The linked, Reuters article cites:

Democratic presidential contenders Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday the United States should keep talking to Iran as part of an international diplomatic effort to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

...

In a separate speech, Clinton said the Bush administration, which has had minimal direct dealings with Iran, seems reluctant to continue engaging Tehran. She faulted the administration for giving Iran "six years of the silent treatment."

"I think we should keep talking," the New York senator said at the Center for a New American Security, a new think tank.

That's understandable, given the behavior of EVERY administration since the beginning of the Iran Hostage Crisis on November 4, 1979. Iran has been one of our best allies since then!

WAIT A SECOND!

I forgot a second that this is the reality where the Earth revolves around the sun. (see the following post)

In THIS reality, NO administration since the beginning of the Iran Hostage Crisis has had direct contact with the government of Iran.

President Carter (Democrat) broke off all direct diplomatic relations with Iran at the start of the crisis.

President-elect Reagan, supposedly, had indirect contact with their government. Basically, according to the rumor mill, he told them that he would nuke every square inch of their country until it glowed in the dark, unless they released the hostages.

They released them, shortly before his inauguration.

His administration, supposedly, had indirect contact with the Iranians during the Iran-Contra fiasco.

President Bush, the first one, had no contact with them.

President Clinton had no contact with them. (We'll come back to that.)

President Bush, for the first time in almost 28 YEARS!, had direct diplomatic contact with the government of Iran about Iraq and Afghanistan, earlier this year.

---

Now, think back, if you will, to President Bill Clinton's two campaigns, and how his wife and marriage were touted. The campaign said they were "equal partners". They said this enough, and after the actions of the Clinton administration on health care, pundits on the right started referring to Senator Clinton as "co-President".

Now, if Hillary was Bill's "equal partner" or "co-President", why is she giving the current Bush administration for "six years of the silent treatment."?

Is she, somehow, implying that the EIGHT years of the silent treatment that her husband's administration gave the same country was better? Or would be better in this instance?

It's now official. Global warming is a reality.

Do you know how I know?

The US House of Representatives said so in a bill they passed 272-155. That august body of qualified scientific experts in the subject have made it official by a majority vote. (The last sentence would be a sarcastic remark, for those of you that don't know.)

It reminds me of something I read once.

Do any of you remember the name Galileo?

He was put on trial by the Catholic church because he was heretical enough to proclaim that the Earth revolved around the sun, instead of the entire universe revolving around the Earth.

The church's justification?

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - from the Wikipedia article on the trial.

A majority of theologians, at the time, found the view to be heretical, and false. Therefore, they banned further research into the idea, under threat of excommunication. Galileo was let off with a light sentence, considering it was the Inquisition he faced. He, just, received house arrest FOR LIFE!

It took 300 years for science to prove to the satisfaction of the Catholic Church that Galileo was, indeed, correct.

Let's look at a few facts closely:

1) Galileo, based on the research of Copernicus, and his own observations, came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the sun in 1610.

2) The Catholic Church decided, because he could not provide irrefutable evidence of his theory as fact, that he was completely wrong, by a majority of leading theologians ... not scientist in 1633.

3) In 1992, Pope John Paul II vindicated Galileo, after his theories had been satisfactorily proved to be fact to a majority of Catholic theologians.

The questions are:

Was Galileo any less right in 1610 than he was in 1992?

Was there some incredible shift in the way the universe operates in those 300 years?

How many majority votes of unqualified, unknowledgeble bureaucrats does it take to make a treasured, unproven idea truth?

Sophisticates prate glibly of sentimentality in words of scorn and disgust. They sicken me.

When a man makes mock in small words of a heart torn from a bosom by the iron plowshare of fate, and held up to freeze in the light of the merciless stars - no matter what the cause - that man is either making a pitiful and sorry attempt to hide a wounded soul, or else he has never walked the road of thorns hand in hand with old Dame Sorrow and her daughter Agony. He is a cheap caricature of humanity. His soul is smaller than a mustard seed, and his soul would yet engulf his brain. Poor and doubly poor, the man who from a thinness of blood and a lack of virility, boasts of sophistication.

--Robert E. Howard, 1906-1936

Okay,

As I understand it, Gitmo is a terrible place. It doesn't matter what a person has done, or might have done. They could be a viable prisoner of war, or whatever, but Gitmo is too heinous a place for anyone.

