Are all heterosexual men sexual predators who will rape a woman given the opportunity?

Most people, I hope, would answer “No”.

Are all homosexual men sexual predators who will rape a man given the opportunity?

While people might be more unaware of homosexual men’s behavior, the answer is again “No”.

You could change the gender in all these questions and get the same answers.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces (granted at times under extreme stress) likely to rape a female member of the armed forces?

While rape in the military probably happens more than the military acknowledges, again the answer is “No”.

Is the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to rape a male member of the armed forces?

Short answer, “No”.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to approach a female member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex.

Yes.

So what is the problem with the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces approaching a male member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex?

First, bigotry against homosexual men.

Second, if the man approached is heterosexual, he will probably be extremely uncomfortable with the approach. Heterosexual men do not have a woman’s lifetime of experience in deflecting unwanted advances. Thus, the heterosexual man does not know how to respond. 

If a person in the military, male or female, straight or gay, forces/pushes a relationship with a male or female, straight or gay, beyond the point where the second person wishes it to go, the first person should be dealt with according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The sexual orientation of the aggressor should have no bearing.

Green is in – and that is good. 

No matter what your stand on global warming, it cannot be a bad thing to conserve the environment. What 21^st century environmentalists need to be careful of is a new take on the old bait and switch.

The 20^th century version of bait and switch (still in use today), involved advertising a product at a very low price and then when you go to buy it there is only a more expensive product available.

The new 21^st century bait and switch involves advertising a product that is green but in reality only switching the less than green aspect of the product to another location.

Electric cars are a good example. Leaving aside the green aspect of producing an electric car vs. a standard car, let’s just deal with the pollution caused by driving. 

Electric Vehicles (EVs) can be ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). ULEVs release only 45 pounds of carbon monoxide per 12,000 miles. ZEVs produce no tailpipe emissions at all.

According to the Electric Vehicle Association of Greater Washington, D.C.(EVA/DC)(which may or may no be a non-basis source):

Critics proclaim that EVs are simply “elsewhere emission vehicles” because they transfer emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Although there are emissions associated with coal and oil-fired power plants, smokestack emissions associated with charging EVs are extremely low. In fact, EVs can charge from zero emission sources such as nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.

Now, coal, oil, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants, and solar and wind power all have environmental impact. The impact is indeed shifted from where you drive to wherever the power source is located. 

Again, according to the EVA/DC:

In fact, where power is generated primarily from hydro sources, EVs are 98%-99.9% cleaner than equivalent internal combustion vehicles. Even where power comes primarily from coal, EVs are 55%-92% cleaner, depending on which gasses you are measuring.

EVs may be this much cleaner, but what about the concentration of the emissions? 

If everyone in America were driving EVs, instead of dispersing the pollution as they drive, the admittedly reduced overall pollution would be concentrated at the power sources.

Steps might be taken to reduce those concentrated pollution sources, but so far there has been no public mention of the issue or the cost.

Further, is this an economic-class issue? Are power plants, coal mines, nuclear waste storage facilities, etc. located in high or low socio-economic areas?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

But, why is it that government, especially Democrats, find it so difficult just to “get along”?

In America there must be tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of priests, ministers, pastors, rabbis, clerics, etc. who could be selected to lead prayers at a president’s inauguration. Why does the President-Elect have to select Rev. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, who is openly gay -- and whose selection prompted a worldwide global schism within the Anglican Church and Rev. Rick Warren, an evangelical, who has tremendous opposition in the gay community?

Could he not find a religious leader without the baggage?

Further, Mr. Obama selected Rev. Sharon Watkins, the first woman to head a major denominational body, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Rev. Joseph Lowery the legendary civil rights leader.

Four Protestant preachers, not a Muslim, Jew or Catholic to be found.

Protestants make up ~51% of the U.S. population, while Roman Catholics are “only” 24%, Jews are less than 2%, and Muslims less than 1%.

Change we can believe in would include bringing together the various faiths we are free to practice.

The United States Treasury will purchase a $5 billion stake in GMAC and lend $1 billion to GM so GM can help with GMAC’s reorganization as a bank holding company.

According to The Liberal New York Times, “GMAC lowered its credit score for financing to 621, which is one point above what is generally considered a subprime loan.” The median credit score for Americans is in the 720-740 range.

GMAC has no plans to offer loans to those with credit ratings at 620 or below. Too risky, I guess – but 621 is okay. Well, you have to draw a line somewhere.

Strange though, two months ago before our tax dollars went to GMAC, GMAC set its loan level at 700. 

GMAC lowered its requirements for loans so GM could sell more cards to people who may not be able to afford them.

