what the majority believe. And the politician who dares to question this is both threatened and bribed by Reid or Pelosi who are willing to do whatever it takes to pass their bills. And yet they wonder why 65% disapprove the job Congress is doing.

The year began with the US President refusing to use the word terrorist or even concede that we are at war. Absurdly, he even won a Nobel Peace Prize for no explicable reason. Obama was to be the start of a glorious new era, an anti-Bush era, where everyone now loved America because we had a President who cared and could feel their pain, so to speak. The only problem is that no one told the terrorists that they no longer existed and that there was no war.

We end the year with what an increase in terror attacks for it doesn’t seem as if these fanatics got the word. They didn’t realize that Bush was gone and Obama, a man who once lived in a Muslim country, was now America’s President. In fact, world leaders didn’t seem to understand that in Obama, the U.S. now had a President who, unlike the warmongering Bush, was willing to let bygones be bygones. Or perhaps they did. For recently the head of Iran and China and Russia and Venezuela and oh so many other countries are giving us more troubles and simply aren’t playing nice even though we are led by a man who told them that he wants to be friends.

For someone who has always been able to see the silver lining in any situation, I must admit to being hard pressed to find even a silver thread in this past year. Perhaps the best I can do is to say that the best thing about 2009 is that it is now over!

Arrogance over Protocol

The recent gatecrashers at the White House bring to mind what happens when a new administration comes into office. Understandably, they are pumped up over their recent win and now want to put their own mark on the country. Unfortunately new administrations also have the tendency to walk over the rank and file and don't listen to the real people who run the departments regardless of who is president. The new presidents tell the old-timers that they don't want to hear the excuse of "that's how we always did it" and now want things done their way. However, the new administration has neither the experience nor the patience to listen to the very peope who could help them. In their arrogance at being elected Presidents don't understand that the intricate protocol that has been perfected over the past 100 years enables new presidents to fulfill their new duties with poise and class and avoid potentially embarrassing mistakes. I have a sneaking suspician that this is at the heart of the lapse in security at the Obama's first state dinner.


If I remember correctly, there were horror stories about the last two Democratic administratons. Both the Clinton and the Carter incoming teams were young, inexperienced and few on their team had much managerial skills or spent any time in DC. Yet these young politicians came across as arrogant, cocky, power hungry and charged with the belief that they were empowered to do whatever they felt was best for the country. There were rumors that the Clintons sold overnight stays at the White House to major donors or their Hollwood friends. Then there was Bill Clinton's conduct in the White House with that woman which showed a complete lack of respect for the office of the President and for the White House, itself. Carter wasn't much better as he invited his adolescent daughter to a formal state function where she then proceded to read a book at the dinner table.

In contrast to the disastors created by Carter and Clinton's administrations, both of the Bush's had very smooth transitions. Yes, George HW Bush went from VP to President, retaining a number of people from Reagan's regime. But Bush himself was a career politician who knew the ins and out of Washington. Ford was another old time politician who stepped into the void left by one of the country's most traumatic experiences. Yet Ford was still able to assure the country and the world that the US would continue intact. But this kind of transition isn't always that smooth, as both LBJ and Truman had very rocky transitions from VP to President.


Clinton's administration not only began disastrously but it ended equally shamefully with stories of trashed offices and destroyed computers. But, like his father, George W. Bush had class and never complained about the mess left by the Clintons. And unlike the Clintons and Carters, Bush had a team that included career politicians who understood DC, which helped his team have an easier transition than if they were all newcomers.


Now we have Obama who has even less experience than Carter and Clinton, who had both been governors. To his credit, Obama did keep a few men from Bush's administration. This was particularly helpful in providing a smooth transition to our military, although, ironically, this caused Obama a lot of grief with the very liberal base who elected him.


In spite of the media's shunning of any negative story about the Obama administration, more and more cracks are starting to appear. People are beginning to question if mistakes are being made due to Obama's ignorance and inexperience or perhaps due to his determination to do things his way or to a combination of all of the above.


There are Obama's continuing bows to other state leaders when rarely if never has a President bowed that low for it is seen as a symbol of weakness. At times Obama comes across as too parochial. He had a favorite during the World Series, he of course cheered on the Chicago basketball team and he somehow found the time to travel overseas to help promote his hometown in its failed bid for the Olympics. On the other hand, he snubbed all of the activities regarding World War II.


