Steve Skojec

China is realy T.O.ed that we’re schmoozing with the Dalai Lama. Their reasoning, as usual, is completely founded upon zero tolerance for resistance to the Communist party’s totalitarian rule, and would be laughable if it weren’t so serious:

The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile in India since staging a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, is to receive the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday after being hosted at the White House by President George W. Bush.

“We are furious,” Tibet’s Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters. “If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world.”

This coming from the country that brought you over 75 million government-sponsored deaths among its own citizenry, and that beautiful paradigm of human philanthropic achievement, the one-child policy.

Meanwhile, Russia is jumping on the angry train as Soviet Premier President Vladimir Putin warns against the use of any Soviet Bloc Country Caspian Nation as a staging point for operations against Iran. Putin was hanging out in Tehran with that bastion of diplomatic sanity, the great Ahmedinejad.

Putin has warned the U.S. and other nations against trying to coerce Iran into reining in its nuclear program and insists peaceful dialogue is the only way to deal with Tehran’s defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.

“Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere,” Putin said Monday during his trip to Germany. “They are not afraid, believe me.”

I agree with Putin here about the likely futility of threats against Iran, though he seems personally, intimately confident that Iran is not afraid. What’s the subtext, Komrade Putin? Have you given Tehran some additional reason not to fear us? Just wondering.

Moving on, Vienna, home to the House of Hapsburg, heirs to what remains of the notion of the Holy Roman Empire, is hosting a “divorce fair” to facilitate the dissolution of the Austrian people’s marriages with expeditious convenience:

At the October 27-28 event, would-be divorcees can consult, anonymously if they wish, a whole host of lawyers and mediators on their rights and obligations, and seek advice on frequently difficult questions, such as alimony and child access.

They can also consult experts on how best to organise their new post-married lives.

Nearly 50 percent of all marriages in Austria end in divorce — the figure is 66 percent in Vienna — and the two-day fair is being held under the motto: “Start your life afresh”. Organisers are hoping it will bloom into a twice-yearly event.

Up to 20 exhibitors have so far registered, not only lawyers and mediators, but also estate agents, life-crisis experts and — reflecting the messier side of divorce — private detective firms and DNA laboratories offering paternity tests.

The archdiocese of the city of Vienna will also have a stand, as will a company offering package holidays for freshly divorced people.

And back here in the States, a Pennsylvania woman is facing possible jail time for swearing at her overflowing bathroom toilet. If swearing at the malfunctioning plumbing in one’s own home has become a punishable offense in this country, then to borrow a question from St. Peter, “Lord, who can be saved?”

Update:

Apparently Condi is a bit worried about Russia’s attitude problems lately too. Russia, for it’s part, has produced some rather blunt opinions of Condi in response:

Ms. Rice’s criticism can be explained with the politician’s personal peculiarities. Why is Condoleezza Rice so fond of her “strict teacher” role? Is it her technique that she follows to stay in the center of political attention? The leader of the Liberal and Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vladimir Zhirinovsky, expressed his opinion on the matter in an exclusive interview with Pravda.Ru.

”Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all.

”Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: “Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian! What a courageous, tough and strong female she is!

”This is the only way to satisfy her needs of a female. She derives pleasure from it. If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened. Like Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, or Alexander the Great of Macedon Ms. Rice needs to fight and release tough public statements in global scale. She needs to be on top of the world.

This is LOL funny. Don’t drink while reading Russian news. Seriously. It hurts when Vodka comes out your nose.

Catholics are embracing this photo of a totally non-descript flame as an apparition of JPII-We-Luv-U.

In the words of Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets, “Go sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.”

I’m not a wine snob. Not that I would mind. The fact remains that if I was faced with a blank form labeled “tasting notes” I’m virtually positive that I wouldn’t be able to write down with a straight face any of the normal flavor characteristics. I don’t know what leather tastes like, I couldn’t find a hint of tobacco if I smoked the wine, and I’m not really sure what a black currant is, but I don’t think I’ve ever had one.

That said, I think I’ve got a good palate for detecting nice flavors. I’m a natural cook when it comes to seasoning, and if I choose a wine, cheese, beer or even a coffee and bring it to a party, it’s almost always a hit. I guess what I’m trying to say is, while I don’t necessarily know what to compare a taste to, I have a pretty successful sense of when something tastes really good, and how much better it is in comparison to others of its kind.

