sub-head: ... and dems are fit to be tied.    eh. eh. eh.

Comment boards have festered and parlayed all night.  ROFL

I joined the fracas over at Lucianne a few times ... This morning I made my last (maybe) comment:

LucianneLucianneLinkLady....somebodyanybody -- Puleeeezeeeee! Close the gate!! Don't allow any more of these girlyman-groupies in!! We've got to get sleep and they're everywhere -- weeping, wailing, gnashing teef, hacking up their arms and legs, crawling out of the woodwork, suckin' up bandwidth protesting (or apologizing for) one widdle wise 'n willy wealthy whoa-man who had the audacity to infer that one of their lead-sheeple's masculinity (winkwinkwink -- you read that Oregon study, didn't you?) was suspect.

Thank GAWD you don't allow smoking in here!! With all these fagots lying around, somebuddy would likely flick their bic or drop their butt on an errant twig and start a fire or a stampede or even worse -- a... a... a SMOKE SCREEN!

And that's what this has become:  a smoke screen.  A smoke screen for dems to again remind pubbies of their submissive role as compassionate conservatives and for pubbies to literally roll over and yield to the wiles and ploys of the politically profane.

Ann Coulter is brilliant.  She may wear the book cover of compassionate conservatism, but on page 1 -- she's got the TT's (that's titanium tits for you ballsie-boys) and the intellect to give the politicos a dose of their own medicine.  And she does it with flair and finesse.  Laughing all the way to the bank.

Too bad the rest of us only watch through the fence -- huddled securely in our compassionate little herds and can only gasp at the shock and awe.

####

I abhor the f-word that Ann Coulter used in her speech yesterday, but I find it more disgraceful that many pundits (from both camps) have expounded upon it.  While dems have feigned shock, pubbies have literally bent over backwards to condemn Coulter's comment -- even though folks from both camps have been snickering about Edwards' girly-man image since he  ran the last time. 

(And no -- Mitt Romney didn't introduce Ann Coulter -- grasp another straw, ye naysayers).

What Coulter said:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot' – so... Kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."

When I first read Coulter's closing comment, I had visions of Tim Hardaway  disclosing <gasp> that he didn't want to play with homosexual teammates ... or the Grey's Anatomy character who called <ut oh> a cast member gay .... or Mel Gibson who disparaged Jews .... or that Seinfeld actor who went bonkers and used the n-word during a comedy sketch ...

All those folks (and may others) are in rehab for their mis-speaks -- not to mention the mis-deeds that have sent celebs and politicos such as Foley and Kennedy into treatment programs. 

It didn't occur (matter?) to me (until later) that Coulter was also zinging a reference to John Edwards propensity to primp!  Good grief.  Coulter dropped a sound-byte that wasn't even original (Google Hot Air videos and Michelle Malkin for starters)!!   

It was a joke (not one that made me laugh, btw) by an entertainer.  A political satirist.  Albeit, not one I'd expect to speak at a national conservative convention, but Ann Coulter hasn't made her fortune soothing fevered brows.  And the woman DOES draw a crowd! 

In defense of Edwards:  The guy may sometimes comes across as a wuss, yet it's not for me or Ann Coulter or anyone who leans to the right of center to verbalize that the poor guy is in any way deserving of being characterized as a male who demonstrates a propensity for feminine behaviors in certain scenarios.  However, this is not his first trip to the sacrificial alter of politics -- and nobody is twisting his arm to stay on the pyre.

After all ---  

Only democrats are allowed to use offensive terms and descriptors.   Only  democrats are allowed to wish (as did Bill Maher and other left-leaners) that VP Cheney had been killed by the recent bomb .... or to state that the bomb lobbed at the camp in which he slept was "wasted" .... or to refer to Bush and Cheney as killers, drunks, liars, murderers, etc.

The repercussions from Coulter's comment?  Dems have gone berserk (shuddup, you double-standard Deaniacs), Repubs have apologized for her comment as if it was something other than a sound-byte, candidates have understandably distanced themselves for the "inappropriateness" of the inference.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear the gaffaws.

And no -- two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.  But what IS good for the ole goose is STILL good for the gander, isn't it?   

