It may come as a surprise to some people newly interested in the Hope and Change of politics, that the American response to the Kyoto Protocol has been consistently negative stretching back to the second term of Clinton. Before Bush (for an explanation of this Series please click here) "rejected" the Kyoto Treaty it had been decidedly tabled for lack of support.
In 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 to adopt a resolution stating that ''the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.'' Given that result, presidnet clinton wisely refrained from signing the treaty and submitting it to a vote.
So Before Bush was president, the senate unanimously and bipartisanly rejected Kyoto as an nonviable treaty. By the way, since then the USA has made more progress towrd reaching targeted reductions in greenhouse gases than any of the signatories to Kyoto. And Bush was the first president to build and occupy a sustainable green home.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Before Bush - Introduction
While reading through the posts on Twitter on the day of President Obama's inauguration and the glee with which his first policy announcements were greeted an idea began to form in the Tiny Pundit's brain. Granted this is not all that original an idea as many better writers than I have attempted to influence the tide of information about the Bush administration in light of the historical facts that apply to the execution of the office of the president.
My theory is that many Twitter users are so young they can't remember much about politics before Bush became president, and have been fed a steady diet of the mainstream media nonsense that leaves out any historical context when discussing policy. Of course, now that Obama has been crowned, er, inaugurated, the media have no end of comparison with historical figures such as Roosevelt and Lincoln. But the MSM sure won't provide a complete picture of the extraordinary executive power these men wielded in times of emergency.
Suspending Habeas corpus? Interring foreign born citizens or Americans of questionable ancestry? Torture? Extraordinary rendition? Readers may be surprised to learn that these policies are not the work of Bush & Co. Indeed, there are a lot of Things that Existed Before Bush that bear telling, even though the sacrosanct accepted version of history is ALL that is evil took office January 20, 20001 and all is well now.
In the coming days -- or weeks -- I will post a tidbit per day (on average) attempting to enlighten my young friends on Twitter. This series will be titled Before Bush. Each day's piece will be pithy and easily digested but will include a link back to this post to provide more of that needed "context" so lacking in MSM reporting.
My theory is that many Twitter users are so young they can't remember much about politics before Bush became president, and have been fed a steady diet of the mainstream media nonsense that leaves out any historical context when discussing policy. Of course, now that Obama has been crowned, er, inaugurated, the media have no end of comparison with historical figures such as Roosevelt and Lincoln. But the MSM sure won't provide a complete picture of the extraordinary executive power these men wielded in times of emergency.
Suspending Habeas corpus? Interring foreign born citizens or Americans of questionable ancestry? Torture? Extraordinary rendition? Readers may be surprised to learn that these policies are not the work of Bush & Co. Indeed, there are a lot of Things that Existed Before Bush that bear telling, even though the sacrosanct accepted version of history is ALL that is evil took office January 20, 20001 and all is well now.
In the coming days -- or weeks -- I will post a tidbit per day (on average) attempting to enlighten my young friends on Twitter. This series will be titled Before Bush. Each day's piece will be pithy and easily digested but will include a link back to this post to provide more of that needed "context" so lacking in MSM reporting.
Friday, January 23, 2009
You can save a life for $25
If you could save a life for a few bucks would you? If you could save two lives for $25 would you do it? If it was tax deductible and you could win a truck, LCD TV or iPod would you do it? $25 isn't much but it might be enough to save a life or two.
A family friend is Executive Director of a pregnancy resource center and their ultra-sound machine is dying. She shared with me a shocking statistic: 98% of teens who are considering abortion change their mind after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.
However you feel about a woman's right to choose, the truth is it is the mother's choice and the more women who choose life save at least one life. And there are many couple waiting for a chance to adopt a baby, and that is a happy outcome as well. Every woman I know who underwent an abortion procedure came to regret it later, in some way. It is a difficult experience for all involved and the pain can last for years.
So how can your $25 help? You can enter a raffle and gain a tax deduction in the process. This weekend I'll spend time making up a web site and mailer for the Center. We got the idea for the car raffle after hearing Hugh Hewitt promote one on his radio show for a charity in Orange County. If you know someone who can help publicize this or you want to receive the email invitation and send it on to your family and friends, please drop me a note at mjbwolf@gmail.com and I'll respond with the letter when it is ready and a link to the Web site.
