Growing up, I can think of few TV "cult" heroes more memorable then Evel Knievel.  I vividly recall his ill fated Snake River jump and many others.

His passing is of little notice to many, but one of my generations child heroes has passed on, and extreme sports enthusiasts should remember him as a front runner 

Iconic Daredevil Evel Knievel Dies at 69

Evel Knievel, the red-white-and-blue-spangled motorcycle daredevil whose jumps over crazy obstacles including Greyhound buses, live sharks and Idaho's Snake River Canyon made him an international icon in the 1970s, died Friday. He was 69.

Knievel's death was confirmed by his granddaughter, Krysten Knievel. He had been in failing health for years, suffering from diabetes and pulmonary fibrosis, an incurable condition that scarred his lungs.

Knievel had undergone a liver transplant in 1999 after nearly dying of hepatitis C, likely contracted through a blood transfusion after one of his bone-shattering spills. 

More so then his jumps though, what I recall the most was his faith.

Evel was being interviewed on a talk show and was asked one of the famous Desert Island questions:  If you were stranded on a Desert Island with one thing and one person who and what would it be?

His answer?   Jesus Christ, and a bible.

Nuff said.  Rest in peace, and my condolences to his family.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I couldn't have said this better...so I won't:

Celebrities Unqualified to Give Political Endorsements

There have been so many debates and interviews and columns and profiles and polls, it’s hard to believe the election for president is still about 11 months away. Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.

There are reasons, of course, why candidates welcome such help. First, there’s the bonanza of free publicity. With so many names and faces vying for attention, what could be better than the burst of news such endorsements bring? There’s also the burst of money these high-profile celebs can bring in themselves and attract from others. Then there’s the extra attention and excitement these stars engender when they appear at a candidate’s political events. It’s far easier to attract a crowd in Des Moines if a big TV, movie or recording star is standing next to the politician.

Putting those obvious benefits aside, the question remains: do these endorsements really translate into votes? Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.

UPDATE:  See the video below.  In it Michelle notes one interesting fact previously unknown:  CNN disclosed the political affiliation of one of the questioners who had a republican agenda.

Good for the goose, but not for the gander, apparently....

Debacle is the best word I can come up with, as farce is overused.

But before I detail that dreadful event, I have some thoughts.

As my title suggest, politics is war.  As in a conventional war, there are opposing forces that wield force to secure advantages in territory, power and control.

There are armies, generals, tactics and battles which range from near meaningless skirmishes to full blown earth shattering engagements.

There are weapons.  Not the traditional slings and arrows, or guns and bullets, the weapons of the political war are ideas and promises.  Truth and disclosure.  Lies and innuendo.  Deception and misdirection.

And most important:  Money.

And there are spies, the operatives who seek the information to destroy the enemy.  There is secrecy and security to keep information secure.  There is deceptions and misdirection and even betrayal.

All of this exists because the modern politician operates from a position of moral authority that justifies any means necessary to win, because his or her ideals and ideologies are the best for the nation.  So what might be dismissed as dishonest or dishonorable is rationalized as necessary and crucial.

Because winning is everything.

I first became politically aware in the 70s, around the end of the Nixon years.  Through Ford, Carter and part of Reagan I had little interest and understanding of politics, and frankly the world was not as transparent then as now.

But now, since the Clinton years, I have watched and paid attention, and very little surprises me about the playbooks of dirty tricks.

So when i read about the Republican CNN You Tube debate, I should have not been horribly surprised, what with Hillary having already been shown to be guilty of planting questions in her own campaign.

KVI responds:

Thank you for taking the time to write us with your concerns.   We certainly understand you are not happy with the recent changes that have been made on KVI.  

As we continue to evaluate our programming on KVI, please know this was a difficult decision for us.  Ultimately, we needed to look at the strongest programs on KVI from a ratings and revenue standpoint and make some hard but necessary business decisions.

Bryan Suits is one of the most brilliant, quick-witted people we know.  But unfortunately his wisdom, experience and side-splitting humor failed to gain ratings traction against his competitors.  We believe the local, political talk show The Commentators will have a better chance competing during the important afternoon drive time period (it will be the only show of its kind on the radio in that timeslot).

(Not anymore, it is now up against David Boze...)

We wish Bryan all the best and thank him for his service to the station, and more importantly, his service to our country.

We hope that, in time, we have the opportunity earn you back as a listener.

The real answer?  We care more about the money we will make from Dr Laura.

Fools.  They sacrificed quality, and more important, substance for smarmy feel good pap.

Welcome to the readers coming from Orbusmax, Michelle Malkin, The American Pundit and Right Voices, and thank you Michelle for the crosslink.

Welcome KNEW and KSTE listeners.  Audio link to the Armstrong Getty show here.  The story was mentioned at about 35 minutes into it.

I also see Memeorandum has picked it up.

This guy has never been a favorite of mine, but honestly, even for him, this is pathetic.

I got this from the Kirby Wilbur show:

Lydia Smith, a listener, was at the Seattle City tree-lighting ceremony and was surprised at what Mayor Nickels had to say, asking the kids to help Santa out because the North Pole was "melting," before handing out energy-efficient light-bulbs to the children. Wow! Talk about using kids as political pawns! Read Nickels "letter to Santa" by clicking here.  

