Pay It Forward - Starbuck's Style

As much as I might disdain Starbuck’s, pretty cool story out of Washington State. Apparently one woman bought the drink of the person behind her. This person then bought the next person’s, etc, until over 1,000 people repeated it, many of them making additional donations to a Starbuck’s charity. Very cool and one of the things I like about this time of year.

Just a couple of things, though… The Starbuck’s is so busy that a continuous string of one thousand people came in? Wow, that’s a busy little store… I feel bad for the employees. I can’t imagine serving 1,000 consecutive patrons with no break in between. How long must this have gone on? Which brings me to my next point. It ended at 6:20 in the morning. They’d already served a thousand people before 6:30? Holy crap… Assuming each person’s order took 15 seconds (an unreasonably short time estimate) that’s still 4 hours. Are there really big Starbuck’s out on the West Coast? All the ones I’ve seen are small and I can’t imagine it taking less than a minute to serve each person, meaning this would have gone on since about 2 in the afternoon yesterday. Are Starbuck’s open 24 hours a day?

Who’s the curmudgeon that ended this thing? A chain of 1,000 people must have generated quite a buzz. I’m sure people were talking about it, etc. Who’s gonna walk in, find out their drink is free, find out this has been going on for many hours, and not continue it? Surely such a person is worthy of Scrooge’s (pre-visitation) highest respect. Bah! Humbug!

Semi-related Movie Plug: If you haven’t seen Pay it Forward, please, check it out. It really is one of the most moving movies I’ve ever seen and it’s a great reminder that we can make a difference.

Hillary's Holiday Wish List

If you haven’t seen Hillary’s holiday wish list, check it out here. It’s ridiculous on a number of levels.

First, whoever wins the Republican nomination should remember this ad well. If they’re running against Hillary, just break it out and you’ll have all the reasons not to vote for her.

Second, Hillary wrapping presents? Right… Very funny. I dare say I've wrapped more presents than Senator Clinton.

Third, what’s up with the spooky “happy holidays”? It looks like a gothic type font more appropriate for Halloween than Christmas [excuse me, the “winter holiday (or non-holiday) of your choosing]. I don’t mean to nitpick, but it really doesn’t fit in with the general brightness of the ad. Just kind of strange.

Finally, all these things are her “gifts” to the American people. In other words, when she’s elected, these things will magically appear; no fight, no consequences, nothing. Just vote for Hillary and all your dreams will come true. The idea of universal healthcare should be rejected on the surface for its inefficiencies and inadequacies, but to not admit that “free” healthcare is paid for by higher taxes (Quick lesson here: If Government decides to spend money they’re not spending now, said money has to come from somewhere. Government is funded by taxes) is incredibly dishonest and pandering of the worst level. Portraying these policies as free gifts, free of consequence, is disgusting.

Huckabee and Giuliani

A friend of mine asked for my thoughts on this article about Huckabee (and to a much lesser extent, Giuliani). I’ve been meaning to post on both of these candidates for a while (I even have the Huckabee post saved in my drafts, just haven’t gotten anywhere with it), so I figured now is as good a time as any… The article I reference is a short one and helpful for some of the context of my e-mail. My e-mail was as follows:

[Start of e-mail]Of course George Will sees Huckabee’s transgressions from party doctrine as more offensive than Giuliani’s. Will, who I for the most part like, is still a Northeast Republican, in that he is fiscally conservative but not socially conservative, same as Giuliani. His assertion that abortion is a “recent Republican stance” is rather odd to say the least. And while gay marriage may be an actual recent stance it’s only because it’s become an issue recently. I think if you asked Republicans of 20 years ago what they thought about gay marriage they would have answered the same. It’s a recent stance because the issue is recent; the principles used to arrive at that stance have remained consistent.

