Politically Incorrect

This blog is going dark (some would say it’s been in the dark since I started).

The reason: Too much to do, too little time to do it. My business, thankfully, continues to thrive. Since I’m paying to send four grandchildren to a private Christian school, I figure I’d be smart to concentrate solely on it. I just don’t have the time or, more accurately, will not take what limited time I have to do readers justice.

When I succumbed to Cindi Scoppe’s proposal to start this blog more than two years ago, I wrote that I hoped blogging did not take the place of real news. So far it hasn’t, but blogging is becoming an increasingly important part of the public information business. So much so that bloggers are courted by presidential candidates almost as much a real reporters. All of the mainstream media are getting into blogging nowadays. I assume it’s their effort to connect with younger people who don’t watch TV news or read newspapers.

But I still maintain bloggers are not journalists, at least not at this point in the evolution of the industry. They should not have the same rights as journalists (such as protecting confidential sources from court proceedings). But many of them are breaking news and offering insights that you don’t always get in the mainstream media. The discipline no doubt is maturing and that’s good for news consumers.

Anyway, so much for my feeble contribution. I appreciate the way Cindi, Brad and Kelly (The State’s blogging expert) have supported and encouraged the other community bloggers and me. The editorial staff does not get the credit it deserves for busting its collective butt 7 days a week to turn out a news product. But I never found them too busy to answer some pretty dumb questions from yours truly. They’re great people (even though I want to strangle them at times for not seeing the world just as I see it).

As Dan “Yellow Dog Democrat” Rather would say, “Courage.” Whatever the heck that meant.

Share This

A synonym for f—t is flatulence. For this story, I dearly wanted to use the word f—t because liberals read this thing, too, and I try to dumb down the writing to accommodate them. But I don’t know if f—t is acceptable on The State’s website. So we’ll use the word flatulence and hope that people who don’t know what it means know how to handle a dictionary. Later on in my post, I will resort to using f—t, but you will know what I mean.

Anyway, here’s the story of the week. I assume it’s genuine because it’s written by an Associated Press medical writer.

It seems “health experts” want the world to eat less meat to reduce global warming. Now how would that work? you might be asking. An intelligent question.

It seems that cows, sheep and goats f—t a lot. So much so that their f—ts rise heavenward like the prayers of a drunk man and stay there. Cow, sheep and goat f—ts converge at a point in the universe still undefined and, whammo, they turn into greenhouse gasses which, as every intelligent person knows, are destroying the planet. That might be the smell one picks up while entering Charleston on I-26.

Intelligent Question #2: “Well, if cow, sheep and goat f—ts are the problem destroying our planet, why not feed them non-f—t food?”

Answer: You dummy. The experts say, according to the story, “…feeding animals higher quality grains would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.”

It’s the animals destined for your table that are causing all the problems and better food wouldn’t work. Think about it: If you found out you were going to be slaughtered, broiled and carved up, wouldn’t your f—t output increase exponentially? Mine would. It would be a huge Maalox moment.

Intelligent Question #3: “If animal f—rts are destroying the planet, shouldn’t we be eating more red meat than ever, because dead, ingested animals can’t f—t?”

Answer: The AP story doesn’t address that, so stop being a smarty pants.

Intelligent Question #4: “Where do human f—ts rank in greenhouse gas emissions?”

Answer: The story doesn’t address that, either. But I know from personal experience that some humans are worse than others. My fishing buddy, let’s just call him Cookie for the heck of it, f—ts enough in the boat to do some serious damage somewhere. Remember that picture of the polar bear looking confused because his little feet get wet because of melting ice? That might be because of Cookie.

Intelligent Question #5: “Since serious ‘public health experts’ and scientists are openly blaming animal f—ts for global warming with a straight face, should we take them seriously when they absolutely insist that manmade global warming is real?”

Answer: Real good question.

Share This

For those who missed it, here’s the link to Lindsey Graham’s bravura performance last night on Hannity and What’s-His-Name.

Share This

Meet a couple who have life figured out pretty well, at least their life.

Share This

The people who say these things “should burn in hell.” So said Sen. Lindsey Graham on Hannity and What’s-His-Name? just a couple of minutes ago. The things Graham referred to was MoveOn.org’s anti-American, traitorous tirade against Gen. David Petraeus in its disgusting newspaper ad.

Graham, longsuffering and forgiving to a fault, seems to have had it with the hate America left. Good for him.