So, now, we are going to release 6 prisoners from Gitmo, and the same people that have been spewing the above are COMPLAINING?!?!

We've agreed to send them home, just like the Gitmo accusers have been saying all along. Yet, now, we are even worse Bad Guys for doing what they said, and sending them home?!?!

Give me a break!

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING?

---

One of my favorite lines in this article states:

So-and so, "a 50-year-old Tunisian who has been held without charge since August 2002."


EXCUSE ME?

We are at war. (For those of you that didn't know ... I know it's hard to tell with all the coverage of Paris Hilton, lately.)

Since when has ANY "civilized" country tried a prisoner of war in a criminal court?

IN FACT, if I remember right, that is PROHIBITED by the GENEVA CONVENTIONS!

But, somehow, or other, the US are the Bad Guys for holding people as prisoners of war, in situations like we held POW's in previous wars, without charging them with crimes (again, AGAINST the Geneva Conventions), or letting them go home, ... or, now, we are the Bad Guys for giving them an all-expenses-trip home!

Keep in mind that the, currently, 375 prisoners at Gitmo are the worst of the people that we captured.

Let me refresh your memory how we captured them:

THEY WERE FIGHTING US MILITARY FORCES IN A WAR ZONE!

More of them would be in Gitmo, but they were the ones killed in the firefight that led to the 375 captured. In all likelihoods, they took some American servicemen with them, in the firefight.


BTW, just for your edification, the last time I saw a credible figure for ARMED, enemy combatants killed in Iraq by coalition forces the number was just over 22,000.

We lost 4,000-6,000 on D-Day, June 6, 1944, during WWII.

Do a Google search. Have we, in over 4 years of war in Iraq, have we lost as many people as we did on that one single day during WWII?

It makes for an interesting perspective, doesn't it?

They think you are stupid.

Let me rephrase that, they, the people in our Congress, are certain that you and I are stupid. Or, at least, unbelievably gullible.

They are going to make Big Oil pay! 29 billion dollars in new taxes! Make Big Oil pay for new energy sources. Make Big Oil pay for the high prices at the pump!

There are two facets to this that they don't tell you. Both of them are ways of, basically, taxing you through the oil companies.

The first way that Congress is going to stick it to you through the "hidden tax" of taxing oil companies:


Supposing that this tax is passed, how is "Big Oil" going to get the money to pay this tax?

They are a business. A business is a business. It doesn't matter if it is a "mom and pop", local business or a multinational corporation. When their operating expenses go up, they are faced with one of two choices: a) cut profits (and, thereby, decreasing the available funds to make their business more efficient ... which reduces costs, and, therefore, lowers the costs that have to be passed on to consumers (lower prices for those of you in Arkansas)); or b) raise prices.

Depending on whose estimates you read, Big Oil receives 9-12 cents a gallon in profit. Everything else is business expense.

Depending on what state you live in, your state and federal government receive 40-65 cents a gallon in taxes. In other words, without this new tax, the government makes 3-6 times, per gallon, what Big Oil makes on it's product.

Also, keep in mind, Congress has prohibited Big Oil from developing domestic sources of oil, making us more dependent on foreign oil. AND, they have prohibited both the building of new refineries, utilizing modern technologies, and upgrading the technology in existing refineries within the US. The refineries within the US were built to meet the need of the early 1970's, when there were 70 million fewer in the US. AND, those refineries are state of the art for the early 1970's. Think about what state of the art for the early 1970's was. Let me give you a hint: state of the art car stereos had 8-track tape players. Both of those things have added to Big Oil's operating expenses.

What are they going to do with those expenses, AND the new tax?

Do you, really, think they are going to take a cut in profits?

They aren't. I'm going to tell you why in the next part.

So, if they don't take a cut in profits, then they have to increase the price of their product ... the gas you pump into your car.

Think about that for a second.

Let me put it into perspective. My Karmann Ghia has a 9 gallon tank. So, every time I fill up my tank Big Oil makes less money from me than it costs for me to buy a coke from the machine at work.The government, on the other hand, makes enough to (somewhere in this spectrum) either rent a video for 5 days from my favorite video store or buy a six pack of my favorite, local, microbrew. That's in my Ghia. My Ford F-150 has a tank that is 3 times that size.

That's money you are giving the government for the privilege of buying gas from an entity that is not the government. The government, not only, has no part in producing the product in question, they have, actively, contributed to increasing the price of the product, outside of taxing it.

