My mom, Lillie Orel Steely, passed away yesterday morning after complications arising from hip repair surgery.  She was 74.

A wiser woman, a better mentor, a better mother - there never was.

She will be missed.

Mexicans attacking our Border Patrol?  Tear Gas retaliation?  Take a gander at this story:

SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Border Patrol says its agents were attacked nearly 1,000 times during a one-year period along the Mexican border, typically by assailants hurling rocks, bottles and bricks. Now the agency is responding with tear gas and powerful, pepper-spray weapons, including firing into Mexico.

The counteroffensive has drawn complaints that innocent families are being caught in the crossfire.

Counteroffensive?  Nothing like a bit of inflammatory rhetoric to make the Americans look bad huh?  Of course the residents are "innocent"...

"A neighbor shouted, 'Stop it! There are children living here," said Esther Arias Medina, 41, who on Wednesday fled her Tijuana, Mexico, shanty with her 3-week-old grandson after the infant began coughing from smoke that seeped through the walls.

"We don't deserve this," Arias said. "The people who live here don't throw rocks. Those are people who come from the outside, but we're paying the price."

Damn, callous, hateful American imperialists!

The Border Patrol's top official in San Diego, Mike Fisher, said his agents are taking action because Mexican authorities have been slow to respond. When an attack happens, he said, American authorities often wait hours for them to come, and help usually never arrives.

"We have been taking steps to ensure that our agents are safe," Fisher said.

Border Patrol agents were attacked 987 times along the U.S.-Mexico border during the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, the agency said. That's up 31 percent from 752 attacks a year earlier, and it's the highest number since the agency began recording attacks in the late 1990s.

What in the heck is going on with our borders? 

John Hawkins over at RightWingNews has more:

You know, when people suggest that illegal aliens could engage in the same sort of out-of-control rioting that Muslims immigrants do in France, it gets pooh-poohed with, "Well, Muslims just do that sort of thing all over the world. Our illegals aren't like that."

Wrong. Look to our border, where you've got thugs attacking American border patrol agents, the Mexican government standing by and allowing it to happen, and complaints that innocents are getting caught up in the crossfire.

It almost sounds like the Israeli/Palestinian situation minus the suicide bombings and look at what a no win situation it is:

1) The Mexican government could put a stop to it, but they choose not to do so.

2) If border patrol agents do nothing, they'll be injured and killed in increasing numbers.

3) When they use tear gas or pepper spray on a large scale, innocents are caught in the crossfire.

4) If they start regularly shooting the people attacking them, they'll be unfairly accused to using excessive force -- as if a rock or a ball bearing shot from a slingshot can't seriously injure or kill someone.

This begs the question:  How long until suicide bombings begin?  Hawkins does offer some interesting parallels.  There is a natural progression to these things after all.  I guess all we can hope for is that the Mexicans aren't as fanatical as the Muslims to keep this from escalating to that point.

Either way, this does not bode well for either nation.

(Credit John Hawkins at RWN for the title of this post.)

Er, wait...make that global cooling?  (See Map)



Are you warm where you are?  Yeah, me either...

"Lengendary" it isn't - forgettable is more like it.

This new movie is a remake of 1971's "The Omega Man" starring Charlton Heston.  Both movies are based upon a novella written by Richard Matheson back in the 50's also titled "I Am Legend."

As far as action goes, the Charlton Heston vehicle was a much better movie.  The newer remake does have it's moments and is scary in one part in particular, but just seems to lack energy overall.

I'm a big fan of the Matheson story, I read it about 12 years ago in one sitting.  It runs around 100 pages in length and is pretty engrossing and a page turner even though written about a half century ago.  Matheson is well known in the sci-fi/horror genre having written several screenplays for The Twilight Zone and Tales from the Darkside, amongst others.  The print version of "I Am Legend" is a good, quick read as is recommended. 

That being said, the new Smith vehicle is a bit on the slow side.  The story is fractured at spots with not a lot of backstory is prescribed.  Some of the history is told in "flashback" form, just as the "Omega" version.  "Legend is truer to "Omega" than the print form of "Legend" as well, all the way down to the opening of the movie with Smith driving a brand new red Mustang GT 500 around a barren NYC (Charlton Heston opened in "Omega" also driving a red Mustang convertible around a seemingly deserted LA).  SPOILER ALERT:  Also, if you've seen the "Omega" version, you know how the movie will end.  If you don't know the story, you'll really be po'd upon leaving this movie.