Share This

Columbia Mayor Bob Coble now is pushing the idea of giving homeless people apartments after the city has botched attempt after attempt to do the sane and rational thing of putting all homeless people in one place. Question: If the city can’t get neighborhoods to agree on where one shelter can be located, how the heck can he expect people all over the city to accept the homeless living next door and across the street? Here’s his op-ed. You try to make sense of it:

Homeless strategy needs to be more effective
By BOB COBLE - Guest columnist
I wanted to respond to the Friday editorial, “Flap over homeless center illustrates need for overall plan.” I agree with many of the statements and conclusions in it. The difficulty in locating emergency beds and other services for the homeless is a problem that cities across the nation are facing. However, I have not concluded that “Columbians don’t have the heart or will to make the sacrifice necessary to house the less fortunate.” I have concluded that we need a new strategy and approach in Columbia to address the issue of homelessness.

This new approach, “Housing First,” is the national model that cities across the country are adopting and is advocated by Philip Mangano, the Bush administration’s point man on homelessness. Mr. Mangano came to Columbia last December to endorse Columbia’s Housing First plan. Housing First is the most effective expenditure of limited money to actually reduce homelessness.

The current strategy of trying to locate a “one-stop shop” center and emergency shelter has failed numerous times in the past, as the editorial clearly documents. As a community we can continue to argue about who is to blame (the city and I certainly deserve our share); we can continue to have neighborhoods in North Columbia or in historic African-American communities explain that it is unfair to have every current shelter and every potential new site always be in their part of town; we can continue to have the homeless service providers and faith community frustrated; or we can adopt a new strategy that is working nationally.

The Housing First model emphasizes immediate placement of the chronically homeless in permanent housing, where they have access to services on-site, necessary to stabilize the individuals and keep them housed. This new strategy is a radical departure from the old model of bringing all the homeless to one site in the evening then dumping them back on the street the next morning.

Housing First has two advantages over the old system. First, because all the housing is not located in one location, it avoids many (but not all) of the neighborhood issues that come from one large location. Secondly, Housing First has proven to be much more effective in actually reducing homelessness than the old model.

Columbia has created a Housing First Task Force, chaired by Jim Apple of First Citizens Bank, and issued a request for proposals to establish a Housing First pilot program. The city has made resources available that can be used to lease and operate housing units for chronically homeless individuals that include case management and linkage to a full range of supportive services. We want to quickly determine how a program should work in Columbia.

Of course Columbia needs more emergency shelter beds. The city will again this year open and operate a winter shelter that can handle about 250 people per night. We will put homeless families in local hotels.

Cities across the nation have found that instead of spending millions of dollars on emergency shelters that are expensive and ineffective, the new strategy of Housing First is a better, more effective, expenditure of scarce money that reduces the need for emergency shelter beds.

Columbia is a caring and open community. However, we need a new strategy to address homelessness that will be more effective.

Mr. Coble is the mayor of Columbia.

Share This

McCAIN OPENING STATEMENT BEFORE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING WITH GENERAL PETRAEUS AND AMBASSADOR CROCKER

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today spoke at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The following remarks were prepared for delivery.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our two distinguished witnesses. With your testimony, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, a debate of historic proportions begins in the United States Congress. The choices we make now – whether to build on the success of the surge and fight for additional gains, or whether to set a date for American surrender in Iraq – will affect the security of all our countrymen for decades to come.

“As we all know, the American people are saddened, frustrated, and angry over our past failures in Iraq. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the terrible price we have paid for nearly four years of mismanaged war. Some of us from the beginning warned against the Rumsfeld strategy of too few troops, insufficient resources, and a plan predicated on hope rather than on the difficult business of stabilization and counterinsurgency. We lost years to that strategy, and we lost that which is most precious to us – the lives of the brave men and women who fight on our behalf.

“But the question today is not whether we can recover those four years – we cannot – but whether we end this effort in frustration and accept thereby the terrible consequences that will ensue. I believe we cannot choose to lose in Iraq, and I will fight to ensure that our commanders in Iraq have the time and support they request to win this war. The distinguished strategist Ralph Peters summed up the state of affairs well in a column today, noting that Congress’ failure to support General Petraeus “would be a shame, since, after nearly four years of getting it miserably wrong in Iraq, we’re finally getting it right.”

