Last Rites

The Belmont Club refers to a blog called The Ambulance Driver, which recalls the moments, over seven years, when the blogger had to tell anxious loved ones the person he was crouched over was dead; beyond his help. There were men gone from old age, young blond accident victims, the middle-aged expired from a heart attack, daredevil young men on their shattered motorcycles. And the anxious survivors "... and then I say The Words. 'I'm afraid she's dead.' "

Wretchard observes:

As children we know one sort of God, the kind who loves us like our parents. He is the God who we spoke to just as if He was in the next room in the moments before we went to sleep. And as we grow up, the God of our childhood slips away forgotten, but He is replaced, if we are in Grace, by one we can speak to as adults. He never truly goes away, but as we are adults, leaves us mostly on our own. The God of adulthood comes seldom and usually in moments of great happiness and loss. There finally is the Lord who speaks to us when we are old, when we awake bewildered to watery brightness of each new day, when we know we are close to leaving the flowers and yet are not wholly despairing of meeting them again.

The Ambulance Driver captures the most secret moments of society. The ones most hidden from view.

The comments section has some interesting commentary, as well.

LTA Show @ Plush

Lower Than Angels is playing a show!

Plush Cafe in downtown Fullerton
Tuesday, July 17th @ 8 p.m.
Should be a fun gig.
Hope to see you there!

My Hero For Today...

...is Alex McIlveen, a scottish cab driver who kicked the burning terrorist at the Glasgow Airport so hard in the balls that he tore a tendon.

The man has the spirit of William Wallace (if not the same methods)!

10 Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

I found this expose interesting (and, in some cases, funny) reading. The list is presented below. Follow the link to find the reasoning behind these "truths."

1. Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
2. Humans are naturally polygamous
3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim
5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6. Beautiful people have more daughters (one of my favorites!)
7. What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals
8. The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
9. It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

The list is a product of psychological thought known as evolutionary psychology, which leans heavily on evolutionary theory. I don't know how much of it I believe (re: the psychology, that is), but it is interesting, nonetheless.

Happy Birthday, America

The family and I celebrated Independence Day at a block party with dozens of neighbors, many of whom we met for the first time. It was a great party with tons of food and friendship. The kids got to play in a bounce house, or keep cool while playing in a kiddie pool and a slip-n-slide. It was a very fun time. Cherie will probably post a blog with pictures at her blog, Chering Life.

It was nice to spend time with people celebrating something we all have in common--love for our country.

I like this post from Captain Ed:

Today we celebrate the birth of our nation, as conceived by a group of men in a Pennsylvania hall who many considered at the time as traitors. They dared to imagine a nation whose leaders would not be derived from notions of royalty nor from the power of arms, but chosen by free people as leaders accountable to the populace. They took the ethereal notions that sprang from the Enlightenment and dared to make them a reality -- hoping that this radical experiment would take root in the North American continent, but having no clue that it would become a shining beacon for the entire world over the next two centuries.

It wasn't a model of perfection, and indeed, our birth has resembled our journey ever since. Dissent over the nature of a representative democracy appeared from the very start. The first structure of the government would have to be scrapped and re-imagined from scratch just a few years later. It would take decades more before the nation finally dealt with the inherent contradiction in the Declaration of Independence and its assertion that "all men are created equal," and the detestable institution of slavery -- and another century after that before the government finally took action to ensure that those words prevailed. Arguments about the division of power between the states and the federal government have continued from the first moments until this moment.

We have been far from perfect, but we have recognized our failures and prevailed over them in the fullness of time. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others -- and we have been the model for that, for better and worse. America has been a beacon of hope for the world for centuries, not just because of the words in our Declaration and Constitution, but because we as a people try our best to live up to them.

Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, independents and centrists, and those who cringe when they hear any of those labels -- they want America to live up to its best ideals, our best selves, each in their own way. Happy Independence Day to all of us, and may we continue in our efforts as our ancestors have to continue to keep America as the shining city on the hill.