So, buy a house you cannot afford and get a government bailout; then buy a car you cannot afford from a partially government owned company and no doubt when you cannot make the payments get a government bailout.

Ayman al-Zawahiri's comments described Israel’s actions in Gaza as “Obama's gift to Israel” before he takes office later this month. “This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America…He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection.”

On July 23, 2007, Mr. Obama stated he was “willing to meet separately, without precondition…with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”.

Roland Burris who has been appointed as the Senator from Illinois was quoted by the AP as saying: “We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained.”

Wonder what would be the media’s response if a Republican or conservative said she or he was ordained by the Lord to be a senator?

For eight years the Democrats have been irate over the “stolen” presidential election of 2000.

Wonder what they would be saying if a Republican were selected for senator from Minnesota the way Al Franken has bee selected?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a conversation with Governor Rod Blagojevich about filling Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Given what has transpired, what if the Republican Senate Majority Leader had a conversation with a Republican governor about filling a vacancy?

Then there is Charlie Rangel.

One can only imagine the screams from Democrats and the media if he were a Republican.

Rush Limbaugh's purpose is to incite. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s purpose is to get Republicans elected, especially to the House, Senate and the Presidency.

Chip Saltsman, candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship, sent RNC committee members a CD for Christmas which included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro". The song was first played Rush Limbaugh's show in 2007.

As quoted by CNN, Mr. Saltsman said: "I think most people recognize political satire when they see it, I think RNC members understand that."

It is hard to count the ways this should disqualify Mr. Saltsman from being RNC chairman. By sending out such a CD:

1. Obviously, he does not comprehend the meaning of Christmas or being Christian.
2. He does not understand the concept of not giving your opponents something with which to hit you over the head.
3. Public relations and marketing are beyond his comprehension.
4. He is totally out of sync with the feelings of the American people.

All Mr. Saltsman gains by such actions is notoriety and further convincing Americans that Republicans are a fringe party.

Above their banner on the December 25, 2008 issue of The Liberal New York Times it stated: “Today is Christmas! Remember the Neediest!”

The Liberal New York Times believes there is a Christmas, which by extension might mean they believe there are Christians, and perhaps even Christ.

Then again I may be getting carried away by the Christmas spirit. More likely the critical sentence is the second one.

Perhaps The Liberal New York Times just wants to redistribute other people’s wealth.

Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.

Every year at this time, people ask astronomers if they know “What was the star of stars, the star which lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus?” 

Long ago people though of everything that they saw in the night sky as a “star”.  Thus, the planets, the “fixed” stars, meteors, comets, etc. all were “stars”.  So what might have been “The Star”? 

Meteors or shooting stars are caused by pebble-sized bits of rock burning up as they race through the atmosphere some 50 miles above the Earth. Shooting stars happen so quickly that if you see one, by the time you tell your friends to look, the flash will be gone.  Certainly a meteor did not send the Wise Men to Bethlehem. 

Comets have been described as dirty snowballs traveling through space.  As they approach the Sun, comets give off gas and dust which forms the comet’s tail.  Comets were well known at the time of Christ’s birth, but were considered omens of bad tidings and thus a comet would not send the Wise Men in search of a great king. 

For time to time a star may “explode” as a nova or supernova, and for a short time may even become visible in the daytime.  But, our records show no “guest star” at the time of Christ's birth.

The fixed stars do not change from year to year, so they would not account for the search. 

The Wise Men followed the motions of the planets as these “wandering stars” moved against the background of fixed stars, for they believed that the motions of these wandering stars could foretell the future.  With their knowledge of the motions of the heavens they could calculate that Jupiter and Saturn would be seen to pass each other three times and then be joined by Mars. 

Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

But, what of Herod and his advisors, why did they not see this “star”?  Most of the event would not be visible because it would happen during the day.  

But, the Wise Men with their superior knowledge of the motions of the planets knew that it was happening.  They knew that this event would take place in Pisces, the Fish, a star group which for them was symbolic of the Hebrews.  Thus some great event would take place in the land of the Hebrews and the Wise Men were off on their search.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.

Was this alignment of the planets really “The Star”? Astronomers do not know.

What we do know is that the star heralded Christ’s birth.

Merry Christmas

Valley Forge, the Bulge, Chosin Reservoir -- just three of the winter battles fought and won by the U.S. Armed Forces. There are many other battles, over four seasons, across the globe and 232+ years.

Today as most of us sit by our firesides, worry about our 401(k)s, and perhaps exchange fewer gifts than usual, take a few moments, remember and say a quiet prayer for the almost 3 million active and reserve members of the U.S. armed forces. Many are away from home; too many are in harm’s way. They are there protecting us. Not protecting Democrats, Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives; they are protecting Americans.

