I'm hibernating - somebody wake me up when the elder (e:Ho) is in town.

I ended up putting my response to (e:ajay)'s survey in his comments section before realizing that others updated their journal - I guess it doesn't matter where it goes. The responses did confirm what I already knew anyhow - y'all are crazy! :)

I actually want to make an addendum to my response after reading what (e:robin) and (e:uncut) wrote. This concerns the right to marry. The most intelligent thing that I've ever heard concerning the marriage issue is what (e:uncut) told me once, and he's repeated it for your benefit so I suggest checking it out.

(e:robin) said that nobody should have the "right" to marry; gay, straight, whatever. I kind of like this idea. Marriage shouldn't necessarily be a "right" any more than being able to drive a car should be a "right." Actually, on the other hand... and you KNOW that you have friends like this, there are some people out there that should just not get married.... EVER.

Ahh (e:ajay) is my Bob Beckel. :)

Actually (e:ajay) you are completely wrong. Pew did a study that showed during both 2004 and 2005 that 30% considered themselves to be Republican and 33% considered themselves to be Democrat. You can read the study here ->

Even with CBS's "objective survey" being weighted it came out to 28% Republican 37% Democrat. That = the textbook definition of skewed polling. To suggest that somehow this was a representative sample is amusing to me.

Anyhow, onward and upward.

I occasionally put myself through watching Chris Matthews' trainwreck of a show. (Hint - there is a reason why his ratings are among the worst in the talking head circuit.) This blithering fool Carter devotee (strike 1) actually suggested that it was a pity that the potential for civil war didn't start sooner.

"The problem is it took a little time for this (the potential for civil war) to take shape."

THE PROBLEM, Chrissy? Take a bow sir. You've now exposed yourself to the suggestion that you are willing to allow Iraq go down in flames as long as Democrats can gain politically from it in an election year. Any of you people who think that Democrats are going to somehow be smelling roses in November are kidding yourselves when the most prominent among you are begging, pleading and praying for our action in the Middle East to fail. That suuuure is going to be buying you votes, baby! P.S. I'm already deep in your squishy grey matter between your ears, lefties. Iraq is not a failure and won't be unless we do what you want, which is to give up. Of course, there is no meaningful public support for a pullout so you just might have to find a "sympathetic" judge to rule in your favor somehow suggesting that war is unconstitutional!

I actually pity the Democrats lately, because the DNC and the liberal bankroll has no idea how to handle itself right now. Say what you want, but Republicans are immeasurably better than liberals at political strategy. Admittedly this is the time where Democrats could clearly make a case to the American people that just might make a difference in November. Instead, during the darkest hours for the RNC, its clear that a) the likely Democratic nominee in '08 won't win a general election, b) nobody on DNC side is suggesting a new or innovative idea that voters would agree on with respect to how to handle national security that would be different from the Republicans, c) there is no apparent strategy or platform for the '06 elections other than what Carville and Begala are amusingly suggesting - "Bash Bush!!!"

Lastly, my dear friends, many of whom may be incensed by my right-leaning, well articulated sensibilities at this point in this journal post. You know that this is all in good fun and I love my leftie friends, but you have to admit that its hard to be a credible liberal when you get your news from a fake news show, or in the case of NPR's Nina Totenburg when she was on "Inside Washington" recently, you say that you don't root for Americans to win medals at the Olympics and that the Salt Lake Games were somehow spoiled by American "nationalism." Well gee, apparently rooting for your country during the Olympics is now a crime!

Newsbusters recently released a study on the recent poll concerning President Bush's approval ratings. -> I love this article. For those of you who are foolish enough to assert that there is no media bias, feel free to examine the facts... but it might be a hard pill to swallow. I'm going to parrot a lot of the information from the article in the interest of summary, but I urge you to take a look at the link.

According to the recent CBS poll Bush's approval rating is at 34%. So, you might wonder, what is the breakdown with the participants with respect to political affiliation?

27% Republican, 40% Democrat and the rest Independant. You mean that CBS overpolls Democrats and then NYT publishes the poll and pretends as if its objective? You'd be a fool to believe that these things are done objectively, and unfortunately for CBS, their hand got caught in the cookie jar again.