For fun, we’re trying a variety of new budget wines (under $15) at the house. I’m keeping a journal of what I like, and taking a very self-conscious stab at tasting notes. When I think I’ve hit on something worthwhile, I’ll be posting it here.

I will also do the same thing with any other exceptional food I come across. Whenever possible, I’ll provide images so that you know what you’re looking for at the store.

Look for the first wine installment here before the weekend gets into full swing.

In case you were wondering if I could let it pass without a comment…I can’t.

Your friend and mine, the ex-vice president of the United States, that filmmaker of record, the humanitarian, private-jet-travelling, carbon-consuming activist on behalf of the environment, Al Gore, has (sniff) won the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work to save mother earth from her rapacious human children.

To me, the news is an ironic coincidence, considering that my days in the early portion of this week, spent in a darkened room waiting for my eye to heal, were filled with the audiobook rendition of Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear.

The book itself is unwieldy and even boring at times. Chricton’s agenda shows through clearly in places where the narrative winds up threadbare, diminishing to little more than a flat-out (though much needed) assault by the author on the global warming fever sweeping this nation.

As a story, State of Fear falters, though it was interesting enough to keep me from falling into a boredom-induced coma as I studied the inside of my eyelids for days on end. But Chricton, who has received no small amount of criticism for his views of climate science as expressed therein, has done us all a service by trying to draw our attention to the men behind the green curtain.

In an author’s post script, Chricton indicts the politicized science of catastrophic climate change by comparing its mass-fervor and universal acceptance to a similar (and even more dangerous) theme from the early 20th century - eugenics:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

Chricton makes it clear that the dangers inherent in the consensus over global warming and eugenics are not of the same magnitude, but a lesson is there to be learned:

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

Climate change does seem to be occuring, and more and more data seems to be rising to the surface to demonstrate that the trend is in fact global, and skews toward warming. Though it’s probably only anecdotal, it was about 90 degrees here on Monday, despite the fact that we’re well into October. The water shortages being faced in my home town among numerous others are a testament to the heat and lack of precipitation. In Loudoun County Virginia, we’re 13 inches below normal for rainfall this year. It’s not insignificant, though it could just as easily be part of a natural cycle as part of some catastrophic global consequence of industrialization.

Which highlights the point - we simply don’t know enough. There’s a lot of fear-mongering out there on this issue, and from my vantage point as a trend-watcher it’s not going to go away any time soon. Eco-trends will only be pushed aside by economic ones, though the two will probably be increasingly linked over the course of time as policy change affects industry, consumption, and behavior.

If you haven’t read State of Fear, it’s worth a look, if only to get you thinking about this issue in a different light. Whatever side of the debate you’re on, I think it’s likely that you’ll find some of the points made within the story thought-provoking.

As for Al Gore…well, most people probably knew what the Nobel was worth when Arafat received it in 1994.

The Nobel Prize committee should be taken about as seriously as the U.N.

Wow. My cornea has almost completely grown back. It’s a miracle. I still can’t read any fonts smaller than size 12 and everything through my right eye looks like that weird film technique they always use on Barbara Streisand (vaseline on the lens?) but the pain has almost completely subsided, which is good, and I’m back at work.

Oooh, there’s a breaking news alert about Anna Nicole Smith on MSNBC right now. Gotta go.

On Sunday, after Sophia realized that smashing the corner of one of her hard baby books (you know, the ones that have the stiff cardboard pages and could be used in a bar fight?) into my face only got her smacked, she decided to play the anatomy game.

“Eye!” She announced, and with lightning speed, rammed her little talon-tipped finger into my eye.

Four days later, I’m still sitting here using only my left eye, as my right one is squeezed shut, red and burning - which is still a big upgrade from the fetal-position-inducing pain I was experiencing the first half of the week. According to the opthomologist, her scratch to my cornea “denuded the entire area” in question of the outer layer of skin.

Most painful injury I’ve yet endured. And they say they can’t give you anything for the pain, because people “abuse” the numbing eye drops they give you when you go to the doctor so they can pry your eye open long enough to look at it. They were teasing me with relief, the bastards. Ibuprofen does nothing.