If you are reading this blog then you are witnessing the birth of an idea, and it may result in a lifesaving ultrasound machine for a worthy charity. Please pass on the message and check back here for more information
A family friend is Executive Director of a pregnancy resource center and their ultra-sound machine is dying. She shared with me a shocking statistic: 98% of teens who are considering abortion change their mind after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.
However you feel about a woman's right to choose, the truth is it is the mother's choice and the more women who choose life save at least one life. And there are many couple waiting for a chance to adopt a baby, and that is a happy outcome as well. Every woman I know who underwent an abortion procedure came to regret it later, in some way. It is a difficult experience for all involved and the pain can last for years.
So how can your $25 help? You can enter a raffle and gain a tax deduction in the process. This weekend I'll spend time making up a web site and mailer for the Center. We got the idea for the car raffle after hearing Hugh Hewitt promote one on his radio show for a charity in Orange County. If you know someone who can help publicize this or you want to receive the email invitation and send it on to your family and friends, please drop me a note at mjbwolf@gmail.com and I'll respond with the letter when it is ready and a link to the Web site.
If you are reading this blog then you are witnessing the birth of an idea, and it may result in a lifesaving ultrasound machine for a worthy charity. Please pass on the message and check back here for more information
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Best Cure for Hiccups
This has nothing to do with marketing, culture or politics. It has to do with helping people live better lives. And I'm giving away the secret for free! Because it works. And I'm a helpful giving person. This has worked every time (100%) I led someone else through it and always for myself.
CURE HICCUPS
1. Exhale completely, even more so than you think you can.
2. Inhale deeply two more times, immediately exhale completely each time.
3. Inhale deeply and hold your breath. Keep holding!
4. When you feel you can no longer hold your breath, breathe in a little more to extend your time.
5. Repeat if necessary, and it usually takes only one to two cycles to completely stop hiccuping.
Note about children: Step 3 is difficult for kids because for some reason they hear "inflate your cheeks" when you tell them "hold your breath" so you may need to explain the concept of inflating their luings with demonstrative repetition and showing them how your chest expands when you actually inhale. Still the system does work for kids too!
After doing some research I see there are some people who have a similar method, but the one above is a bit simpler and easier to coax children into performing correctly. This was developed by trial and error and until I began typing this post, I was unaware anyone else had used this method. That's because mine predates the existence of the internet.
CURE HICCUPS
1. Exhale completely, even more so than you think you can.
2. Inhale deeply two more times, immediately exhale completely each time.
3. Inhale deeply and hold your breath. Keep holding!
4. When you feel you can no longer hold your breath, breathe in a little more to extend your time.
5. Repeat if necessary, and it usually takes only one to two cycles to completely stop hiccuping.
Note about children: Step 3 is difficult for kids because for some reason they hear "inflate your cheeks" when you tell them "hold your breath" so you may need to explain the concept of inflating their luings with demonstrative repetition and showing them how your chest expands when you actually inhale. Still the system does work for kids too!
After doing some research I see there are some people who have a similar method, but the one above is a bit simpler and easier to coax children into performing correctly. This was developed by trial and error and until I began typing this post, I was unaware anyone else had used this method. That's because mine predates the existence of the internet.
Monday, January 12, 2009
LA Times Hates Prayer, Bans God from Sports Section
Kurt Streeter’s Sports opinion piece (abstract here, full article is hidden in the archive*) yesterday posed as an article written by God complaining about so many prayers by athletes, illustrated with a close-up of Tim Tebow from Florida with the citation for John 3:16 on his Muller strips (under his eyes). Anyone who watched the BCS title game last Thursday probably noticed young Mr. Tebow, who wears his faith visibly.
Apparently, Kurt Streeter and the L.A. Times have seen enough! This typical mainstream opinion pieces is full of the bigotry and cluelessness we have come to expect from the L.A. Times when they address “sensitive issues” like evangelical Christianity. Packed with whining, vitriol, allusions to evolution and at least one reference to student athletes praying that labels this act “holy war,” Streeter’s ignorance of how and why Christians pray is striking. But his preference is clear: It should stop!