FLASH:  this is what Coulter supposedly had to say for herself: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

And on that note -- here's a YouTube video making the rounds this evening:

Former Sen. Edwards really shouldn't take this free publicity as all bad, however.  To many folks, a fagot is nothing more than "a bundle of sticks and branches bound together."

It's an honor to be featured again .... And while you're here -- let me share a few life-notes which reflect my blogging interests:

1.  Avoiding potential Stalkers .... Unlike some of you, I don't blog about personal issues for one frightening reason:  I was stalked online and later off-line by a rather ruthless person a few years back.  Of course I notified authorities, but they can only do so much .... YOU MUST ALWAYS BE AWARE THAT KOOKS SURVIVE IN THE DARKEST CORNERS on and off-line.  Each of us must be sensitive to the danger of conveying too much personal information online ..... 

2.  Humor .... the ability to laugh at yourself as well as to find and share  laughter with others. Take my wrinkles, for example (ahem).  They are actually laugh-lines earned from 60+ years of humorous reactions to most things uneventful to others ... 

3.  Politics .... above and beyond the power to control and manage -- I'm a strong advocate for the politics of life -- which include honesty, fair-play, a sincere  regard for others and a satirical approach to never, never taking yourself too seriously.   On power and control issues, however, I'm a moderate conservative.

4.  Loving Life .... All parts of it -- my aches and pains, my illnesses, my family, my dog, my old jeep, my work, my hand-picked staff, my clients, my flowers, my family (did I mention them?), my health, my friends, my memories -- because without the ability to love, to care, to feel, etc., there isn't too much else.  Know what I mean?

5.  Blogging .... About Mitt Romney -- the person whom I sincerely believe to be the hope to lead this wonderful nation from the harsh realities of 9/11 toward a realistic new world order .... blogging about the bias and slanting of main stream media .... blogging about the politics of life, humor and the random thoughts of a person who is likely 2-3 times older than most of you .... blogging about life-values: i.e.,

... if you tell the truth - you never have to remember what you said ....
... never argue with a pig in his own pen.  You'll both get muddy and he'll love it.
... when they're riding you outta town on a rail, get in front and make it look like a parade ....
... always remembering that none of us have ever seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul. 

Know what I mean?

Ann is on a rampage, and again -- she stops them in their (carbon) footprints. 

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

::::rushing to the freezer to be certain I threw that tofu out::::::

I'm a regular American Digest reader.  Great article today entitled "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of  them all?"

Guess who?

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example.... This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford." (Common Dreams)

Am I giggling, or what? 

Guess the man in cowboy boots ain't so back'ards after all, eh, Al?

Read the post for a comparison of home efficiencies between the GWB ranch and Algore's mansion.   

^5 George and Laura!  Class act.  (Green) thumbs up!!! 

RCP:

(Editor's note: I sat down with Governor Romney at this headquarters in Boston on Friday. I asked to record the interview and Governor Romney agreed without hesitation, and as I turn the recorder on Romney is in the middle of commenting on the fact that his every utterance these days is captured on tape in one way or another.)

ROMNEY: You've got to be really careful about what you say and do anywhere you are. I actually had a dream about being in parking garage and having somebody in front of me taking too long to get their change and honking the horn and then yelling back, and getting out and yelling at each other and then seeing it on YouTube the next day. So I said 'OK', I've got to really be careful, you know, in my personal life.

RCP: So how's the campaign going for you so far? Is it what you expected?

ROMNEY: It's gotten going a lot faster than I would have expected. I saw George Stephanopoulos last week, he said he was hired on as the first Clinton campaign employee in what would be the equivalent of October of this year. And we have many tens of employees at this point. And even this early the response in states that really are early in the process: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, the response is really quite surprising. Large numbers of people, lots of questions, enthusiastic reaction.

RCP: What's the question you get asked most?

ROMNEY: From Republican crowds most often the question relates to immigration, then education and healthcare. Interestingly, very rarely is there a question about foreign policy, Iraq, Iran. I typically have to insert those into my opening remarks to get the audience to draw out on that at all.

I think it's in part because Republican audiences don't want to talk about it. It hasn't gone well. It feels like the team is losing and people don't want to hear about it.