That being said, I find Huckabee and Giuliani almost equally objectionable. I think they both would destroy the Republican coalition for the upcoming election, if not well into the future. Conservatism is three core principles: Strong National Security, Sound Fiscal Policy (e.g. Limited Government, Low Taxes, etc) and Social Conservatism (Value of life, Family Issues, etc.). A candidate who disregards one of these three pillars as irrelevant is not a candidate for me, which is why I have trouble with either of the two. Unfortunately, we see more and more an attitude that Religion=Big Government and Fiscal Conservatism divorced from moral values. Admittedly, if your view of politics and proper governance is all that informs your worldview, you will divorce yourself from religion and moral values because those are primarily private matters and matters for churches and individuals. Conversely, if you don’t recognize that there’s a difference between what you as an individual or you as a church should do and what the government should do, you will start seeing roles for the government to fill where they have no business.

My problems with Huckabee stem primarily from the latter. He is a “Compassionate Conservative”… I, however, am not compassionate. Somehow the fact that I have given well over $1000 in the last few months privately to people that I knew needed help, without wishing the government would help them and pushing for further social programs, that all makes me uncompassionate. The fact that I think if you want to do something unhealthy and die (be fat, smoke, etc.) you should be able to without government unduly restricting your ability to do so; this too makes me uncompassionate. Governor Huckabee has confused his responsibility as an individual (and in his opinion, the responsibility of the church) with the responsibility of the Government. The two are not similar. In fact, I would argue the two are almost diametric opposites. What the church and individual should do, in most cases the government should not do. What the government should do, in most cases the individual and church can not do. I understand the realities of this day and age. Yanking public welfare and social programs is not practical. However, expanding them in the name of compassion is foolish and dangerous. This is who Mike Huckabee is and I can’t support that. Setting social policy aside (and the necessary high taxes which must attend to it), Huckabee’s a nut job on foreign policy. He’s worthless on immigration. His understanding of the world and the war on terror is frighteningly similar to the Left’s. His statements about Bush’s “arrogant bunker mentality” are wrong and disrespectful.

Personally, I find Huckabee to be manipulative and divisive. His “innocent question” about Mormons believing Jesus and Satan are brothers is as retarded as asking if you support gay marriage because you believe you’re married to Christ (CLARIFYING ASIDE: Eph. 5:25-27 and other passages portray the church as the “Bride of Christ”. As members of the church, one could argue we are “married” to Christ. Mental gymnastics to be sure, but no more than required and no more disingenuous than Gov. Huckabee’s “question.). He has attempted at every turn to prove that “he’s the real Christian” and his politicizing of his faith is getting a little old. All the while, he refuses to release his old sermons and distances himself from it when it’s convenient… (While Romney is running somewhat as a “candidate of Faith” there is a major difference between his campaign and Huckabee’s in the role that they have placed their faith in, which I may detail in a later post.)

I have my own set of problems with Giuliani… His personal life is, shall we say, distasteful. I still believe “Character Counts” and so have a problem with him solely on this issue. His stance on abortion is certainly not mine; however he has stated that he is a strict constructionist of the constitution and would appoint likeminded judges. The Court is likely the only way abortion will be overturned and I don’t think we can hope for better than strict constructionists. I’m not totally informed on his stance on gay marriage, but my understanding is that he supports some weak form of civil union but that it’s an issue best left up to the states, which is not that dissimilar from say Fred Thompson’s position. His record on the 2nd Amendment is a serious issue for me. While he says he’s changed his ways from his time as Mayor, I’d like to see more evidence of that… [End of e-mail]

While I have fairly equal distaste for either candidacy, I see Huckabee as a larger danger, personally. For one, his nomination appears far more likely than Giuliani’s at this point. Second, I see Huckabee’s policies as, in some ways, more dangerous than Giuliani’s. Giuliani is at least honest with his positions, something I’m not sure we’re fully getting from Huckabee. Giuliani probably would be the run away leader right now had he come out in the beginning of the campaign and said he’d had a “Come to Jesus Moment” and revised his position on abortion. Even hedging around it would have earned him a number of friends. But he was and has been completely honest and for that I applaud him. As I said in the previous paragraph, possibly Giuliani’s most dangerous issue in my mind is that of the 2^nd Amendment, but I don’t think even he would or could appreciably affect that issue on a national level. So, while I support neither candidate these are the reasons why I reserved most of my ire for Governor Huckabee.

