Tuesdays with Paulie 7/30/07

"BP stands for Bad Pollution", Rep. Mark Kirk
Kudos to Kirk for fighting British Petroleum and Gov. Daniels

I believe that everyone is an environmentalist. Nobody wants to breathe polluted air or drink contaminated water. With that said, I want to thank Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) for his recent battle against British Petroleum and the state of Indiana for their decision to start dumping more hazardous waste into Lake Michigan.

When I was a student at Indiana University and a permanent resident of the state for a few years, I learned early on that the legislators in Indianapolis view Northwest Indiana as the East-side of Chicago. As far as they are concerned, Lake and Porter counties in Indiana are in a different world. That is why Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R?) and the Indiana powers to be could care less about elevated pollution levels in Lake Michigan.

Kirk has led a bi-partisan effort to stop BP from dumping more ammonia and industrial waste into the Great Lakes from their expanding Whiting refinery. The state of Indiana granted the company permission to unload additional waste into the water supply. Kirk and his colleagues have asked Gov. Daniels to withdraw the permit as well as asked the BP CEO to halt their future plans.

Your brilliant blogger doesn't subscribe to the leftist conspiracy theories that big oil is an evil entity. Oil companies have a right to make as much money as they can. They spend billions of dollars to locate and bring oil to the surface. It's about supply and demand. However, government's foremost responsibility is to protect the people. Water is not a luxury, but a requirement for life. The Great Lakes are not property, but a natural resource that must be protected.

As one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world, BP can easily find a way to dispose the additional waste elsewhere. They already dump waste into Lake Michigan. More tax money shouldn't be spent to remove added pollution from the water supply. If BP wants to expand...great. But they are responsible for not increasing my children's chances of getting cancer and take responsibility in disposing the additional waste.

Thank you again Congressman Kirk.


Miracle! NY Times Sees Victory in Iraq?
Two war critics see "significant changes taking place"

It's an article that you have to read twice to believe. New York Times writers Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, who have "harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq," have returned from an eight day trip to Iraq, which has greatly altered their opinion.

"We were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with," the war critics wrote. "Morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

The miracle is not these men have an enlightened view of our efforts in Iraq, but that the NYT editorial board would permit them to write a positive piece about Iraq. Their optimism after returning home is not shocking. Politicians on both sides of the aisle usually report positive news when returning from Iraq. That is why your brilliant blogger never believed that the situation in Iraq was nearly as bad as the anti-American mainstream press reports. I have always utilized the opinions of people I know who have served as well as independent media outlets that have an agenda of truth not one that is blame America no matter what the facts are.

Undoubtedly mistakes have been made and the recent news that the Iraq Parliament will be taking the next month and a half off is disheartening. However, for two staunch war critics from the NYT to believe that a reasonable victory can be achieved is not just a miracle, but an indication that hope is not lost, no matter how bad the Democrats and their liberal media cohorts say the situation is.

NYT still full of crap

So why did the NY Times publish a positive Iraq story? I wish I can say they are trying to regain their credibility, objectivity and integrity that has been lost for decades. Unfortunately, this story may have gotten the green light only after the newspaper learned they were going to be caught red handed lying to their readers.

Jewish Current Issues editor, Rick Richman, made an interesting discovery recently that exposes the journalistic corruption that engulfs the newspaper that has been viewed as the standard of journalism in America for two centuries.

In a recent article published in American thinker, Richman discusses the reporting of a speech by President Bush that took place last week in Charleston, South Carolina. Four hours after the speech, reporter Brian Knowlton writes a story that is posted on the NY times website. After reviewing the transcripts of the speech, it's obvious that Knowlton wrote a "straightforward" story that is undoubtedly accurate.

However, accuracy is secondary to the times, so the next day they published a different story written by Jim Rutenberg and Mark Mazzetti, which portrays a much different speech than Knowlton wrote about.

Check out this fascinating piece by Richman and judge for yourself, which story is accurate and which one should be used to potty train your dog.


Paulie