In 1981, three months after surviving an assassin's bullet, Ronald Reagan talked about our nation's birth in his Independence Day speech:

Thomas Jefferson wrote that on that day of America's birth, in the little hall in Philadelphia, debate raged for hours, but the issue remained in doubt. These were honorable men; still, to sign a Declaration of Independence seemed such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with cries of "treason'' and "the headsman's axe.''

Then, it is said, one unknown man rose to speak. He was neither young, nor strong in voice; yet, he spoke with such conviction that he mesmerized the hall. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment. Then, his voice failing, he said: "They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope, to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.'' And sign they did.

What makes our revolution unique and so exciting, then, is that it changed the very concept of government. Here was a new nation telling the world that it was conceived in liberty; that all men are created equal with God-given rights, and that power ultimately resides in "We the people.''

We sometimes forget this great truth, and we never should, because putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. It's the way we've kept the spirit of our revolution alive -- a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and take great risks for a greater good. It's the spirit of Fulton and Ford, the Wright brothers and Lindbergh, and of all our astronauts. It's the spirit of Joe Louis, Babe Ruth, and a million others who may have been born poor, but who would not be denied their day in the Sun.

The men without the words would have been little more than mutineers. The words without the men would have been long forgotten, if ever remembered at all. On the Fourth of July, we honor them all, and all those who came after to preserve and promote the Union.

Another view on the meaning of Independence Day.

More on the reasons why we celebrate Independence Day from a speech by President Calvin Coolidge on July 4, 1926:

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken.

Instant Karma Is Going To Get You...

A Californian man who tried to kill his girlfriend by leaving her in a car parked across railway lines was himself killed when an oncoming train hurled the car into him as he fled.

His girlfriend survived, the Associated Press reported.

...gonna knock you right on the head...

Another Celebrity Spector-cle

It seems that every couple of years, we must endure the spectacle of a celebrity trial. This year it's the Phil Spector show. The woman Spector is accused of murdering, Lana Clarkson, was a former actress who was working as a hostess in the Foundation Room at the House of Blues on the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood. I'm a "Foundation Member" and have frequented this VIP bar/restaurant over the past several months, getting to know quite a few of the waitresses and staff. News reports indicate that some HOB staff have been called to testify at the trial. I haven't been to the Foundation Room for awhile, so I don't know who, specifically, has testified. But, I'm interested to find out.

Anyways, one of the things that accentuates the circus atmosphere of this celebrity trial is the crazy hair-dos that Spector wears to court, most notably this one:

Apparently, Spector is considering some other hair styles for the remainder of the trial. Here are the candidates (or should I say, nominees) for the next "look"...

(h/t The Corner)

I'll Huff and I'll Puff...

Blogger Chris Kelly at Huffington Post wrote an asinine post about the recent Rasmussen Poll alluded to in one of my recent posts.

In his polemic, Kelly explains why he doesn’t think it’s stunning that 61% of Democrats either believe the U.S. government was, or might have been, complicit in the murder of its own people. “Let's set aside whether or not 61% of anything can be stunning,” Kelly writes [I wonder if he would find it stunning if 61% of people didn’t believe in global warming, or if 61% actually liked George Bush, etc.]. He then adds the “no opinion” vote to the “no” votes and draws the grammatically-challeged conclusion, “In other words, a made-up non-quasi-plurality of Democrats don't not not think that the president didn't see 9/11 coming.”

Cute. While it is true that the “no opinion” vote can be lumped into the “no” category, it is inconsequential. For if someone has “no opinion,” it can mean only one of three things. Either, 1) they believe it could be true (or not), they’re just unsure, 2) they don’t really care [highly doubtful since the percentage of Americans who fall under this criterion would be infinitesimal], or 3) they’re unable to express an opinion due to some inability to reason or form logical conclusions. Now, unlike Kelly’s post, which is littered with ad hominem attacks against President Bush and conservative talk radio host Michael Medved, I’m not going to assume No. 3 applies to these Democrats. So, that leaves the first two possibilities, both of which, if considered by any fair-minded person, are shocking.