The Real Global Warming Agenda

I have previously poked fun at the Global Warming agenda here, here and here.  Unfortunately, it’s quickly becoming clear this is no laughing matter.  The people that are pushing the global warming issue are deadly serious and they’re after one thing.  Reduced carbon emissions, right?  Saving the earth?  Averting global disaster?  How about redistributing wealth?  How about taking the first step to making the UN a viable organization with taxing and global governance abilities? 

 

Emma Brindal, a “Climate Justice Campaign Coordinator” with Friends of the Earth, had this to say about one of the meetings at the recent conference in Bali: “Another point was that as this current economic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  “This economic system” of course referring to a free-market, capitalist economic system.  Redistribution of wealth and resources; that sounds great, where do I sign up?  Even Al Gore agrees carbon taxes and trading is the way to go.  Such a scheme by its nature is a redistribution of wealth from the developed nations to the undeveloped nations.  Rural Kenya doesn’t have near as many power plants as New York City, so guess where we’re going to be buying carbon credits from?  In 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol, “the first component of an authentic global governance.”  Once the UN exerts their authority to tax and redistribute wealth over climate change and execute “environmental justice” what stops then in another arena? 

 

Senator Tim Wirth, from Colorado, had this to say about Global Warming: "We're got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."  So is it about the truth or is it about “doing the right thing”?  Do you believe, like Mr. Wirth and countless others on his side, that this is a chance to right past wrongs brought about by capitalism or is this a chance to study the issue honestly and fairly?  And while we laugh at the idiots flying to their Climate Change Conferences in their private jets while they rail on me for driving to work, and while we get annoyed with their endless propaganda and just change the channel, let’s remember they, at least, are serious about this and unless we stand up to them, they’ll get what they’re after.  And it sure seems to be a lot more than controlling climate change…

 

And before you buy the line about “scientific consensus”, consider this letter written by over 100 scientists questioning the view that global warming is manmade and the efficacy of the UN’s efforts to fight it.  “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”

Our New Baby

Just a couple of pictures of our new baby... Brought her home Thursday night and she seems to be fitting in quite well. She's a mix between a Havanese and a Bichon Frise; a "Havachon" I'm told. Apparently the politically correct term in Designer Breed as opposed to mutt...

Fireworks in Florida

The Florida Legislature has created a Task Force on Consumer Fireworks to study the issue of further legalizing (or banning altogether) the use of Consumer Fireworks in the State of Florida. If you are a resident of Florida or interested in this issue, please check out the Task Force website here. There are a number of presentations on injury and use data, as well as some draft solutions on the website. Currently in Florida, consumer fireworks can be purchased at “wholesale” for a number of exemptions, including agricultural use and signaling for railroads. Such exemptions are not verified beyond signing a simple affidavit which is never audited or followed up on. Needless to say, large quantities of fireworks are sold every year for personal consumption, surprisingly unrelated to agriculture or railroads… It really is a terrible situation because no one enforces the law and there is an implicit endorsement that nobody cares if you break the law, as long as you’re not too much of a nuisance. Here is the comment letter I submitted.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Task Force:

Thank you for serving on this very important committee and I appreciate the opportunity to make my voice heard.

First, I must say that I find it imperative that something be done to address this issue, one way or the other. The condition that exists now is unacceptable because it is a system that implicitly encourages flouting of the law. We are a nation of laws and those laws must be respected and enforced. While fireworks may seem like an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, I believe the current situation breeds an unhealthy contempt of the law due to lack of enforcement and the “wink and a nod” system at the stores. That being said, I don’t believe it’s the job of the fireworks stores to police their customers. Make a law that’s clear (which, personally, I believe the current law to be) and enforce it.