Audio link:  http://www.kvi.com/onair/kirby/11851731.html?video=pop&t=a   It is near the end at 8:37.

Bad enough liberals would bankrupt our economy on foolish ideas with no hope of success because they do not address the real problems, but let's scare the kids into guilting their parents into compliance.

Is that all Liberals can do?  Scare kids?  Paint a vision of drowning Reindeer?

As for the ice cap, well Greg needs to do his homework.

As he handed out flourescent bulbs, you know the ones that may save energy but are highly toxic to dispose of, I am frankly surpised he didn't have a red one handy...for Rudolph....

UPDATE: More local reactions.  First, the Washington Policy Center issued this press release:

Good News: Despite Mayor's Claims, Santa Is Safe Says Recent Study
Study by NASA and the UW shows that trends in Arctic ice pack are mixed, biggest threat to climate may be Rudolph and his friends

Seattle - In an open letter to Santa last week and a speech to children at Seattle’s Annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony at Westlake Center, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels last week offered a Grinch-like tone, grumbling about climate change threatening Santa, telling kids “I hope the reindeer can swim,” and blaming them and their energy-sucking video games for melting Arctic ice.

During the 2004 presidential election, I predicted the Democrats would lose for one fairly simple, yet critically important reason:  While he was full of sound and fury about Bush's faults John Kerry offered no alternative, no leadership.

He had no vision.  It is not enough to say how bad the other side is, you need to show you are better.

The Democrats learned.  In 2006 they stormed congress on a platform rich with vision and promise.  That so much of it has been false and empty is irrelevant.  At the time, they presented a vision of promise to the voters, and the peopley bought it.

Now as the 2008 elections are finally creeping up on us, the same situation is facing us:  Who will have the vision of leadership, and who will be full of sound and fury and no substance.

Don Surber ponders this in a well written blog, reposted here with his kind permission. 

Note very closely the irony of who has the greatest vision of America.

Lead America, Republicans

We need our Tony Blair, our Nicolas Sarkozy.

While Democrats select a presidential candidate, Republicans seek a president. There are a bunch of Jimmy Carters on the other side who are willing to apologize for America’s greatness. Forget about finding the next Reagan. America can settle for another Tony Blair or Nicolas Sarkozy.

Wouldn’t it be delightful to hear Mitt Romney say: “Sept. 11 was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it’s over. There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary …”

Wouldn’t it be great to hear Rudy Giuliani say: “There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don’t; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia’s savior. … ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. ”

This week's global warming round up starts off fun and light hearted, but in reality much of this is just sad.

We start off in Bali where a global warming summit is taking place, but there is a slight problem:  Parking. 

Not Enough Parking for Private Jets Going to UN Climate Conference

As climate alarmists from all over the world head to Bali to talk about the sacrifices regular folks have to make to save the planet from global warming, it seems certain media will ignore all the private jets clogging the tiny airport.

As if it’s not enough that the United Nations Climate Change Conference is being held at what NewsBusters reported as "a truly beautiful tropical island paradise," the management of the nearby airport has issued a warning to attendees that they are going to have to park their private jets somewhere else.

I kid you not.

As reported by Bali Discovery Tours on November 3 (emphasis added):

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas.  To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.

Talk about your really inconvenient truths

Have these people ever heard of carpooling to reduce your carbon footprint, you know, what they preach to all of us daily?

No.  They are too important to be bothered by consistency.

The second story is somewhat sad.  We have a new solution to the average families carbon footprint:  Abortion.

Save the planet: Have an abortion

Via Weasel Zippers, a new entry in the pantheon of great abortion rationales. The greatest gift you can give Gaia is the gift of extinction:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”…

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

She met her husband, who’s also a vegan, at an animal rights demonstration, which I guess also makes this an entry in the pantheon of cartoonish cultural stereotypes. Not an isolated example, either:

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”…

Mark adds: “Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

“We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

“In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.”

All we need now is some evidence that environmental fanaticism is genetically influenced and we can break out the party favors. Exit question: Isn’t there an even higher level of social consciousness than saving the planet? My friends, there is.

There is indeed.  This is just another way to devalue life, ironically by claiming you must terminate for the greater good.

Seems to me that slipperly slope was popular in Germany 60 odd years ago.

The sterilization argument, though, well thats fine with me.  I'd personally rather that people like this not have the ability to reproduce.  More on this, as well as another twist:

Stop Global Warming: Get Sterilized and Ride a Horse

Just how much are you willing to sacrifice to stop global warming, assuming of course that you're drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid?

Well, in England, a woman has actually sterilized herself.

And, in France, they're talking about replacing municipal cars and trucks with horse-drawn carriages.

I kid you not.

As sterilization seems the more extreme measure, let's begin there as reported by England's Daily Mail Wednesday (emphasis added, h/t NBer lunaticcringeradio):

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

I don't know about you, but I never felt having children was a selfish act. Quite the contrary, I believe successful members of a species that decline to replicate their genes are being selfish as most of them do it for their own personal interests and not those of the species.