So say a prayer of thanksgiving for these brave men and women and ask God to protect them and bring them all safely home.

To paraphrase General George S. Patton:

GM and Chrysler are getting a $13.4 billion loan to keep going; AIG $150 billion; then there is Fannie and Freddie; the financial industry gets a $700 billion bailout; and the Democrats may be talking about as much as a $1 trillion economic stimulus package over the next two years.

But wait, The Liberal New York Times in an editorial on December 21, 2008 called for:

• “End production of the Air Force’s F-22…The net annual savings: about $3 billion.”
• “Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer…Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year.”
• “Halt production of the Virginia class sub…Net savings: $2.5 billion.”
• “Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey…Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.”
• “Halt premature deployment of missile defense…for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.”
• “Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force…Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.”

According to The Times:

“The cuts above could save $20 billion to $25 billion a year, which could be better used as follows:

o       Increase the size of the ground force.

o       Pay for the Navy’s needed littoral combat ships.

o       Resupply the National Guard and the Reserves.”

Now just based on the editorial, some of the suggestions would seem to make sense, except that accepting The Liberal New York Times as a reliable source on military needs and spending is like thinking Saddam Hussein never used WMDs.

Gee, I wonder what is really more important to the future of the country: AIG or national security?

Without debating the merits of the specific suggestions, the most telling comment in the editorial was:

“Halt production of the Virginia class sub…The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.”

Almost as an aside, one could discuss what the future might hold if we did not have these shipyards to build naval vessels?

What does The Liberal New York Times think is the point of the $1 trillion economic stimulus package? Certainly not public works projects!

I guess the liberal view of the stimulus is that it is to get Americans back to work and improve the Nation’s infrastructure everywhere except in the defense industry.

According to The Liberal New York Times (26 November 2008) the U.S. government’s financial assistance/economic stimulus/bailout was at least $7,800,000,000,000. Now that is $7.8 Trillion.

Several commentators have asked, “Where is all that money going to come from?” One even asked if the Federal Reserve was going to print it? Missing the point that the Federal Reserve does not print money, that is done by the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

It is important to understand that the government is not spending all that money.

$3.1 trillion is being used by the government as an insurer for guarantees to investors and depositors (think FDIC). Now granted, in theory the $3.1 trillion is “at risk”, but it is very, very unlikely that it would be lost. In fact, much of the money is earning interest.

$3 trillion is available to the government to invest in commercial paper, banks, etc. Commercial paper is usually considered a safe investment and both the commercial paper and the capital investment in banks earns interest. Again, low risk with a potential for a return on the investment.

$1.78 trillion is for loans. These short term loans are backed by collateral. It is assumed most will be paid back. For those that are not paid back, the government can sell the collateral, but probably at a loss. The amount of the lost is unknown.

To paraphrase a quote attributed to Everett Dirksen: A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. But, it is important to remember that the U.S. government is not going out and buying flat panel televisions and trips to Cancun. In fact, so far it has only “spent” about $1.4 trillion. 

Do you know Muntadhar al-Zeidi?

You may not know the name, but you probably know him – he is the correspondent for an Iraqi-owned television station who threw not one but both his shoes at President Bush.

The President was unharmed and showed quite good reflexes to dodge both shoes thrown from such a short distance.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi could face two years imprisonment for insulting a foreign leader. He has asked for a pardon.

According to reports, thousands took to the streets in Iraq to protest his arrest, and his actions were heralded across the Arab world.

Just a few questions for Mr. al-Zeidi, those protestors, and those in the “Arab world” who heralded his insult:

Assuming:

• there was a free press…
• there was a press conference…
• that Mr. al-Zeidi got into the room…
• and Mr. al-Zeidi threw his shoes, missed and shouted the same insult…

But that it was Saddam Hussein not President Bush, what do you think would have happened to Mr. al-Zeidi?

By my count there have been 64 U.S. Senators from New York State. Everything considered it is all but amazing that only two of these might be considered carpetbaggers: Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other 62 were either native New Yorkers, or at least lived in the state for some time before being elected to the U.S. Senate.

It is also of minor interest that both Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton held the same Senate seat as Class 1 U.S. Senators belonging to the electoral cycle that were elected in the first election of 1788/1789.

Should Caroline Kennedy be selected to fill Secretary of State designate Clinton’s Senate seat she certainly would not be a carpetbagger. 

So, what are the qualifications to be a United States Senator? Pretty simple according to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That is it; there are no other legal requirements.

The choice is solely the governor’s.

There is nothing to be gained by running a negative campaign about Caroline Kennedy, so Republicans and conservatives should treat her with respect, welcome her to the Senate, and prepare for the next election.