Speaking of traveling, he really shouldn't be proud of the fact that he has traveled more than any other president in the first year. Someone with more experience, who truly understands his role as President, which isn't to go sightseeing with his wife and kids, belongs first and foremost at home. This is especially true when the country is hurting as much as the US is with the high unemployment, horrible housing markt and in the middle of a major recession.


And now we have a couple breaking through what should be extreme security to crash the Obama's first state dinner. (I also can't help but wonder why it took them 10 months before they had their first major official event.) I am sure that the Secret Security will take a major hit for this breach in security. Yet there are faint hints that the Obamas have tried to relax some of the security surrounding the White House and themselves. Perhaps once again a young inexperienced first couple is bulldozing over the rank and file so that they can do things their way. They might not realize that there is a reason behind the established protocol. Both of the Obamas need to stop talking so much and to start listening to the old-timers around them. Their very lives might depend upon it.

Happy Thanksgiving

Many years ago after a heated Thanksgiving Day discussion with my father, he quoted Winston Churchill who said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." I can't help but think of this quote as families gather round the Thanksgiving dinner table today.

A big part of the charm of Thanksgiving is that it does bring together multiple generations. No surprise then that these differing generations will result in children of all ages clashing with parents. And thanks to our longer living elders, it is not unusual for the middle aged to be the parent while carving the turkey and then the child by the time the pumpkin pie is being served.

I worry, however, that the family arguments this Thanksgiving will be more heated, more divisive then in the past. Even though we all know better than to discuss religion, sex or politics within the family nonetheless our political differences will permeate the dinner table like an unwanted guest. Make a toast to every one's health and the next thing you know there is an argument about the health care plan. Offer a prayer of thanksgiving and it turns into a heated discussion about religion and schools. I worry that nearly any innocent word or gesture will become a launching point for a vitriolic discussion from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

I had forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was the President who nationalized this holiday. I mention this because it seems to me that the chasm between the Liberals and Conservatives today is not necessarily due to Churchill's generational gulf such as we had in the 1960's but that it dates back another hundred years to the 1860's Civil War's North vs. South division. I realize that it is dangerous for me to say this out loud because Liberals will now label me as a bigot because I am a Southerner. Their tunnel vision will immediately conclude that I, like all Southerners, dislike Obama because he is an African American and therefore all Conservative Southerners, must be racists. I am not naive enough to believe that there are no racists; I am sure that Obama's heritage is a problem for some Southerners.

But I think it is just as racist to feel compelled to like someone because of his race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. as it is to dislike someone for the same reason. The people I know who dislike Obama do so not because of his race but because of his politics. Conservatives are fearful that Obama is rapidly changing our country by gathering more and more power to the federal government by taking power away from the individuals and states. Just as this was a major factor in the Civil War, it is again a division between the North and South rather than a generational chasm.

It just occurred to me that this argument is even older than the Civil War and in fact stems back to the very beginning of our country. While writing the Declaration of Independence and setting up our first government a feud broke out between Northerner John Adams and Southerner Thomas Jefferson. Adams sounding like Kennedy, Kerry or any other fellow Massachusetts politician argued for more power for the federal government and less for the individual. While the Southern tea bag parties echoed the refrain first stated by Thomas Jefferson who wanted greater state and individual rights and a weaker federal government.

And now here we are 250 years later sitting around the Thanksgiving dinner table and still arguing for a stronger central government while others heatedly argue against it. Perhaps the very fact that our forefathers were divided over the issues that divide us today will help put it into perspective.

So whether you love him or hate him, the truth is that Obama's policies probably won't matter in the long run. The United States has been arguing the very same topics since our beginning and yet we still stand tall and strong as a beacon of freedom for the whole world to see. Now that is something for which we can all be thankful.

Finally, on a personal note, I have an awful lot to be thankful for this year. Just the fact that I am alive, healthy and have both legs is a minor miracle. And I am thrilled that although I missed the family reunion because of my health I was still eventually able to be with my family and will sit down to our Thanksgiving dinner with four generations. But most of all, I am thankful for all my friends and family's help, prayers and thoughts during this very difficult year. Thank you and may y'all have a wonderful and peaceful Thanksgiving.

Follow Up

A few weeks ago I wrote the following blog about the loss of childhood freedomsz during what had been a relatively slow week. Then something happened which caught my attention so I tucked this article away for this week when I knew I would be busy preparing for Thanksgiving next week.