Given that I think we all agree the current situation is untenable, I’ll move on to why I think further restrictions for firework use are not necessary. Everyone talks about the injuries and deaths caused by fireworks. I know y’all saw injury/death statistics in the November meeting, so I’ll try not to belabor this point too much. I did want to point out a few things from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 2005 (the latest edition I could find) Fireworks Annual Report. There were four deaths reported in 2005 due to fireworks. Two were caused by people improperly transporting fireworks in a car, one was caused by a person using a professional class shell illegally and the final one was caused by somebody holding a mortar tube while he launched the firework. The imprint of the base was on his chest afterwards. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid… I don’t mean to sound callous, but really, more regulation isn’t going to help people that are using professional grade fireworks or placing a launching tube on their chest. As for the other two deaths that occurred in a car, no information is available as to how the fireworks were ignited. Let’s assume that these are tragic accidents in which there was no misuse or stupidity involved. An average of 9 kids a year die from furniture tipping over. Can you regulate that? It seems we have a much more serious problem with that than from fireworks.

A popular position I’ve heard, even from one of your task force members, is being “anti fireworks that explode or launch”. According to the CPSC’s 2005 report, in the busiest one month period for firework usage, fully 20% of firework related injuries occurred from sparklers, fountains and novelties, not items that explode or launch. Over 55% of the injuries that occurred to children under age 5 were caused by sparklers. In fact, mortars, cakes and roman candles combined didn’t cause as many injuries as sparklers alone. Those who advocate this position are deeming the level of risk posed by sparklers and fountains to be an acceptable risk, while saying a lower risk level posed by other types of fireworks is not acceptable. How can this be explained consistently?

The fact is, used as is, legally or illegally, correctly or incorrectly, fireworks aren’t that dangerous… Or should I say, everything is dangerous. People get injured and killed on bikes, in cars, with toaster ovens. I’ve taken my 5 year old son to the emergency room 3 times. He broke his arm running down the driveway. Mandate rubber pavement? He busted his head open on the corner of a wall. Require padded rooms? Is it tragic when people get injured by fireworks? Absolutely. Are there people that abuse fireworks? Obviously. So go after those people and let us responsible users enjoy a safe product.

The practical reality of this world is a more tender matter, I understand. This is an emotionally charged issue and I realize when emotions become involved logic usually suffers. I would be open to a “Consumer Licensing” or permitting program, as it seems y’all are considering, provided the cost was not prohibitive ($25-$50 seems reasonable). I guess I wouldn’t oppose a “County Approved Area” where items that explode or launch could be used, provided it was mandated that every county has at least one such area. Surely you won’t relegate all fireworks to such an area. Thank you for your time.

Romney for me Please

I think I’ve finally made a decision. For a while now, I’ve been undecided on the Republican Primary. Part of me wants to vote for Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter because I believe their ideas to be most in line with mine. Unfortunately, they’re unelectable. I’m also not sure they’re the best men for the job because I don’t think they are effective enough to get their message across. I like some of Huckabee’s agenda, but that gets less and less with every liberal social program, each folksy witticism (“weapons of mass instruction”, “I can’t part the Red Sea, but I can part the red tape”) and his brand of “compassionate conservatism”. Fred Thompson’s starting to come around, but for me, it’s too little too late.

What I’m looking for in a Presidential candidate is a “Complete Conservative”. By Complete Conservative, I mean both fiscally and socially conservative. A Conservative should stand for three main things: Fiscal Conservatism; Strong National Defense and Social Conservatism. Fiscal conservatism consists of limited government, low taxes and eliminating wasteful spending. Strong national defense requires a strong military and secure borders. Social conservatism is morals, supporting families and taking a stand for a culture of life, in all phases. Giuliani is a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense, but he is certainly no social conservative, being pro-choice. Huckabee is a social conservative, but on national defense and fiscal issues he’s a nightmare. Both of them have issues with border security. Both of these candidates have a real chance of tearing apart the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement due to their weakness on one end or the other. In my mind, Romney is one of only two viable Complete Conservatives; the other is Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson was a wasted opportunity in this campaign. Fred has the established conservative credentials that the other main candidates lacked early on. It’s taken a while for me to be fully of convinced about Romney. Fred didn’t have to worry about; he walked in #1 for a lot of Conservatives. His policy proposals have been detailed, well founded and good. However he hasn’t demonstrated himself to be effective connecting with people. His performances in the debates have been mixed. His campaign has seemed lackluster and somewhat half-hearted. He seems to be coming into his stride now, but Iowa’s less than a month away and he languishes in third.