Could this be the same L.A. Times that praised the Muslim basketball player who refused to stand for the National Anthem? I’m sure it is. So why doers Streeter single out Christian athletes and their prayers? Because he has a narrow view and he wants you to share it.
You see, the gist of his article is a complaint that there are so many things God has to worry about, and so many serious issues requiring His attention that He doesn’t have time for your stupid pleas for strength or “a win” as Streeter puts it, and He can’t be bothered to hear your thanks. Streeter’s whole premise rests on the assumption that the only time athletes pray is when they are on national television and you are watching.
Of course, and practicing Christian knows that we are to have an “attitude of prayer” throughout the day. And we are to give thanks to God continuously. And maybe Streeter doesn’t know it, but Tebow and many athletes thank God every day – maybe every hour – for the physical gifts He has given them. During the brief time that the camera is trained on them, they give the same thanks to God, but the audience is larger. Mainstream Media sometimes has a problem in assuming that they make the story instead of just report it.
Finally, about the headline the Times assigned Streeter’s story: In this Spirited Debate, He Wins! I really had hope of a balanced article upon seeing the headline and the photo of Tebow with John 3:16. But the slant was completely opposite to the headline (as many are in the L.A. Times). So, if you have any complaints about my headline to this post, just access your sense of irony, the same one you use to filter the headlines in the Times.
* It shouldn’t be hard to find one lying about in SoCal if you drive down any suburban street today. Many “subscribers” don’t bother to collect them.
Apparently, Kurt Streeter and the L.A. Times have seen enough! This typical mainstream opinion pieces is full of the bigotry and cluelessness we have come to expect from the L.A. Times when they address “sensitive issues” like evangelical Christianity. Packed with whining, vitriol, allusions to evolution and at least one reference to student athletes praying that labels this act “holy war,” Streeter’s ignorance of how and why Christians pray is striking. But his preference is clear: It should stop!
Could this be the same L.A. Times that praised the Muslim basketball player who refused to stand for the National Anthem? I’m sure it is. So why doers Streeter single out Christian athletes and their prayers? Because he has a narrow view and he wants you to share it.
You see, the gist of his article is a complaint that there are so many things God has to worry about, and so many serious issues requiring His attention that He doesn’t have time for your stupid pleas for strength or “a win” as Streeter puts it, and He can’t be bothered to hear your thanks. Streeter’s whole premise rests on the assumption that the only time athletes pray is when they are on national television and you are watching.
Of course, and practicing Christian knows that we are to have an “attitude of prayer” throughout the day. And we are to give thanks to God continuously. And maybe Streeter doesn’t know it, but Tebow and many athletes thank God every day – maybe every hour – for the physical gifts He has given them. During the brief time that the camera is trained on them, they give the same thanks to God, but the audience is larger. Mainstream Media sometimes has a problem in assuming that they make the story instead of just report it.
Finally, about the headline the Times assigned Streeter’s story: In this Spirited Debate, He Wins! I really had hope of a balanced article upon seeing the headline and the photo of Tebow with John 3:16. But the slant was completely opposite to the headline (as many are in the L.A. Times). So, if you have any complaints about my headline to this post, just access your sense of irony, the same one you use to filter the headlines in the Times.
* It shouldn’t be hard to find one lying about in SoCal if you drive down any suburban street today. Many “subscribers” don’t bother to collect them.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama Rhetoric vs. Blago's Style
Listening to Blago defend himself live on the radio just now, I was struck by the great communication ability he displayed (I couldn't see it, obviously, but it sounded extemporaneous). It was simple and direct, although not the least believeable, he made it all sound so plausible. This is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama, who I consider a very poor deliverer of speeches and a horrendous creater of off-the-cuff remarks.
Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.
His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.
Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.
Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.
His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.
Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.
Star Tribune Buries the Lede
As usual, the Powerline guys are invaluable for providing original reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood's first U.S. Congressman. And they put the lie to the myth that Bloggers don't do journalism. Being a craft, and not a profession, anyone can "do journalism" if they put their energy into it. Read their post if you want to see the story mainstream media won't tell you about how Hamas is connected to a Democrat in Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)