Two things I have promised never to do in my adult life... 1) become a vegitarian, 2) say something corny like "There's a reason it's called the 'RIGHT wing'". Now that I've already blown number 2, I can relax.

It must be said..... global warming hype is totally out of control. "New research suggests that by 2080 humans will be facing mass starvation and famines!"(Yahoo news) Spare me... The tell-tale sign that this is a little screwy is that they suggest that there might be longer growing seasons between now and about 2050, but apparently that doesn't matter a hill of beans because we will be suffering from widespread pandemics of tropical diseases, fire ants, and lack of polar bears in the wild. No news is good news, apparently... forget all about huge harvests, long growing seasons, and an almost utopia-like climate.... LIONS, TIGERS, AND BEARS!!!

Timothy Ball, a climatologist from Canada (and the first Canadian to win the Nobel Prize for science), recently said in an interview that the "evidence" on global warming was "misleading" at best. I also find it telling that he felt a need to mention that when he first started in climatology, the trend was global cooling. Maybe a sign for what is to come in another thirty years?

The other thing that really makes me hot about this (no pun intended) is how often you hear numbers trotted out of scientists who agree that global warming is happening. Once again, I will defer to the scientist, Dr. Ball? "Consensus does not equal fact..." There you have it, sports fans, no matter how many people say it's true, they could all be full of it. Get the facts, check the history, and make an informed guess.

Power to the people!

Adam

Dem, Indies, GOP, or RINOs? (Cont, from previous)

Okay, now that the Democrats are taken care off... the skinny on the Red and not-so-RED...

JOHN MCCAIN (GOP--Kinda) From what I have seen of him, Sen. McCain is very flexible on his political views... he kind of says things that sound liberal, and doesn't do anything about it. This is what the writers at wikipedia had to say about our fair senator..."In fact, according to voteview.com, McCain's voting record in the 109th Congress was the third most conservative among senators. On the other hand, his voting record during the 107th Congress, from January 2001 through November 2002, placed him as the 6th most liberal Republican senator, according to the same analysis at voteview.com." Add to this his call of "No confidence" in Donald Rumsfeld while stopping short of signing onto the petition for his resignation, and John Kerry asking McCain to be his running mate prior to picking up Edwards, and I have to say that I don't think I can seriously trust McCain to be President.

MITT ROMNEY(GOP) I gotta admit, I'm starting to like this guy... staunchly conservative, a former Governor, and a great Presidential-Style tupee. The down sides? A) he's Mormon. B) Massachusettes elected him Governor, and then turned around and tried to make Gay Marriage legal. C) Did I mention he is Mormon? Oh, and did anybody notice he announced his candidacy in Dearborn, Michigan, the muslim capital of America? Between you, me, and the fencepost, Muslim-lovin' Mormon ain't getting elected.

RUDY GIULIANNI (GOP) Okay, massive Icon status, a good track record of being tough on crime, and who else can point to pulling through a crisis like 9/11? As much as I appreciate Giulianni's leadership abilities and conservative rhetoric, I do have some issues here as well. First off, the man's moral compass is a little jilted (much like his ex-wives, ironically). Secondly, he doesn't have any political experience on a national scale. But the killer, is that he comes across as a little liberal for my taste (stem cell research, gay rights, and the like)

SAM BROWNBECK (GOP) Of all the candidates in the Republican primary, I think this guy is the most likely to get my vote, even though he is definitely not the most likely to win. The Senator from Kansas has been in office since 1996, and has a firm record of voting with his stated beliefs. As one of the strongest supporters of the Pro-Life movement in the senate, he has stood firm in not only authoring legislation for the protection of the unborn, but sponsoring like-minded legislation as well. He has also been an opponent of gay rights, a proponent of Intelligent design in Education, and in protection of the constitution. Amongst all of these postives, believe it or not, I have found a couple of issues to harp on. Senator Brownback has taken issue with the NSA wiretapping program that was outed to the media (which I think may be a pretty important tool... especially when you look at how many muslims have gotten disposable cell phones since the story broke). He has also voiced opposition to the death penalty... I can understand why, but I must admit that I think this is a huge mistake. I won't go into the whyfor or the how of why I disagree with him, but I must admit that I respect him for why he disagrees with it. The one thing that I seriously take as a downer on his reputation, is that he has also said that he will oppose a troop surge in Iraq... once again, I think he has a good reason for his opposition, but I think he is seriously misguided in seeking a purely political solution to a deeply religious problem.