Romney is the only legitimate candidate who has shown himself to be an effective communicator, a consistent Conservative, strong on defense and who has strong leadership experience. His business executive background and mentality will serve him well as he works to control spending and government waste. His faith and values (I know he’s an evil Mormon, but still) lead him to promote a culture of life and support a federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Romney is a strong opponent of Judicial Activism and will appoint strict constructionists; not judges that will make policy or further curtail Constitutional rights like the 2^nd Amendment or the Kelo case. Mitt is also against amnesty for illegal immigrants and believes in enforcing our immigration laws and punishing “Sanctuary Cities” and employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Romney truly does have a “Strategy for a Stronger America” and he has the vision to lead and the ability to communicate and inspire others with that same vision. For that reason, I support Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. For more information on Mitt’s vision for America, go to his website at http://www.mittromney.com/.

Choose Life

For those of you expecting an anti-abortion rant out of me today, sorry to disappoint.  The winner of the Wacky Warning Label Contest advises users of a bobcat type tractor to “Avoid Death”…  Good advice in most situations, but especially when you’re using a Bobcat.  Second place went to a label on an iron-on T-shirt transfer that advocates not wearing the shirt while ironing.  The contest is hosted by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch to point out how our insane civil court system and sue happy lawyers have taken things a touch too far…  Pictures of the winning entries can be seen here.  (Warning: Apparently they’re getting too much traffic, so the sight may be down.  Please don’t sue me.)

McDonald's Wants You to Move Along...

Ran across this story today, which I’m not sure I understand…  Drive-Thru customers at 40 McDonald’s in England are given 45 minutes to finish their meal and leave the parking lot or they’re issued a $225 ticket.  Oddly enough, I find myself having trouble grasping the behavior of the customers, not McDonalds.  First off, isn’t the whole purpose of going through a drive-thru so you eat on the road?  If you’re going to sit in your car to eat, why not just go inside?  And 45 minutes?  Holy cow, how slow of an eater are you?  You can’t eat a Big Mac and fries in 45 minutes?  Shoot, I can be done at most sit-down restaurants in 45 minutes and that’s with three kids!  I know people are different in Europe, but this story really confuses me…

Maybe we should get us some of that reform, Pappy?

I couldn’t help but think of the above quote from one of the most quotable movies of all time (O, Brother Where Are Thou?) when I read this today about how the Democrats are going to run as the “Change Candidate” in the ’08 elections... Apparently they don’t have enough Democrats to actually accomplish things, so even though they’re the Majority that’s presided over one of the least effective congresses of all time they want to run on change… From Harry Reid:

Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we’ve done. We’ve done a lot of things.

Let me translate. We haven’t done anything we said we would, but hey, will you elect more of us? Sounds like an effective strategy. Unfortunately I’m not sure the Republicans have fully learned the lessons of ’06 enough to take advantage of it.

Oh well, more O, Brother quotes. Much more entertaining…

· Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.
· You ain't no kind of man if you ain't got land.
· Mrs. Hogwallop up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.
· We ain't one-at-a-timin' here. We're MASS communicating!
· You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

You're a Genius

Apparently if you can read and understand this blog, you're a genius! Yeah... No idea what their criteria is over at criticsrant.com, but hey, they must be right...

Well at least you can tell people you're a genius...

More Global Warming Insanity

By now, you’ve probably heard about the list of things caused by Global Warming produced by British mathematician John Brignell.  If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out here.  It’s an astounding list of all the things that have been attributed to global warming in some media source or another, with links (some are broken).  I’m astounded at all the “matching pairs” of mutually exclusive items, such as:

·       Atlantic less salty – Atlantic more salty
·       Avalanches reduced – Avalanches increased
·       Bananas destroyed – Bananas grow
·       Coral reefs dying – Coral reefs grow
·       Desert advance – Desert retreat
·       Earth slowing down – Earth spins faster
·       Fish stocks rise – Fish stocks decline

There’s a number more, but that’s enough for now; you’ll have to find the rest on your own.  Some of my personal favorites were “circumcision in decline”, “brothels struggle”, “boredom”, “early marriage” and “inflation in China”.  Now maybe it’s just me, but it seems this might be something we don’t have a real good handle on if we’re blaming everything under the sun on global warming, including things that directly contradict each other. 