The second way that Congress is sticking it to you with gas taxes:

Do you have any investments in the stock market?

Let me rephrase that: if you have a 401K, a pension plan, an IRA, or any investments in a mutual fund, then you, in all likelihood, have an investment in the stock market.

Who owns Big Oil?

If your first guesses include: George Bush (either one), Dick Cheney, the board members of Exxon, Citgo, Shell, Connoco, etc.; then you would be WRONG!

All of the companies that make up Big Oil are corporations. Meaning that the ownership of those companies, and, therefore, those who reap the benefits of the profits of those companies, are the stockholders. They vote the Board of Directors, the CEO and CFO (Chief Financial Officer) into, and out, of office.


Board members are just administrators voted into office to run a company and make it profitable for the stockholders.

When the company in question does well, the stock price goes up. Most 401Ks, pension plans, IRA's, and mutual funds, invest in stocks. Big Oil has been one of the most stable profit makers for investors dating back to the 1800's. Therefore, a lot of 401Ks, pension plans, IRA's, and mutual funds invest in Big Oil.

So, who owns Big Oil?

Well, probably, you do.

If this tax goes through, it will cut into profits. Cutting into profits will decrease the value of the stock. Decreasing the value of the stock will cut into the value of 401Ks, pension plans, IRA's, and mutual funds.

Personally, I am a "poor enlisted soldier". My wife and I, both, have IRA's that are investments in mutual funds. Then, we share an IRA that is a "rolled over" 401K into a traditional IRA that invests in mutual funds.

So, the bozos in Congress are telling you how great it is that they are going to stick it to Big Oil FOR You!

Yeah, right, they are sticking it to you in ways you can't see.

I take back what I said in the beginning. I'm not sure I believe:

They think you are stupid.

Let me rephrase that, they, the people in our Congress, are certain that you and I are stupid. Or, at least, unbelievably gullible.

There are two other alternatives:

1) THEY are ignorant, and have no idea of how our economy works.

2) They have become so self-absorbed, and out of touch that they have no idea how what they do affects us.

No matter how you slice it, the old adage "Congress is the opposite of progress." is proved to be right again.

Okay, who didn't see this one coming from a mile away?

After the Virginia Tech shootings, it was inevitable that the Virginia legislature and/or the US Congress was going to use this as an excuse to push through a piece of useless legislation. At least, it is useless in terms of actually preventing something like this happen again.

First, if a person wants a gun bad enough, they are going to get a gun. There are too many ways to acquire one outside of the normal means. Thereby negating any waiting period or background check.

The end all, be all is that the Virginia Tech campus is, by state law, a "gun-free" zone. What does that mean? It is illegal to have a gun of any kind on the campus ever. No guns at anytime. Got it? It is against the law. This is the definition of the phrase "zero tolerance".

Now, how can you get more restrictive than that?

There are 32 corpses that can attest to the fact that the legislation responsible for that case of "zero tolerance" being, particularly, ineffective.

On the other hand, if there had been an armed security guard; an ROTC student/instructor with access to an M16 rifle, or M9 pistol; or, even, your garden variety Virgina redneck with a hunting rifle or shotgun in the gun rack in the back window of his pickup; then, maybe, there wouldn't be as many victims to mourn.

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on US 95 South, just outside of Washington. Nothing is moving north or south.

Suddenly a man knocks on his window.

The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened?" What's the hold up?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and John Kerry. They are asking for a $100 million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "On average how much is everyone giving?"

"About a gallon."

It's the 63 anniversary of D-Day.

An amazing period in our nation's history. This story is an amazing episode that finally ended recently.

As we have entered the fourth year in Iraq, and as of today, according to icasualties.org, 3503 Americans have died in that conflict (not all of those were due to combat, that number is 2891). I was caught by the last paragraph of this article.

Clark was one of 4,000 American and Allied soldiers killed during intense fighting on D-Day, a crucial turning point in the war. The D-Day Memorial is in Bedford, Va., because that town lost 19 soldiers, the highest per capita loss from any single town in the United States.


4,000 American AND Allied soldiers died on D-Day, in case you missed that. Coalition casualties for over 4 years of fighting in Iraq is only 3779.

Yet, D-Day is something to be celebrated, and the "awful waste" of the war in Iraq is something to protest, and vilify the President for.

Somebody needs to get a sense of perspective.