Imagine my surprise when after publishing my reminisces of childhood freedoms I found the following article on www.Time.com Can These Parents Be Saved about overly protective parents! So if you want to read more, and I do mean more as Tme devotes four pages on line to this topic then check out this Times article. However, after page after page of hand wringing over helicopter parents the Time article concludes pretty much with what I started out with:

If you embrace this rather humbling reality, it will be easier to follow the advice D.H. Lawrence offered back in 1918: "How to begin to educate a child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning."
Of course, that was easy for him to say. He had no kids.

And I suppose I should also disclose that I don't have kids either. But I was one....

Lost Childhood Freedoms

Do you remember the feeling you had when you were a kid and you were riding your bike? The wind was in your face and the hot sun beating down, speeding away or perhaps swaying back and forth or maybe practicing wheelies. You were in your own little world where there were no parents or siblings or even friends to bother you or pick a fight or break the silence with their talking. Nope, instead the world consisted of just you and your bike.

I thought of that because today we are never on our own and out of touch with the world as we were when we were kids 20+ years ago. As adults we are plugged into the world 24/7 thanks to cell phones, blackberries, PCs, and round the clock cable news. And I doubt if even kids today will ever know that kind of freedom; as they are always carrying their cell phones too.

I feel sorry for these kids today. Every 12 year old needs to think that they have eluded their parent’s grasp and are free to do whatever it is 12 year olds want to do. My parents probably never knew that my friend and I would save our pennies then would bike a few miles away to a park where we would rent a little row boat. We would row out to the middle of the lake then stretch out in the boat; eat our forbidden Twinkies and simply float around; daydreaming, looking at the clouds while trailing a hand in the water and of course talking and giggling. It was harmless but to us it was magical as it was our little secret getaway.

I couldn’t even begin to imagine that idyllic summer scene interrupted by the insistent ring of a cell phone. To have that quiet escape broken by a mother’s interrogation of where are you, what are you doing, who are you with, when will you be home, etc. etc. Yet that is now the every day life for children today.

Perhaps parents reading this would be horrified if their 12 year olds went off on a similar little escapade. I am almost embarrassed to admit just how free we really were back then. (Oh my, I am turning into an old foggie complete with the prerequisite “In my day…”) Anyway, we were freer and less fearful than kids today. Take riding my bike for example. I had no helmet or pads and would have thought anyone wearing that stuff was a sissy. (Ok a part of me still thinks that!) I would think those funny little helmets were hot and would definitely interfere with the wind blowing through my hair.

I could, however, understand wearing a hardhat during my horseback riding lessons. But a bike? Over the years, I was thrown more times from a horse than a bike and yet even then I still never landed on my head. I wonder if making kids wear the helmets is also making them more fearful. Seems to me the kids of my childhood were fearless. I admit to a healthy respect and fear of falling from a horse but I never once worried about falling from a bike. I loved that bike. Yet making a child wear a helmet implicitly tells a child that riding a bike is dangerous; that you could fall and get hurt so be afraid and wear this helmet. How sad.

When I was young my sisters and I knew that we needed to be in whistle range. Mom had this very loud whistle and when it was time to come home she would stand on the front steps and call us with the whistle. So as long as we could still hear the whistle we were free to explore the neighborhood. When we were older we were given even more freedom. I had friends who lived a mile or more away and after getting permission would hop on my bike to go to their homes. No cell phones, just my trusty bike and I facing the world together.

Today my 11 year old niece is nervous about walking two blocks in her upscale residential neighborhood to her bus stop. (Although in her defense, this same young lady thinks nothing of hurling her body in flips while staying on a balance beam!) Nonetheless, she worries that maybe someone might try to kidnap her. Wow. Has the world changed that much? Were there not pedophiles when I was a child? I would think there were. I just wonder if no one talked about it back then, not even on the news. And so if you were ignorant then you could be carefree as ignorance truly is bliss.

Stranger – danger is what is drilled into today’s children. But the majority of strangers are not dangerous. The odds are that most children would go through their childhood and never meet a dangerous stranger. And yet they are taught to be afraid of all of them. How very sad. And think what they are missing by being scared to talk to an adult.