RCP: Speaking of, yesterday there were reports you issued some mild criticism of the Bush administration policy in Iraq, saying it wasn't going as well as many had liked. John McCain said recently he thought Secretary Rumsfeld would go down as one of the worst Defense Secretaries in history. Dick Cheney responded by saying he thought Rumsfeld had been a great Secretary of Defense and that he'd done a super job. What do you think? What's your impression of the job Rumsfeld did?

ROMNEY: I really don't think pointing fingers at individuals is a productive exercise at this point. Clearly the president would agree the buck stops with him. He's responsible for the management of our affairs, and I would not suggest we go and try and find individuals within various departments to assume the blame.

In my view, and I've said this many times before, we did an excellent job knocking down Saddam Hussein's government, but we did less than a superb job in managing the post major-conflict period. And I think we were underprepared for it, under planned, under staffed, and under managed. And because of our shortcomings in those areas we've contributed to the difficult position in which we find ourselves. But we are where we are.

And if you, like me, have done a lot of reading about the process that led up to the conflict and the preparations for the post-major conflict period, you too will recognize that, if these accounts are accurate, we've made a lot of errors in terms of preparation. And whether you've read the Looming Tower, or The Assassin's Gate, or Cobra II, or Paul Bremer's book or Gen. Zinni's book, they come to that set of conclusions even though they come from very different viewpoints.

RCP: And do you believe it's still fixable at this point?

ROMNEY: Yes. I think there is a reasonable course - or, let me restate that, there's a reasonable probability that there is a path to securing the nation and establishing stability for a central government. I don't say that's a path with high confidence of being successful, but there's still a reasonable probability that path can be pursued. And that's why I think the president is right to add to the military mission the responsibility for securing Baghdad and the population of Baghdad.

I think that should have been done a lot earlier and should have been part of the initial plan. But, be that as it may, it's now being added to the mission. And when you add a mission to our military that means you need to add troop strength to carry it out. We'll see how well that plan is working. It will probably play out over a matter of five to six months, or more. But it's months, not years.

I presume that the Defense Department and the President have worked out with al-Maliki's government what the milestones are and what the timetable is for determining if we're being successful in this new effort. And we'll be able to judge, are we accomplishing what we hope to accomplish? Those don't have to be made public, although I think it'd be helpful if in some cases they were, so the public could understand and have credibility behind the accomplishments, if there are accomplishments. I think it's much broader, for instance, than just saying, "are there fewer attacks?" It's much more devoted to determining are the Iraqi military and police forces able to take the lead at some stage here in providing for the security for their people.

RCP: And, as you said, it'll play out over course of five or six months. That's what most experts have said. But what happens if it's not successful, or not as successful as we'd hoped? What then?

ROMNEY: If you establish milestones, and you determine that we're not making progress against those milestones, then you know the strategy isn't working and you have to turn to Plan B or C. I'm not going to forecast what Plan B or C might be. Clearly there are people who say we should just turn and walk out. There are others who say we should divide the country in various - three, four, five or more parts.

There are additional risks associated with those courses that would suggest we don't want to take those options unless there is no other option available. And the additional risks you're familiar with. If you divide the country in parts Iran may try and seize the Iraqi portion - excuse me the Shia portion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda could play a dominating role in the Sunni portion. The Kurdish population could destabilize the Kurds in Turkey and could create conflict across the border. You could have a regional conflict develop. And for all of those additional reasons and risks, you wouldn't want to pursue that course unless there were no other option available.

RCP: On a related subject: Iran. You made some comment yesterday about Iran. If Iran hasn't acquired nuclear weapons by January 2009 when President Romney takes office, would they acquire them under a Romney administration?

ROMNEY: I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Unacceptable to our interests and to the interest of the civilized world. For that reason I think we should exert every source of our world pressure to keep Iran from pursuing that course. And, of course, the military option must be left on the table

In my view, at this stage, we should be doing as the Bush administration has begun, which is tightening economic sanctions, as well as tightening diplomatic isolation, we should be communicating to the Iranian people the downsides of becoming a nuclear power, we should be engaging the moderate Muslim states in the neighborhood to help put pressure as well on Iran and to help us by taking pressure off of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, in my view, we should be putting together a much broader comprehensive strategy to defeat radical jihad in the world of Islam.