The audience is left to make the connection about the "outbreak."  We see a newscast about an apparent cure for cancer given to over 10,000 people.  All of the people were cured of their cancer.  The twist is that apparently this cure has somehow mutated into an airborne and contact catagion, killing 99.6% of those who are infected.  A small portion of the population has some natural immunity while a large portion of those survivors who were infected become some type of creature.  In "Omega", mankind is wiped out from manmade bacteria released during a war between the Soviets and the Chinese.  Of course I guess one could make the political jump and surmise this is another "blame America" vehicle, but this is not an object of the movie (just me reading into things).

You do become more emotionally attached to Smith, mainly because of a relationship he has with a German shepherd, as opposed to Charlton Heston in Omega.  There is also a truly nail-biting scene early in the movie where Smith has to rescue his dog from a dark, obviously occupied "hive" of infected, vampire like creatures.  This scene is tense, well shot, with darkness used as in old horror movies.  You are drawn into this scene more by what you don't see as opposed to what you do see.

Unfortunately, this is the only scene to draw you in in such a way throughout the entire movie.  Most of the rest of the story is predictable and you leave the movie wanting more - much more.  I guess this is a good thing in it's own way, but after paying $55 to see it on IMAX, I left the theater disappointed and upset.  The movie only runs about one hour and 40 minutes or so and this story could use at least another 20-30 minutes for adding more.

"More" is the biggest problem with this film.  Though acted well, with decent digital effects, this whole film just leaves you wanting much more for the money you spent on it.  I was disappointed by this one from Smith.  I have enjoyed his sci-fi forays (I Robot, MIB, ID4) but this one, thought the most dramatic of those listed, is by far the least satisfying.  A third movie based on the original story (the first being "The Last Man on Earth", starring Vincent Price) this is probably the worst of the three on that same "satisfying" scale.   A truly honest retelling of the original print story would be awesome if ever done - the story really deserves one.

If you can find this at a "dollar" theater, put it on your list, otherwise just wait for the DVD.

I'm probably going to upset a number of people, particularly the purists out there on this one.

First let me say I'm not a big fan of baseball.  I've never really liked watching it on TV, though I have had fun at seeing semi-pro ball played.  I enjoy playing softball, but unfortunately my ball throwing days are over.  I always thought the games were too long.  The season is too long.  Too many games.  Frankly I feel the same way about basketball though a big reason I don't like basketball is the culture of "thuggery" which exists in that sport.  But I digress.

Some players have used steroids.  This much is true.  The basic question is, did they do so illegally?  Did they acquire the 'roids illegally?  Did they violate a league rule?  Did they violate criminal law?  If not, what's the fuss?  Did they really abuse the "purity" of the sport?  Barry Bonds has been under suspicion of roid use for years, but it didn't seem to affect the teams bottom line financially.  Fans kept packing the strands.  The team continued to pay him outrageous money for hitting a ball with a piece of wood.

Why are people so upset.  Because these folks sullied the sport?  What about Ty Cobb?  A bigger SOB there wasn't, but now he is a revered legend.  Babe Ruth was a womanizing alcoholic who ate too much.  Yet he is a legend in the history of the sport.

The fact is, steroids are not illegal.  They are controlled.  Of course one could make an argument about "doctor shopping", but that is hard to prove.  If trainers/coaches/team physicians acquired these substances in a nefarious way, why not also bring there names to light?

Another fact is that baseball is not a sport of individuality.  It is the essence of teamwork.  Though individual players can contribute greatly to a win, a team doesn't win just because a Bonds can hit homers.  If the defence doesn't catch the balls, make the outs, keep the other team from scoring, they will lose.

Steroids can give a physiological edge to an athlete no doubt.  There can be resultant increases in strength/endurance, but other aspects of athleticism are not affected at all.  Roids can't help a player read a pitch better.  Roids have nothing to do with strategy or coaching.  Though individual users can carry a team through a game (depending on the situation), his individual roid use doesn't make the team any better as a whole.

What about Olympic athletes?  In these circumstances, the use of roids could give an individual an edge over another individual but let's be real.  In races where winners win a race based on fractions of a second in a lot of cases, would roids really be the cause of that 100th of a second difference?  Maybe, but you couldn't prove it definitatively?

And where do you draw the line?  What if a weightlifter uses creatine and another does not?  Does that make the lifter who uses it a cheater?  Creatine is a natural, legal supplement which has been proven to increase strength in those who use it properly who lift weights.  It isn't a steroid or drug but it can give an edge to someone.  A lot of professional athletes use it and have for decades.  Are they cheating?

And what about Barry Bonds?  What about his home run record?  Was he juicing his entire career?  Are we to discount all of the homers he ever hit?  Should his entire career, all of his accomplishments, be scrapped?  If his roid use was such an enhancement, why has any team he's ever been on for the past twenty years never won the World Series?  Should the same be done to every player who ever used steroids at any point in their entire career?   