Okay, so where are we now? Those are a brief summary of the front runners, but there are still a couple of wild cards to be played. Will Newt Gingrich really get his backside into the act this year? Will Ralph Nader make another sudden appearance to steal Democrat votes? I don't know for sure, but I think we can all agree that the campaign is going to be way to long. If for nothing else, we can all unite around that.

I look at who is running right now, and I'm thinking how interesting it would be should, say, Condoleezza Rice or Michael Steel (Lt. Governor of Virginia) run for President... and then I suddenly wake up. Too bad, but that is a day dream for another day.

Adam
PS. (GO MICHAEL STEEL!)

Okay, since when is it 2008? What did you say? It's still 2007? Somebody forgot to tell the politicians... Okay, so maybe they want to be the first one for their party to announce that they are running, but isn't two years of cam-"pain"-ing just a little overboard? One of those "There should be a law!" kind of things I guess... So! As my public service to the nation (tee-hee) I shall attempt to break down the current "front runners" and hope I make some sense.

Dems, indies, GOP, or RINO's?

HILLARY R. CLINTON(Dem)-- The scariest person alive... I should probably just let it rest there, but hey, it's me. Okay, senator of New York... and a DNC party crony. Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, Higher Taxes, and NO MILITARY! The basis of her agenda seems to be that there is no such thing as a bad person, just a misguided one. Okay, saying that being kind and reasoning with a tyrannical, WMD-wielding, terrorist will succeed is nice... but severely incorrect. Just ask Carter about dealing with the Iran Hostages. Notice there that Regan gets elected after campaigning on a strong military force, and one night into his presidency Iran released the hostages... a lesson to learn, maybe? Other than the political platform, I have one huge question about Mrs. Clinton... what qualifications does she have to be President?! She has not shown leadership on any major issues in Congress since her election, she didn't rally people during the 9/11 fallout, and all she did for the Katrina vic's was talk about how "Bush blew it!". With no leadership, hardly any national political experience (Excusing the 8 years as first-lady), and a lack-luster platform... the only reason I can see to vote for her is because she is a woman... and even that may be up for debate.

BARACK OBAMA(Dem)-- Okay, first off, give the dude props that he is shooting for the stars, and that he was honest enough to criticize the war effort from day one (there is no doubt in this writer's head that he would have voted against it given the chance). On the negatives, by the time he would be sworn into office, he would have been in the US Senate for all of 4 years... John McCain has been in office since 1987. Other negatives include his calling of conservative voters as racists (indicating a racial slant in his politics), his support of gun control (although the right to bear arms is Constitutionally protected), and his push for Universal Healthcare(stupid). The idea of Universal healthcare is nice, but let's face facts. It's been tried three times (Russia, the UK, and Canada), and all three times it has tanked the healthcare system. The notion that we can use this policy without the same result is either ignorant, arrogant, or insane. To be honest, I lost my health insurance in Januray of this year, and I STILL think it is a bad idea. After all has been said and done, I think the lack of experience is most likely to axe this candidate.

JOHN EDWARDS(Dem)-- C'mon... I think somebody was smoking the front lawn when he decided to run... "I know, I wasn't popular enough to be voted for Vice President, I think I'll run for president!" I think more than likely, he doesn't stand much of a chance in the primaries... not against two candidates that would "make history." Even if not for that, he would probably fold by association with John Kerry. Who cares about his politics... he's just not that visual of a person, and most people who do think of him, will think of Kerry first... oops.

(Cont. in next)