The salient point here is that the people who had "no opinion," presumably witnessed the events of that fateful day either in person, on live TV, or in endless replays, and perhaps even saw footage of bin Laden admitting his group carried out the attacks, and are still willing to entertain the idea that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge and did nothing—or perhaps even assisted the attackers—which, under either scenario, would make it an accomplice to the mass murder of its own citizens. I just find that astonishing.

Kelly then makes "three" points, only one of which is even remotely relevant (see Point 2 below). My response to each of his arguments is as follows:

Point 1: While it is true that 35% doesn’t represent a “take over” of the Democrat party, it’s undeniable that a minority of radical activists (i.e. MoveOn.org, DailyKos, etc.) is having a significant influence on party leadership. These activists have been largely successful in marginalizing moderate Democrats whose views are much closer to mainstream Americans.

Point 2: Kelly makes the absurd observation that the poll question, “Did Bush know about the 9/11 attack in advance?” was ambiguous. How could the question be any more explicit? The pollster didn’t ask, “Do you think Bush knew that a terrorist attack would occur someday?” If that had been the question, then he may have a basis for argument (although the certitude of foreknowledge implied by the question would be impossible for anyone to verify).

Instead, Kelly asks if the August 6th report called “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” counts as knowing in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The short answer: NO. This conflation is a red herring. For by this logic, any president could be implicated for colluding with terrorists in the event of a future attack because of the “foreknowledge” presented in intelligence briefings everyday, which detail leads and other information related to hundreds of ongoing terrorist plots to strike on U.S. soil. This, of course, is preposterous.

The fact is the poll question was specifically about 9/11. The intent and structure of the question is unambiguous. So Kelly either doesn't know the definition of ambiguous or he is lying. In either case he comes off badly. Now, if Kelly, or anyone else for that matter, can show evidence that the intelligence community presented Bush with detailed information about the terrorists plans prior to the attacks on 9/11, including the specific date, time, method and targets, then he should present that evidence.

Shhh. Hear that? It's nearly 6 years of deafening silence on the matter.

Point 3: Another helping of ad hominem attack, which can be added to the list of snide remarks about Bush’s alleged stupidity. While we’re on the topic, how is it that so many Democrats think Bush is stupid and yet he’s able to coordinate a consipiracy, the magnitude of which the world has never seen? An administration that can’t keep leaks about wire tapping and rendition programs from the front pages of the NY Times is supposed to be able to ensure secrecy about their alleged complicity in the most horrific and notorious terrorist attacks of our lifetimes. It would be laughable if so many Democrats didn’t believe it were true.

He then throws in Point 4 for good measure, which is a crude ad hominem attack against Medved.

That Chris Kelly tries to defend the indefensible with such smugness and animosity says all I need to know about him. While I can think of a few adjectives to describe his arguments, suffice it to say that “brilliant” is not one of them.

One more thought: If the standard of "foreknowledge" about 9/11 is knowing that bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S. at some point in the future, then what is Bill Clinton's responsibility? After all, not only did he know that bin Laden was "determined to strike the U.S.," but his organization already had attacked the WTC in 1993. So, Clinton must have known ahead of time about 9/11, according to this ridiculous logic. Again I say, asinine.

Thought For The Day

From the Jawa Report, regarding the election of Sarkozy:

...socialism/leftism is such a detrimental and demonstrable failure of a governing philosophical dogma that even the FRENCH rejected it decisively.

I just got a chuckle out of that.

Why I Am Not a Democrat: Reason #376

Rasmussen Poll:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.

So, not only does more than 1/3rd of the Democrat party believe that George Bush allowed the murder of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens--without one shred of evidence, I might add--but, an additional 26% are willing to entertain the idea. Get that? Not some fringe group. Sixty-one percent of the Democrat Party believe the American government either murdered its own people, or could have.