RCP: So, just to phrase it a different way, it's your view that the national security risk to the United States of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon outweighs -

ROMNEY: Is extreme...

RCP: and outweighs any sort of adverse effect or fallout that might come from attacking them either with airstrikes and/or some sort of ground force.

ROMNEY: You know I won't describe precisely what action should be taken or how it would be taken, but clearly the consequences of a nuclear Iraq - excuse me, a nuclear Iran - for the world and for America are so severe that military options have to remain on the table. Those options I have not discussed in great depth with the US military, so I'm not going to describe what particular path would be considered, but I can say that given the fact that we would never want to pursue a military option unless we had pursued every other reasonable option, I want to make sure we are aggressively pursuing those other options. And those other options relate to tightening economic sanctions so that Ahmadinejad is increasingly unpopular in his own country, so that religious leaders like Khamenei, as well as the public at large, are dissatisfied with him and ultimately sweep him from power, or cause him to withdraw his nuclear ambition. And that's why it's so important for us -

RCP: Do you think that's probable?

ROMNEY: Yeah, I think that - in fact the Bush administration's restrictions on credit and banking are already having an impact. Ahmadinejad did fall behind in the most recent elections. Our intelligence in Iran is somewhat limited, as it is throughout the Middle East, but there is indication among some observers that Ahmadinejad is on a bit of thin ice and that if we were to continue to exert extensive pressure on his economy and the diplomatic reception that he and his fellow Iranians receive around the world that that could have the desired effect of either causing him to retreat to a certain degree or to be replaced by a leader that had more moderate views.

RCP: Switching gears to a lighter subject, for our readers to get a better sense of who you are as a person, tell me something about yourself that only people who know you well know.

ROMNEY: I love practical jokes and humor. That there's frankly no joke that I don't think is funny. I love practical jokes, but I don't like being scared. My sons will tell you that when they have jumped out of the tree when I'm coming from work in the middle of the night and said "boo" to me, that there is swift and severe retribution.

I have five boys in the family, and it's constant competition, sport, humor, and practical jokes. For instance, when we gathered for my big - was it the announcement day, no I guess it was the big fund raising thing, we were going to have a January national call day - all my sons came back to gather for that. We were there at the dinner table and someone said, "hey, should we go have a 440 race at the high school?" Sure enough, we all went upstairs and found our respective jogging shorts, put on tennis shoes or running shoes, went over to the high school and had a 440 competition at the track.

RCP: Who won?

ROMNEY: I came in last. I was thinking I could beat my son Ben but, boy, even though he's in medical school and has gotta be out of shape, he still beat me, darn it!

RCP: One last question, and forgive me if you've already been asked and answered this question because I haven't seen it. Being that we celebrated President's Day this week, and I see John Adams by David McCullough here on the table... who is your favorite President?

ROMNEY: Ah, it's too hard to pick a favorite President. It really is. It's like picking your favorite from a box of chocolates - I love all of them. There are, of course, the famous and great presidents that everybody knows and says "ah, Lincoln, Washington." How could anyone not choose Lincoln and Washington, and they're so obviously so far above the standard of Presidents in our land or any land, that of course they have to be at the top of the list.

But I love John Adams. His book is on my desk there. The first time I read that book by David McCullough when I got to the last page I literally had tears in my eyes because I felt like I was losing a family friend.

I love Teddy Roosevelt. I read everything I can get my hands on about Teddy Roosevelt. Anybody who says "Bully" is a friend of mine. And his enthusiasm, his energy, his can-do attitude was just extraordinary.

From a more modern standpoint, you've gotta love Ronald Reagan. I respected him for his optimism, his humor, the glint in his eye throughout his career. But I find that as I get older and older, he gets smarter and smarter as well.

RCP: Any Democrats at the top of list?

ROMNEY: Truman was a man I see as having real character and the courage of his convictions. And FDR at a great time of need was a communicator that made a real difference for America. Clearly, there are a number of his policies that I vehemently disagree with. But I think as you look at American presidents, more important than their policy was their character, and those who brought something to the American spirit are one who we remember with affection and admiration for generations.

