Sunday, July 22, 2007


An interesting chart in the New York Times. A candidate is more likely to be supported if he or she has been in the military, had a business career, is a long-time Washington politician, and is a Christian. It sounds a lot like ????.


The title of an interesting column in the Washington Post by a Pakistani American. Most Americans fail to consider the impact of even the "little" foreign policy decisions and how it effects people in other countries.

But that was about to change. Soviet troops had recently rolled into Afghanistan, and the U.S. government, concerned about Afghanistan's proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf and eager to avenge the humiliating debacle of the Vietnam War, decided to respond. Building on President Jimmy Carter's tough line, President Ronald Reagan offered billions of dollars in economic aid and sophisticated weapons to Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. In exchange, Zia supported the mujaheddin, the Afghan guerrillas waging a modern-day holy war against the Soviet occupation. With the help of the CIA, jihadist training camps sprung up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Soon Kalashnikov assault rifles from those camps began to flood the streets of Lahore, setting in motion a crime wave that put an end to my days of pedaling unsupervised through the streets.

Meanwhile, Zia began an ongoing attempt to Islamize Pakistan and thus make it a more fertile breeding ground for the anti-Soviet jihad. Public female dance performances were banned, female newscasters were told to cover their heads and laws undermining women's rights were passed. Secular politicians, academics and journalists were intimidated, imprisoned and worse.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007


A million dollar earmark and Congress doesn't even know if the organization exists!

Saturday, July 14, 2007


I knew that some day "research" would support my view that British chocolate is far superior to American chocolate. About the only thing affordable that is better than British chocolate is good German Ritter dark chocolate with almonds.

Cadbury Dairy Milk is the iconic British candy bar, the one most likely to be tucked into the suitcase of a Yankee tourist looking for an inexpensive souvenir. Versions are filled with caramel, whipped fondant, whole nuts or pellets of shortbread cookie.

It’s a different bar from the Cadbury bar available in the United States. According to the label, a British Cadbury Dairy Milk bar contains milk, sugar, cocoa mass, cocoa butter, vegetable fat and emulsifiers. The version made by the Hershey Company, which holds the license from Cadbury-Schweppes to produce the candy in the United States under the British company’s direction, starts its ingredient list with sugar. It lists lactose and the emulsifier soy lecithin, which keeps the cocoa butter from separating from the cocoa. The American product also lists “natural and artificial flavorings."

“Hershey’s tastes like ear wax,” said Kevin Ellis, an Alaskan-born designer with Adobe Systems in San Francisco.

Friday, July 13, 2007


According to Time, the Democrats are the new Moral Majority! The Democrats are so fired up, you could call them the new Moral Majority.

Jerry Falwell didn't know what he had started thirty years ago in creating such a powerful rhetorical phrase. Obviously the Democrats have a slightly different vision of morality if you read the article.


I can't believe it! The ultra-liberal Daily Kos has banned Cindy Sheehan from posting. Now that she is challenging Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress she has suddenly become anathema to some on the left. Surely the ultra-left is big enough to allow her the freedom to express her voice.


I have been following this issue for many years aftering reading a book by the director of Romanian intelligence under Ceausescu. The proof seems to be building that Arafat was a homosexual. Also see the WorldNetDaily article on this. The issue that still lingers is how foreign intelligence agencies used this information.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


Reid seems to have troubling responding to the question posed by an ABC news reporter: "Will Iraqis be safer if the US leaves?"


A discussion of women as leaders.


The Washington Post has an article on a disillusioned Bush supporter, Vic Gold.

"For all the Rove-built facade of his being a 'strong' chief executive, George W. Bush has been, by comparison to even hapless Jimmy Carter, the weakest, most out of touch president in modern times," Gold writes. "Think Dan Quayle in cowboy boots."

Gold is even more withering in his observations of Cheney. "A vice president in control is bad enough. Worse yet is a vice president out of control."

For Gold, Cheney brings to mind the adage of Swiss writer Madame de Stael, who wrote, "Men do not change, they unmask themselves." Cheney has a deep streak of paranoia and megalomania, Gold suggests -- but he says he did not see it at first.

"He was hiding who he really was," Gold says. "He was waiting for an opportunity."
In many ways, Gold's tale of disillusionment is a familiar one.

There are plenty of veterans of Reagan and Bush 41 around town who believe Bush and Cheney trashed the institutions and party they helped build from the wreckage of the Goldwater campaign.

However, I really liked the Madame de Stael quote--I had not heard it before: "Men do not change, they unmask themselves."

Wednesday, July 11, 2007


I have been thinking of doing an analysis of all of the presidential candidates for 2008, but summer reading keeps getting in the way. However, I did come across a very interesting web site about Hillary Clinton. I haven't looked at in depth, but it has so much information if you need a daily Hillary fix.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007


June is over. It has been that time of year again. Weddings. I hesitate to comment—everyone has their own tastes, but I have seen some firsts (at least for me). I wasn’t sure what to expect when I saw the mother of one bride carrying a box of facial tissues down the aisle with her—surely a flower would have been better. If you need facial tissue, why do you need a whole box? Or why can’t you tuck some away in a more inconspicuous place? Is it a sign of happiness? Or a sign of despair? I was inclined toward the latter as I watched the ceremony. But maybe a ceremony doesn’t really make a marriage.

Maybe it is just East Texas, but the wedding dress code for men has disappeared. I saw polo shirts, jeans, athletic shoes, sandals, etc. It was just like going to a picnic. Dress cowboy clothes are fine—I can accept other cultures, but “gym wear?” The number of ties and sport coats was negligible. But the odd thing was that the women and girls were all dressed very fashionably. For me it was strange to see a young lady attired in a beautiful dress with high heels and coiffed hair standing next to a “slob” in athletic shoes. Shouldn’t you dress up for a wedding?

Also what makes a Christian wedding ceremony? I sense a loss of the sacred in supposedly “Christian” ceremonies. There is a superficial veneer of spirituality with some “God” words thrown in by ministers who seem to use the same story of the “ring as a circle and how this represents marriage. . .” And this is sandwiched between “popular” secular love songs. Do some ministers really know the couple they are marrying? Does the couple really care?