If Only She Knew

I finally mixed "If Only She Knew," which is a song I wrote a couple of years ago. I recorded Wade playing the drums on it during the "Running Out Of Time" session in August 2006. I figured I'd record the rest of the tracks shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, a few days later most of my guitar equipment was stolen and I wasn't able to finish it like I'd hoped.

Over the last several months I've been buying new guitar equipment and a couple of weeks ago I decided to record the bass, guitar, rhodes piano, and vocals over Wade's old drum tracks. If you go here, you'll hear the result. Thanks to Wade and Bobby for the assist with pro-tools. Also, thanks to Myke and Darren, who are awesome guitar players and, along with Bobby and Wade, inspirational musicians.

I'm still very new at using pro-tools, so it's not perfect. But, drop me a line and tell me how you like it.

Critical Asses

Last time Bob and I were in The People's Republic of Soviet Monica, we watched a large bike ride that included some weirdos, anti-war protestors, and the like. I didn't think much of it, since it appeared rather harmless and not unusual for the area. After reading this article, I'm not so sure about how harmless these Critical Mass bike rides are.

It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show -- complete with a pummeled car, a smashed rear window and little children screaming in terror.

I understand these freaks were trying to make a point. But, if these people ever threaten my children like they did that family in San Francisco, it won't take long for the situation to reach critical mass.

They're Here

The long wait for the arrival of my in-laws is over. Sandra and Evert Heskes arrived from Toronto today. Everyone is so happy to see them and they are very pleased to be here. I'm excited about our planned trip to Las Vegas with them and the Harrisons this weekend. Other than hanging out with the family, the highlight of the weekend for me will be attending the Cirque du' Soleil presentation "Love".

I can't wait.

Regurgitating The Apple

Evan Sayet gives a cogent explanation of the corrosive affect that 40 years of leftist indoctrination has had on the ability of many in our society to form basic judgments about right and wrong.

DiFi In Trouble

In my work as a commercial real estate appraiser, I am often in contact with the biggest commercial brokerage firm in the world--CB Richard Ellis. In fact, a friend of mine works for the company, and I called another one of their other brokers today. That's why I was surprised to see that CB Richard Ellis is part of a war-profiteering scandal surrounding one of the U.S. Senators representing my home state of California.

Reportedly, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, for which she was chairperson and ranking member for 6 years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein. Apparently, Feinstein's husband, Richard C. Blum, has a controlling interest in CBRE, which "holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector. In 2005, CB Richard Ellis made $100 million in federal contracts, only half of which had been part of full and open competitive bidding."

I'm kind of bummed because, even though I mostly disagree with her politically, I actually like Senator Feinstein. She's typically fair-minded and reasonable--and a helluva lot better than our other Senator.

But, Captain Ed makes the salient point:

During the 2006 election, Feinstein's party made a lot of hay out of non-competitve contracting by the government. Democrats railed especially about Halliburton, even though Halliburton won 95% of its contract dollars by full and open competition. Now we see that Feinstein herself had no problem with non-competitive practices, as long as it meant stuffing her own pockets with taxpayer money.

Michelle Malkin reports:

The NYTimes is demanding an investigation. Arianna Huffington has launched ads lambasting Feinstein. The left-wing blogosphere is an uproar over Feinstein's war profiteering.

Kidding.

Republican Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham is serving jail time for taking bribes in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. While there is no evidence that Feinstein accepted bribes--and therefore no laws appear to have been broken--it was certainly unethical to award multi-million-dollar no-bid contracts to her husband's companies. It will be interesting to see if this gets much play in the MSM.

"We've Come Here to the Viper's Nest of Anti-Semitism"

The amount of anti-Semitism on some of today's university campuses is almost unbelievable. I say almost because it is not entirely surprising, considering the intellectual corruption of our universities by faculty activists who have turned their classrooms into platforms for radical political causes.