At any rate, a post this long is about as much as I can do, and I have tears streaming down my face from the effort. So I’ll talk to you again when my peeper grows back. Back to the couch to listen to my audiobook with my eyes firmly shut.

I’ve gotten into a couple of comm-box scuffles with people who disparage Ron Paul’s candidacy or my support for it.

I’ve been told more than once that unlike Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul isn’t a “viable candidate” or is a “throwaway vote”. This even after polling shows him winning multiple GOP debates, even when laughed down by Giuliani and asked ridiculous and insulting questions by moderators when they gave him the time at all.

Now, the news media is “shocked” over the fact that Ron Paul’s third-quarter fundraising puts him in fourth place among the GOP with, as I mentioned yesterday, over $5 million raised. He’s only behind Giuliani ($11 mil), Romney ($10 mil), and Thompson ($8 mil). He’s just ahead of John McCain.

Considering the other names on that list, Paul is, again, the only valid choice for conservatives. And for those who keep telling me if I don’t vote for Mike “viable” Huckabee ($1 Mil) or Sam “electable” Brownback (can’t find any financial data for Q3), I’m throwing unborn children into the maw of Satan, it seems to me that people are already voting with their wallets for the real conservative candidate.

I’m going to keep beating the drum: radical change, not incrementalism, is what is needed. Hilzilla raised $27 million this past quarter. If someone can’t really challenge her ideas and steal votes from her anti-war consituency, we’re headed toward that nightmare presidency most of us have feared for years.

I honestly believe, if Paul got the nomination, he could do it. It’s far from a sure bet, but it’s the best bet. The GOP is going to get slaughtered otherwise.

In an attempt to make me feel smarter, Pat Buchanan used his column space on Tuesday to ask the same questions and make essentially the same argument (with a bit more substance to it) that I made the other day:

Bush’s shifting rationale for war on Iran is consistent with what The New Yorker’s Sy Hersh reports. The case for war and the initial target list have been changed — from Iran’s nuclear program to Iran’s Quds Force.

If Iran is supplying enhanced IEDs to Iraqis to kill Americans, that is an act of war. And President Bush has the same right to go after the nests of terror as did President Nixon in ordering the 1970 invasion of the Viet Cong sanctuaries in Cambodia.

But while Nixon and LBJ bombed North Vietnam, we did not strike China or Russia, which were providing far more weaponry to the NVA and VC than Iran has provided Iraqi insurgents. And President Truman fired Gen. MacArthur, who wanted to go to the source, in China, of the men and weapons killing Americans in Korea.

The point here is this: If the United States has a case for war, why has Congress not held hearings to give us answers to the crucial questions, before Bush plunges us into that war?

How solid is the evidence Iran is providing roadside bombs to kill Americans? How solid is the evidence Tehran has approved of or assisted in these attacks?

I’m gratified to know that Pat is reading my blog and using it as a launching point for his own material. (I’ll do whatever I can to help.)

In all seriousness though, these are pressing questions, and while the point that Dale has brought up about the religious motivation of Iran remains relevant, I think that we can’t entirely abandon looking at the country as a quasi-rational state with a populace not as hell-bent on self-destruction as some of the power brokers there are.

There’s still that chance that they don’t want to invite a rain of fire down upon them, and if we can look at it that way while we’re planning our strategy, Buchanan is right: Congress need to be asking these questions before CONGRESS authorizes war.

Anything less is a complete dereliction of duty. Either we have a case for war or we don’t, and that needs to be established (and fast) unless we want another Iraq, times 10.

My man Ron Paul managed to raise $5 million dollars in the third quarter, putting him on an even keel with John McCain’s fundraising for the same period of time.

I’ve never even considered giving money to a presidential campaign. But since Ron Paul is the only real hope for the GOP against Godzilla Hilary, I’m going to be giving it some serious thought as the year moves on. In the article I’ve linked to in the Chattanoogan, writer Joe Dumas makes the case:

When you look at it objectively, there isn’t a single one of the “Big Four” GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the “second tier” candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.

Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet … the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn’t it?

Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else … which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.

Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no “trophy wives” here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader’s votes in 2000….

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent … now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

That considered, his growing momentum is exciting, to say the least.