And another thing, “Carbon Cap and Trade” schemes have been in the news lately with Democrats wanting to attach them to the latest energy bill.  Now basically, this is the Carbon Credits, which I discuss here, on a grand scale.  So today on my news reader I get this from HowStuffWorks.com.  It’s a great little article expounding the many virtues of a carbon tax…  I had a number of issues with this article.  First off, there is no real neutrality here.  One of the things I’ve liked about HSW in the past was that they were even-handed on things I’d read.  This article takes global warming as fact and carbon emissions by humans as the cause.  Setting that aside, it says that “Carbon tax is one of two major market-based options to lower emissions, the other being cap-and-trade schemes.”  Now maybe it’s just me, but we’re talking about a tax and government regulation.  How exactly are those “market-based”?  They sound as “market-based” as rent ceilings and the minimum wage…  Now let’s look at their arguments as to why this is such a good thing…

First, it encourages people to stop using fossil fuels.  Here’s your first tip this isn’t a market-based solution.  Government action is changing the behavior of consumers.  If the Market was driving this action, it wouldn’t require a tax.  Second, “Carbon tax also encourages alternative energy by making it cost-competitive with cheaper fuels.”  Note here that all this is going to do is raise energy prices.  I don’t know about you, but I would love nothing more than to hand over more of my hard-earned money every time I fill up at the gas station or pay my monthly bills.  If you want me to use alternative energy, fine.  Come up with an alternative energy that’s cost-effective (oh wait, we already have.  It’s called nuclear power).  Don’t jack the price of everything up to make alternative energy competitive.  And yes, it’s the cost of everything.  You’re not the only one that depends on fossil fuels to get to do your job and run your lights.  Finally, “don't forget about all the money raised by the tax”.  Absolutely.  We all know the government is such a good steward of our money.  What they need is more of my money to waste.  And I don’t see this tax being manipulated like all the other taxes out there.  You know, those with the best lobbyists suddenly finding their carbon emissions are “tax-free”.  No, that would never happen…

Finally, good news on the environmental front from an unexpected source.  It seems we may all be saved by sweet-smelling kangaroos.  Well, I’m not sure if they smell sweet, but presumably their farts don’t stink because the bacteria in their digestive tracts don’t create methane, a “potent greenhouse gas”.  Now, scientists are going to try and transfer this bacteria to other species, which seems like a great idea.  Perhaps this device would serve the same purpose?

He Still Can't Spell

I've always heard a contractor had a third grade education, a pickup truck and a backhoe. Apparently that's too high of expectations for this guy...

Loyalty Oath

From the Washington Post:

Voters in Virginia's Feb. 12 Republican presidential primary will have to sign an oath swearing loyalty to the eventual GOP ticket. But there is no way to enforce it, because a voter's actions in a booth are secret.

The State Board of Elections has approved a state Republican Party request that all who apply for a GOP primary ballot vow in writing to vote for the Republican presidential nominee next fall.

Voters in Virginia do not register by party. Since the mid-1990s, the state's Republicans have fretted that Democrats might meddle in their primaries, which are open to all registered voters.

A little further research finds that the oath will be as follows: “I affirm that I intend to vote for the Republican candidate in the general election."

This is surprising and disturbing to me. It seems to me this is aimed as much at Social Conservatives who won’t vote for Giuliani in the General Election as it is at Democrats creeping over for the Primary. I realize there’s no way to “enforce” this, but I might remind the Washington Post that some of us like to actually keep our promises. A novel concept inside the Washington Beltway to be sure, but still… All this is going to do is have the effect of reducing social conservative participation in the primary, and maybe that’s the point. I fully understand the concern of a “split party” should Giuliani become the nominee. I don’t think it would serve anyone’s interests for a social conservative like Ron Paul to run on a third party ticket splitting votes from the Republican nominee and handing the election to whoever the Democrats put forward. Even as a staunch Social Conservative I’ll take Giuliani over Hillary or Obama any day… That being said, I really think trying to bully and intimidate those voters before it even becomes an issue runs the risk of alienating them over a potential non-issue, not to mention the fact that I think it’s just plain wrong…

English Just Wasn't His Subject...