Its gets worse. Last night's CBS News broadcast failed to mention the most interesting factoid from the poll - 66% thought that the MSM devoted "too much time" to the Cheney story. Gee, I wonder why CBS would plaster their uninterested audience with a story like that. Not only is this evidence that CBS can't relate to their target audience irrespective of political affiliation (that is, unless you are one of the 6% who think Soros, Michael Moore, Franken, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Durbin, etc. make a lot of sense) but they willingly omit facts from their own polls when it points out that they made an error of judgment. Then, they sell this bunk approval poll like its a bag of diamonds.

Now you know why MSM approval polls are hilarious and could never be taken seriously.

Second story - New York Times is continuously the front car in the trainwreck that is the print media. The reasons are numerous and expansive, but I'll provide you an example from today's edition. I'd link it but you have to be registered with NYT in order to read it - so either sign up yourself if you haven't already (its free, just dump your register information into a junk email addy like I do) or buy today's edition.

The headline says, "Americans Are Cautiously Open to Gas Tax Rise, Poll Shows." This defies logic, so you have to wonder why it would be that the author of this article would come to this conclusion.

So, whats the first sentence? "Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a higher federal gasoline tax, BUT! BUT!(my capitalization and exclamations for emphasis) a significant number would go along with an increase if it reduced global warming or made the United States less dependent on foreign oil, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll." What, another skewed poll with the NYT willingly entering a misleading headline? Yep.

Damn, CBS and NYT tag teaming again on another abomination? Yessir. The wacko idea behind this is that the higher tax would lower consumption of gas, thus somehow affecting global warming (which nobody has actually proven in an irrefutable way is even related to our activities here on Planet Earth) and allowing us to be less dependant on foreign oil. Just give us MORE MONEY and we can solve the problem - #1 failure among liberals when they are attempting to solve problems.

So, 85% of the people polled opposed a tax hike on gas when crude is already hovering around $60 per barrel. Some loony economist at Berkeley is suggesting that the tax needs to be an extra DOLLAR per gallon spread over 5 years to make this idea work. This is a tax that would burden the poor, so what is their answer? A) lowering taxes for the lower and middle classes to offset the cost, or B) counting on a 10% increase in gas prices as a result of the tax to offset consumption enough to be worth it. Well, to hell with it - lets raise gas taxes and hope that consumption goes down enough to offet the additional taxes, although there is NO evidence to suggest that this would actually work.

Actually, the evidence suggests otherwise. After Katrina gas spiked to $3-$3.50 per gallon, which depending on where you live would have represented a 30-60% increase in gas cost. Consumption didn't go down a significant amount... so a 10% increase in the long run is supposed to lower consumption by 6 or 8%? Bogus, absolutely bogus. Only an environmental wacko with no regard for feasability or common sense could have dreamed this one up.

I'm sure these people are patting themselves on the back and thinking that they are brilliant for coming up with this one, but its a crazy idea that would be nearly impossible to actually implement. Nobody actually mentioned how the extra tax dollars would directly correlate to effectively combating global warming except to say that they would earmark the money into MORE programs designed to work on alternative technology. Which of course, nobody will actually use unless they don't have to buy a new vehicle or don't have to outlay a huge amount of money to get this new technology.

The lesson that these delusional activists need to learn is that environmental change is going to be market driven if its ever going to be implemented in any meaningful way. Unless its cheaper than oil, doesn't require a major energy infrastructure investment and won't force people to outlay a fortune to convert, it ain't gonna happen - not ever.

The entire article is meaningless because on its face this could not and would not ever happen. What pisses me off, and thus is my inspiration to talk about it, is the ingenuous nature of the headline. What it really needs to say is, "Americans Cautiously Open To Gas Tax Rise, As Long As Our Illogical And Far-Fetched Idea Actually Could Be Implemented, But Still - 85% Of Americans Aren't Interested."

Joshua John Larson --
[adjective]:

Fuzzy to the touch

My connection into Atlanta was late so I'm stranded at the Holiday Inn until tomorrow... at Deltas expense. I hate Delta more than I hate UPS now. At least the hotel has a bar.