Needless to say, the perniciuos indoctrination taking place on many university campuses has had a deleterious impact on our schools. Powerline links to a YouTube video, which is a recently-released documentary of violent demonstrations that took place at Concordia University in Montreal in 2002. The documentary shows the rabid anti-semitism directed at students trying to attend a speech by former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. After the riot, only two students were suspended and none arrested. How were the victims treated? Well, the Israeli student group, Hillel, is banned from the student union and receives no share of the student council budget, while the Palestinian organization receives full benefits and access. Hmm. Seems fair.

Unfortunately, this venemous hatred has not abated. Pro-Palestinian students directing violence and intimidatation against others is indicative of the anti-semitism that has been allowed to flourish on many university campuses--where educators (AKA thought reformers) inculcate students with criticism of "Zionism," as an insidious cover for their Jew-hatred.

It's sad when a peaceful anti-Israel protest at Berkeley comes as shocking news.

Caption Contest Anyone?

Hillary Pilloried

The left is not going to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her vote to authorize the Iraq War. A former UN weapons inspector claims Hillary knew during her husband's administration that Iraq had disarmed, but she voted for the resolution anyway.

In a speech delivered at the time of the vote, Hillary spoke of her "conviction" that the resolution was "in the best interests of the nation." While I do believe Hillary is a dishonest, vindictive person, I have no idea whether her vote that day was predicated on a sincere belief in the faulty intelligence that was available at the time or not.

The inspector has no such reservation:

Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of rewriting history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and wholeheartedly when endorsing war.

Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq.

This Discussion Needs To Happen

The Free Muslims Coalition was recently contacted by Pastor Howard Gardner, a minister with the Assemblies of God, who wrote a letter that he and numerous other Christian leaders want delivered to prominent Muslim religious leaders. The Pastor made it clear that the Christian leaders are only interested in a serious dialogue rather than a superficial, politically correct, discussion. The Free Muslims Coalition have agreed to a arrange meetings between Christian and Muslim leaders and to secure a response to the “Christian letter.”

Read the letter here. Hopefully, the Free Muslims Coalition will respond and begin the process of a constructive dialogue.

On a related note: The recently-concluded Secular Islam Summit 2007 featured a collection of moderate Muslims speaking out for freedom. This link leads to a video interview of some of the featured speakers, which is well worth watching.

An Inconvenient Utility Bill

After watching the Academy Awards on Sunday night I coined a new term to describe the way in which the stars fawned over Al Gore: Goreship. The adoration heeped upon Gore during the show by the likes of Melissa Etheridge and Leo DeCaprio was just creepy. The entire audience broke out in rapturous applause as he collected the Oscar for Documentary Feature for his film An Inconvenient Truth acting as though they were being visited by a demi-Gore. And the Goracle of Global Warming (coined by Captain Ed) even had coattails--Etheridge's insipid song in Truth beat out far superior tunes from the movie Dreamgirls for the Oscar in the Music (Song) category, an act reminiscent of the Grammy's Jethro Tull Moment.

It's irritating when pampered stars, who travel by private jet and stretch limo, lecture others about how they should live. Even Al Gore apparently doesn't follow his own advice.

Gore’s mansion, located in the poseh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

UPDATE: Al Gore has responded via Think Progress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

I think Captain Ed has it right:

Interesting that he doesn't dispute the numbers; he just tries a little misdirection instead.

First, the solar panels and the compact fluorescent light bulbs will certainly make a difference -- but the TCPR report looks at his electricity bill, which still indicates (a) a high level of usage, and (b) an increase since the movie's release. Solar panels generate electricity at the location, which should then decrease the amount of power he's buying from the utility. If it's still going up, there seems to be a serious management problem somewhere.

Second, as I mentioned above, purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn't want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he's asking other families to make. He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It's a regressive plan that Gore's supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance. (italics mine)

And basically, it doesn't address the issue of hypocrisy. If Gore and his family continue to increase their consumption of commercial energy with all of the resources they have at hand, then they have no business lecturing the rest of us on conservation and down-scaling our own use. (via The Anchoress)

Amen.