I worry that we are teaching our children to be afraid of life. Be afraid of your bike and wear a helmet. Be afraid of strangers and stay away. Be afraid of someone with the sniffles – you might catch the swine flu. Is this what Political Correctness is doing to our children? Making them afraid of life? What kind of grown ups will they become? What kind of America will we become? Now I think I am afraid….

Names do matter

After Nidal Malik Hasan killed and wounded our soldiers at Fort Hood, some woman being interviewed said with a straight face “I wish his last name was Smith.” And for me, that summarizes all this PC stupidity.

People just won’t admit the fact that a large group of radical Muslims want to incite terror and kill us. Liberals are so afraid of being politically incorrect that they simply refuse to face reality. Wake up America! It’s not ‘Smiths’ or ‘O’Brians’ or ‘Yamamoto’s’ who have issued jihads or holy wars against us. It’s people with Arabic names. It’s people who are Muslim’s. It’s people who hate our way of life and the very freedom for which we stand.

We need to recognize that we can no longer sit back and enjoy our freedoms. Our freedoms and way of life are being attacked. And not just with bullets. They are using our very own freedoms and courts to shelter and advance their malignant religious rules and laws. Already there are examples of how they are trying to corrupt our country with their extreme laws. At least some reporters are starting to investigate the murder of Muslim women who dared to be Americanized. Women who only wanted to dress like Americans, get an education, be more than the wife to a radical Muslim husband who believes he has the right to kill his wife without facing any penalties by his culture. In fact, why aren’t more women libbers taking up the cause of these Muslim women? They were sure quick to go after radical Mormons who illegally had multiple wives. Yet they are suspiciously quiet while radical Muslim men abuse their wives and daughters in the name of Allah and the Koran.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that we are a country of nice people. It is almost impossible for us to understand that radical Muslims could treat their women that cruelly. And then there is the little fact that millions of strangers want us dead. Liberals refuse to believe this. They think maybe if they could talk to them, sit down and listen to their leaders, perhaps even understand where they “are coming from” that they could then find some common bonds that will lead to understanding and acceptance. Wrong. Sure they will sit down and talk, their leaders might even make promises to be better in the future. And then at the earliest opportunity they will find a way to kill our soldiers and blow up innocent bystanders with their suicide bombers and ignore their promises.

When the world doesn’t act in a manner that Liberals approve of then Liberals end up turning issues inside out arguing that enemies are friends and friends are enemies? Words no longer mean what we were taught and they give nicer names to things that threaten them so as to feel better. They will insulate themselves by believing that they are superior to other Americans and that their greater intelligence allows them to see the “big picture” and understand the other side. They will always argue that a minority is at the mercy of the oppressive white man. Ironically, most Liberals won’t believe the stereo types of the "abused" minority but will quickly embrace any negative stereo type of the rest of us. And the scary part is that this group is who is running our country today.

Now we had a man of Arabic background, a Muslim, go on a shooting spree killing unarmed soldiers. I had hoped that perhaps our military hadn’t been quite as corrupted by political correctness such as our universities, media and local schools have been. This episode with Fort Hood demonstrates just how wrong I was. Political correctness, fear of upsetting a minority, worrying about playing fairly; it is this stupidity that allows a US soldier like Hasan to go so far as to communicate with al Qaeda and email with a radical imam. Not only was his outrageous conduct tolerated but this traitor was even promoted and sent to Fort Hood. Why did no one stop him? How many more unstable Muslims are there in our military? And better yet, does the FBI or military have what it takes to finally go after these men now?

What makes it doubly hard is that much of the hatred begins and ends in their temples. Radical Imams preach against the godless Americans, raise their children to despise us and our way of life, imprison their women into a life of servitude and encourage their young men that killing Americans is not only right but will give them eternal gratitude when they give their life for the cause. And these temples are not just found overseas. They are here in America, too.

Of course not every Muslim temple harbors radicals. But we need to stop the PC bullshit and admit that yes, some of them are our enemies. We need to be penetrating these temples, putting in taps and all that espionage stuff and letting the FBI do their job; rather than being persuaded by liberals and the ACLU start that we are being prejudicial and unfair to this religion. We need to recognize that there are cores of truth in stereo types. We need to take action if someone is showing questionable actions, such as this Hasan had without worrying that some ACLU lawyer will come after you.