Again, let me be clear, I could care less about Bonds or baseball.  But hopefully you see my point.  Dozens of players, past and present are being excoriated, their names being drug through the mud, the careers accomplishments being denigrated, simply on the basis of an accusation.  There is no real proof or evidence at this point.  It is simply the words of one against another and the entire sporting world is going crazy!

Cries of "asterisk, asterisk" are being thrown around like so much ether. 

There is also the, in my mind, double standard of drug use in professional sports.  Barry Bonds is destroyed for "maybe, maybe not" using steroids.  Yet Brett Favre was hailed as a hero for abusing prescription pain killers.  Brett Favre also drank like a fish when he was young, but no calls or mention of his earlier stupidity in life isn't mentioned.  Brett Favre actually broke the law, but today is hailed as a hero, and later the year he "self-identified" for abusing drugs, he led the packers to a Super Bowl win.  Lyle Alzado abused steroids for years ultimately losing his life to health problems caused by the abuse, but did anyone say anything about it when it could have made a difference?  See a problem here?  Brett Favre, admitted drug abuser has the record for most touchdown passes in NFL history by a quarterback - Saint.  Barry Bonds, possible steroid user, has the record for most home runs in MLB history - Sinner.

If you are purist, I do understand your chagrin with all of this.  But I think people should be a bit more forgiving until some actual evidence surfaces and these guys are actually proven to have done what they are accused of.  If it happens, if they violated the law or some policy or rule, then punish them accordingly and hold them accountable.  Erase their history if necessary.

Frankly, if these guys did this, they will pay more dire consequences down the road than an asterisk by any record they may have.

But for goodness sake, let's keep this stuff in some context and give the guys the benefit of the doubt until something is proven.

Otherwise we are letting mob mentality govern our reason and we are unduly sullying these guys for nothing.  A home run record shouldn't mean more to you than justice and restraint.

Al Gore is right.  Let's face it.  Want proof? 

This new information shows beyond any doubt - the debate is over:  (Read the whole letter)

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.

In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives.

The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.

But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take.

National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

There you have it.  The debate is over - though not quite in the sense Al Gore would like.

Heh.

If your still not convinced...if your still a skeptic...I offer more proof.

Let's look at some of the "climate change activists" and their "credentials":

1.  Al Gore - Democrat.  Senator/Vice President.  Didn't know who Thomas Jefferson was - Not a scientist.
2.  Laurie David - Liberal.  Writer.  Was married to an actor - Not a scientist.
3.  Leonardo DiCaprio - Liberal.  Actor.  "Died" in "Titanic" - Not a scientist.
4.  Sheryl Crow - Liberal.  Musician.  Uses guitars made of wood - Not a scientist.
5.  Ted Turner - Millionaire.  Was married to an actress.  Not a scientist.
6.  John Travolta - Liberal.  Actor.  Pilot.  Not a scientist.
7.  James Hansen - NASA scientist.  Activist.  In the pay of George Soros.

Get the idea?

Now, here are the first ten (of 100) names of signatories on the letter you read above:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

As Al Gore has stated numerous times - the debate is over.

Indeed.

I can't stands no more!!

After reading about how Mrs. Pelosi tries to stick it to Republicans about how "they like this war", as if it's the Republicans sole reason for existing, I must make the following observation about Mrs. Pelosi:

She's an r-tard!

Let's try to tap even more into the luny leftist anti-war fringe by saying the Republicans "want this war to continue" as if the luny anti-war left were going to give even MORE support to the coward Defeatocrats.

How about any Dem answering this little gem:  Do you think if the Democrats had supported the war effort and the President from the outset (especially through the tough times) that the war would indeed probably be over by now?  Maybe there wouldn't be a need to spend more money on the effort huh?  Perhaps a majority of our troops would be home this Christmas? 

Maybe the bad guys would be dead?

Maybe we would have had victory - complete and total victory - had it not been for the obstructionism and political posturing of the likes of you Mrs. Pelosi and your cohorts Harry Reid and John Murtha. 

Yes Mrs. Pelosi, as a citizen and member of this nations Armed Forces, I like this war.  I like it because we are killing the SOB's who wish to destroy our nation.  I like this war because we are killing extremists bent on subjugation of free peoples.  I like this war because we are avenging our countrymen who were murdered on 9/11.  I like this war because we have liberated 10's of millions of people from totalitarianism.  

I like this war because we, America, are right to fight this war for all the reasons stated above.

Why don't you like this war Mrs. Pelosi?

Too bad that wasn't the follow up from the MSM on her ridiculous statement.  Her answer would have been a true "revelation."