I frankly don't know whether Teddy Roosevelt's policies would be accepted by the Republican party today, but Teddy Roosevelt was as Republican as any Republican I know.

What better place for Al Gore than Hollywood?

In the biggest non-surprise of the night, Al Gore's film on global warming won the Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday, and the former vice president and his Hollywood friends used the opportunity to push their cause before a billion-strong global audience.

That's all well and good, IMO.  Global warming is a concern -- I'm with you guys on many conservation issues; HOWEVER, methinks Mother Nature has a lot more control over global warming than greenies with money to burn (coughcough) want to acknowledge ....

Forget running for President, Al.  You'll be more effective on the left coast.  Cleaning up that LA smog (for starters). 

Greening of America?  Who's kidding whom?  Al and cronies want US (middle America) to make concessions while they "tool and cool" in their limos, mega-mansions, glitzie toys, private jets and spotlight splendor .... Uh huh. 

Would it be crude to suggest that I know a perfect place to land a carbon footprint or two?

Speaking of which ..... I've rubbed shoulders with a few of the LA elitists at Trader Joe's enough to know that most of these hypocrits ain't gonna meet the rest of us in cutting back:

Tips to Reduce Your Primary Footprint

1. Holidays

Don't go by air

2. Electricity

Sign up to renewable energy

3. Gas

Try using solar water heating - this can reduce your gas bill by up to 70% over a year.

4. Traveling around

Use public transport as much as possible. Find out about your local bus services and then use it.

5. Car Share

Sign up to a car share scheme to reduce your travel footprint    

Tips to Reduce Your Secondary Footprint

When you buy goods - consider where they have been made and the materials and processes used to make them. Items that have high emissions in the manufacture or delivery should be avoided when ever possible. Things such as:-

 

1. Bottle water

Tap water is safe to drink in most European and North American countries, yet people still insist on buying bottled water. If the bottle is labeled as being from volcanic springs - you can bet that it has probably been imported from some distance. Imagine the carbon footprint of the flight / shipping of the water! And that's before adding in the emissions due to making the bottle and / or recycling it.

 

2. Food and drink from far distances

When you go to the supermarket, look at the label to identify which country the food is from. There is no need to buy New Zealand apples in the UK in the Autumn - but people do!

 

Think twice about buying a bottle of wine from the other side of the world  - you may be able to find much more local wine, which will have traveled far fewer miles.  

 

Better still try growing your own fruit and vegetables in your own garden. Planting an apple tree will not only provide you with lots of fruit, with zero carbon footprint, but the tree itself with breath in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - making these fruit effectively carbon negative!

 

3. Meat eating

Reduce your consumption of meat, especially red meat.   

 

4. Clothes from far off lands

Check the clothes labels before you buy. If they come from more than 1000 miles away, keep looking!  

 

5. High packaged items

Avoid goods and services that have unnecessary packaging! Need we say more?

OK.  I promise not to buy any more foreign-made wine.  And as soon as I can find a non-gasoline tiller or a mule to pull a plough, I'm gonna grow my own veggies .... As for that apple tree -- I'm not sure I can wait long enough for it to mature and grow apples, but I will stop buying imported New Zealand fruit.  And if I fail to keep this promise, I will do my best to hop on one foot so as not to expend all my carbon prints in one shopping spree.

Trying to step over it, the leader of the Defeat Caucus steps in it --

The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.

But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

Read more here. 

Charles Krauthammer nails Murtha's hoax for slow-bleeding our troops and suggests that even wiser democrats will have trouble picking up the literal and figurative slack ....

Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.

Kurdistan -- the "other" Iraq -- has accepted a draft of the long-awaited agreement for distributing and sharing Iraq's oil wealth.   

"Approval of a new oil law could help open the way for international oil companies to invest billions to upgrade Iraq’s decrepit wells and pipelines and exploit the country’s reserves, among the world’s largest.

The bill also provides a formula for distributing revenues among all major ethnic and religious groups, easing Sunni fears of being cut out of a future bonanza because their central and western homelands lack extensive reserves."

If you're not familiar with the "other" Iraq, click the link above to view the video of life in the most successful region of Iraq.