After all, if a majority of any species opted out of the procreation process, said species would cease to exist.

I'm no expert, but on the surface, that doesn't appear beneficial for that species.

I'm just saying.

Pretty much, yea.  Now, consider this:

Heading across the Channel, the French are considering moving back to the Dark Ages in order to solve global warming as reported by Reuters Wednesday (emphasis added):

Horses are a possible alternative for vehicles such as school buses and refuse trucks, say groups eager to pick up on global concerns about eco-friendly transport.

"It's all about sustainable development and bringing some humanity back to today's monotonous, machine-driven jobs," Stephane de Veyrac, from the French National Stud Organization, said at this week's annual conference of French mayors.

De Veyrac's group says it is the first in France to offer consulting on a wide range of horse-powered vehicles that could also haul bottles and aid street sweeping.

[...]

Studies about cost and overall carbon footprint are still underway but supporters say the animals beat cars and trucks on a number of criteria, especially for transport work requiring frequent stops over short distances, like emptying trash bins.

There may be a slight problem there though.

Do you think such studies will factor in the methane released by these horses, which, for those drinking the Kool-Aid, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? And what about the other environmental disadvantages reported by NewsBusters in February:

In his piece published Tuesday in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dwight R. Lee wrote (h/t JunkScience.com, emphasis mine throughout): "The motto of all environmentalists should be 'Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine.'"

[...]

The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants that those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars. Horse emissions did more than make our town and cities stink; they spread fly-borne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.

Well, all for the greater good, eh?

Reminder:  When you let idiots make policy, the laws are understandably stupid.

I'm just saying....

Finally, one of the comments on the newsbuster article had an intriguing information round up.  Check it out by clicking the "more" link below.  Make up your own mind about Global Warming and Climate change, but do so with both sides of the story.

 Trackposted to Sister Toldjah, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Note:  The following links are presented"as is" because I have not had the time to verify all the various links and information.  I make no claims about their accuracy.  Please report any obvious inaccuracies.

The recent slew of reports and controversy regarding Tasers has made me a bit reflective.

I have to confess that I do not come to this unbiased.  My father was a cop.

During the time he served I do not recall any hint he ever discharged his gun at a person, but I do recall a time he was restraining someone and when the guy broke loose, my dad's ribs took part of the heat. 

So with that in mind, I admit my automatic impulse is to defend the police, but that does not mean I cannot see deeper into it and try to evaluate the situation objectively.

The argument about Tasers, when you nail it down, is essentially twofold:  Should they used and when should they be used.

The first is one I am not totally qualified to answer.  Anecdotally, the evidence supports the use of a Taser as a safe and effective non-lethal means of controlling an unruly subject.  There are other weapons in that category, such as nightsticks, batons or tonfas; pepper spray, Mace or CS gas; rubber or plastic bullets; bean bags;  and water cannons.

One thing they all share in common is that all are designed to be nonlethal, and all can have lethal consequences, as can simple hand to hand combat to quell a combative suspect.

In other words, whenever the police determine they need to detain someone, there is always a risk of injury and or death.  They are trained to minimize the danger, but sadly the worst case scenario happens.

But the main point I want to consider here is that even using nothing can result in an accidental death.  A recent case in Phoenix is testament to that.  A distraught woman was apprehended, and died in the holding cell.  no Tasers, no beatings, no nothing.  She apparently strangled herself on her shackles.  The jury is out on that one still.

Enjoy today with your family and friends.   See you on Friday.

Till next time, here is Johnny Cash.

Watch the clip below.  This involved a guy who was stopped for speeding, and when he refused to sign the ticket he was being arrested.  He refused orders and was tased.

Normally I favor the police, and in general I think the guy deserved what he got.  But the cop made two mistakes (IMHO) which also make me have to agree he needs a reprimand.

More afterward.

OK, observations.

The cops initial approach was non confrontational, he calmly advised him he was going too fast and to produce his license and registration. 

The cop's second request for LAR was a bit surly.  The driver was non compliant and argumentative.  Roadside arguments over tickets never work. 

The guy deserved the ticket, he admitted to the officer he was going 68 in a 40.  At that point the radar was irrelevant.  If you admit your are speeding, guess what?  You get a ticket. 

The guy refused to sign the ticket, which may or may not be a violation of the law.  Signing is not admission of guilt it is essentially a bail agreement and promise to appear, and if you do not sign, they have the right to compel your appearance by arresting you.

The cop ordered him out and prepared to cuff him.  He did not advise him he was being arrested.  He did not comply and was tased.  He told the wife he was being placed under arrest when he was tased. Since he did not tell the guy, it can be argued he did not know he was under arrest.  I consider that a serious mistake.

The cop never warned him to comply or he would be tased, though he told the second officer later on he had warned him he would be tased.  Since he lied about that aspect, this becomes the second critical mistake IMO.

Overall impressions.  The driver was a butthead, who was a barracks lawyer, essentially, who tried to fight the ticket on the curb, and resisted arrest by walking away.  It is a soft Resistance, but he still was resisting.