“We are getting it right because we finally have in place a strategy that can succeed, a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. We must, as General Petraeus intends, keep this strategy in place – it is the only approach that has resulted in real security improvements in Iraq.

“Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar, or to Diyala, or Yusufiya, or to Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. As our witnesses will testify, violence is down, commerce is on the rise, and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit. There are many challenges remaining, and the road ahead is long and tough. The Maliki government has not seized the opportunity presented by our efforts to move ahead with reconciliation and is not functioning as it must. Violence, having declined significantly, remains high and, as Ambassador Crocker has noted, no one can be certain of success. We can be sure, however, that should the United States Congress succeed in legislating a date for withdrawal, and thus surrender, then we will fail for certain.

“Make no mistake – the consequences of American defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting. There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back – in Iraq and elsewhere – in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Last week, General Jim Jones testified before this committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: “. . . a precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,” he said, “will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists . . . in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different and in other areas.”

“Some senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the “real” war on terror, which is taking place somewhere else. This, too, is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror, and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East, a host for jihadists planning attacks on America. The region could easily descend into chaos, wider war, and genocide, and we should have no doubt about who will take advantage. The Iranian president has stated his intentions bluntly, saying, “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.”

“We cannot allow an Iranian dominated Middle East to take shape in the context of wider war and terrorist safehavens. All of us want our troops to come home, but we should want them to return to us with honor, the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. General Petraeus and his troops ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, and I will fight to ensure that they do.

“Soon this debate will move from hearing rooms to the Senate floor where we will see, again, attempts to legislate a withdrawal from Iraq. Given the enormous human and strategic costs such a defeat would impose on Iraq, the region, and Americans for years to come, Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. I will do all in my power to ensure that we do not.

“Thank you.”

Share This

Sen. Lindsey Graham will be the guest on Hannity and What’s-His-Name? tonight at 9 to talk about Iraq. Let’s hope he gets more time than he did last night on Larry King. King did about 5 minutes with Graham and Kerry and cut them off so he could delve into a topic that the masses think is more important that Iraq and national security: a missing kid.

Share This

This might be the best 8 minutes of your day if you click on this and watch the video. It will concern you and challenge you.

I promise.

Share This

Folks, this is sick stuff.

MoveOn.org, the liberal mouth of the Democrat Party, placed a newspaper ad personally attacking Gen. David Petraeus with the headline, “General Patraeus or General Betray Us?”

It prompted Sen. John McCain to denounce it as a “McCarthyite attack on an American patriot.”

Fred Thompson labelled it “outrageous.”

It prompted this from Sen. Lindsey Graham:

Graham Calls MoveOn.Org Advertisement ‘Disgusting’
Encourages Senate Democratic Leader to Repudiate Ad

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) called a
full page Moveon.org advertisement in today’s New York Times
‘disgusting’ and wrote a bipartisan letter co-signed by 31 senators
encouraging Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to repudiate the ad.

The Moveon.org ad titled, ‘General Petraeus or General Betray Us?’ says
General Petraeus, “is a military man constantly at war with the facts.”
The ad smears the Commanding General in Iraq by concluding that, “Today,
before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is
likely to become General Betray Us.’

“The ad is sick and disgusting,” said Graham. “General Petraeus is a
distinguished military leader and should be treated with respect. To
suggest he would come before Congress and not give us his honest
assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq flies in the face of
who he is and the responsibility on his shoulders.”

General Petraeus began what is expected to be two days of difficult
questioning before members of the House and Senate on progress in Iraq.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, the 31 senators called the
ad, “distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America’s
commanding general in Iraq has earned. No matter whether any senator
supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and
appreciation of General Petraeus’ long and distinguished record of
service to our country.”

The senators asked Reid to join them in making clear, “that you do not
share the views of Moveon.org and that you will not join Moveon.org in
attacking the character of this fine officer.”

“It is important that all officials in positions of responsibility speak
out and defend General Petraeus as the honest and honorable military
leader he is. From his years of service to our country and the
important position he currently holds, he has certainly earned it.

“The future of America’s involvement there is of paramount importance to
our country and, while we believe fervently in the right of free speech,
we also believe that it is possible and proper to conduct this debate
without besmirching our brave men and women in uniform.”

Republicans all across the board skewered the ad. The Dems? Not one candidate for president denounced it. Not one. They talked around it. They minced words. They dodged and weaved. But not one denounced it.

As I say, it’s sick.

Share This