And maybe the first step is to call things by their right names. When Nidal Malik Hasan began killing unarmed soldiers it was a terrorist attack; Hasan was literally creating terror and fear and not a “man made disaster” which is what our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano would have you call it. That’s right. A terrorist attack is supposed to be called a man made disaster. It would be laughable if it weren’t so, well, terrifying.

Tenaciously Optimistic

I heard a phrase the other day which immediately resonated in me. I don’t remember where I heard it but the phrase was “tenaciously optimistic”. Isn’t that great? We all know people who never seem happy; who complain about every little thing that happens to them. On the other hand, there are those few people who truly have had terrible adversities in their life and yet they still seem happy. They are tenaciously optimistic. They know that when life throws you a curve ball it would be easy to feel sorry for yourself or become bitter but instead they work to remain hopeful and cling to their belief that life is to be enjoyed. I should know. I also think that this phrase describes the attitudes of our best politicians and leaders, not just here but world wide.

Think of Winston Churchill who never gave up during WWII. One of his many quotes that he is famous for is: ... we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Wow. Now that is the epitome of being tenaciously optimistic! Churchill had faith that they would win but he knew they would have to work hard to achieve that win; in other words they needed to be tenaciously optimistic.

Our most revered Presidents are also those who were tenaciously optimistic. Roosevelt inspired Americans with his upbeat view during the Great Depression and then WWII. In fact, Roosevelt applied this sentiment in his personal life. He could have been bitter after being struck by polio and losing the ability to walk. Instead he fought to be happy. So did Kennedy who also had serious illnesses and a debilitating back problem. Like Roosevelt, he overcame his personal problems with humor and confidence that he could do anything.

Perhaps the President who most exemplified tenacious optimism was President Reagan. He was elected during a terrible recession, interest rates greater than 20%, unemployment well over 10% and an energy crisis. Yet during his campaign he exuded optimism and hope that things would be better. And the American people responded and swept him into office twice. How could you not admire a man who as he was being wheeled into surgery after being shot during an assassination attempt quipped to his wife “Honey, I forgot to duck.” Reagan knew that humor is frequently used as a means to deflect adversities.

Obama was also tenaciously optimistic. He would have to be as he was the first African American to be on the Democratic ticket for President. Few African Americans ever thought there would be a black president in their lifetime but not Obama. He even turned his tenacious optimism into his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”. And he did.

I mention this because I heard someone, I think it was the Republican House Minority Whip, say that the two Republicans who just became governors of Virginia and NJ were “sunny Republicans”. The pundits discussed how these two Republicans each ran a campaign of hope and ideas of how to improve life for the citizens of their state. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates ran angrier campaigns attacking their opponent and playing the blame game. Voters have shown over and over that they don’t respond to those kinds of campaigns. We don’t want leaders to blame other people, we want them to explain how they will improve the situation. And once again voters responded to the tenacious optimism of the Republican candidates of Virginia and New Jersey.

Something else has occurred to me. As previously mentioned, when running for President, Obama was enthusiastically hopeful with his “Yes We Can” motto. But since becoming President he seems to have lost that ebullience and hopefulness. Instead every time he gives a speech it is about doom and gloom, how bad things are and continuously blaming President Bush for all the problems. In looking back, Clinton had a lot of problems but if not exactly cheerful, he did have this cocky self assurance. Carter, however, was like an old time Southern Baptist pastor preaching of fire and brimstone unless people changed. He lasted one painful term and yet never learned for he is still preaching doom and gloom.

All the pundits are analyzing the election results from last night. What does it portend for Obama and his agenda? How will it affect the health care bill? What does it mean for the Republican party? Personally, I think the message is an old one. That voters are tired of being told how awful life is, they know that things are tough all over. They don’t need politicians telling them how bad it is or blaming the other party and voters definitely don’t want politicians telling them that they need to sacrifice (ie. pay higher taxes) in order to help others. And they also respond badly to threats – that if they don’t do something then life will be horrible in the future (think climate change).

Voters want those “sunny Republicans”. They want to hear that life is good and is only going to get better. They want solutions but not solutions that makes life tougher for themselves. They want leaders who are confident and hopeful in a better future. Leaders who won’t promise easy fixes since most of the time the voters end up paying for that. Instead these leaders will tell you how they will work to improve your family’s life. These leaders are tenaciously optimistic; finding joy and pride in America even during the darkest hours and exuding hopefulness that we can work together to create a shining future.