Happy Thanksgiving

I’m skipping town tomorrow and heading south to Puerto Rico to spend Thanksgiving with my parents and sister.  To everyone out there, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.  We truly have so much to be thankful for. 

Mark Steyn had a good article on some of the things we should be thankful for…

“Three hundred and 86 years ago, the Pilgrims thanked God because there was a place for them in this land, and it was indeed grand. The land is grander today, and that, too, is remarkable: France has lurched from Second Empires to Fifth Republics struggling to devise a lasting constitutional settlement for the same smallish chunk of real estate, but the principles that united a baker's dozen of East Coast colonies were resilient enough to expand across a continent and halfway around the globe to Hawaii.”

The Chavez-Hess Connection

Back last year when Hugo Chavez, the Marxist President of Venezuela, started making his anti-American statements, there was a large outcry over how CITGO was a wholly owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). What I don’t understand is why nobody is saying a word about Hess Stations. The Hess Corporation also owns HOVENSA, “a joint venture between a subsidiary of Hess Corporation and a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA)”. PDVSA owns a 50% share of HOVENSA, which has a crude oil processing capacity of 495,000 Barrels Per Day (BPD), making it one of the largest refineries in the world. HOVENSA is located in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 550 miles from Venezuela. So guess where HOVENSA gets its crude? You guessed it; Venezuela. So not only does Chavez get money from refining the oil at HOVENSA, he also gets money selling the oil to HOVENSA to refine. Then that gasoline (over 175,000 BPD) gets shipped to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and sold in more than 1,300 Hess locations from New Hampshire to Florida. I understand that you can’t track every drop of oil to make sure it doesn’t come from PDVSA, but it seems to be pretty simple to figure out that Hess Oil is really PDVSA oil and PDVSA oil is money in the coffers of an anti-American, Marxist government.

Just another reason to get off oil and find alternative sources of fuel, like nuclear power…

EDIT: All of this information may be verified on Hess Oil's Website.

Friday Headlines

Just some great stories I ran across today…

Tip to Parents: If your car’s about to be repossessed, don’t leave your children alone in it…  Now I don’t know much about the repo business, but do they normally stalk you to the grocery store and grab your car while you’re grabbing a bag of hot dog buns and a paper? 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, home to Harvard, reinforces the belief that they’re populated by nothing but nut jobs… They shut down the Boy Scouts’ Care Package Drive for American Soldiers because it was a “political statement”.  Apparently the local Boy Scout troop had set boxes at local polling places on Election Day to collect supplies for Care Packages to send to Soldiers in Iraq.  Not so fast my friend…  Obviously, supporting the troops is an implicit endorsement of Republicans (surely this wasn’t supposed to be a benefit to the Democrats, but I don’t know) and so would constitute campaigning, which is not allowed at polling places.  I always thought you could support the troops, but not the war.  No?

And from Howstuffworks.com (in the interest of full disclosure, my sister works there), the 19^th of this month is World Toilet Day.  So please, this weekend, clean your toilet.  You wouldn’t want it to be dirty for World Toilet Day…

Finally, it’s a sad day for baseball, as Joe Nuxhall has died at the age of 79.  Mr. Nuxhall first played in a Major League game in 1944, at the age of 15, making him the youngest player ever in a MLB game.  He started doing Reds’ broadcasts in 1967 and in 1974 teamed up with Marty Brenneman, with whom he spent the next 28 years doing broadcasts.  Having lived in Lexington, KY, I used to pick up the Reds games on 700 WLW and always enjoyed Joe and Marty.  To me, they’re what sports casting should be…  It seems so many of these old broadcasters are either hanging it up or dying and it’s really sad.  There’s something about that familiar voice on the radio when you’re teams playing.  “This is the old left-hander, rounding third and heading for home…”