Just listen to this and tell me the media are fair and balanced and reporting objectively:

Thrills running up the leg, going to cry, throwing away objectivity, love like a ninth grader, I think about you all night, too embarrassed to stand up? These are our professional news reporters? Ha!

My sitemeter tells me someone is reading, but almost no one makes comments except Sue and me and occasionally Guss and David.

That’s OK, but I have a video I want to show you and would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

When I was still working almost all my co-workers in my work group were African-American. I have heard them use the “N” word describing someone else, and it was not in flattering or affectionate terms.

I’m Indian. I don’t refer to someone who is a friend as an “Injun”. So, why is the argument that African-Americans can use the word indiscriminately valid, but no person of any other race is allowed to use it as an “affectionate” term?

Thankfully, children of parents today (parents who care about how their children are raised) do not use the word. I’m sure my middle school grandchildren have been exposed to the word, but it is not in their vocabularies. (We never used those terms in front of our children. In fact, we never used them at all.)

They don’t mention the color of someone’s skin and have mixed-race parties. If they’re a friend it doesn’t matter the skin color. And I live in the deep South, even though I was raised in the Northeast.

I think the children growing up today are finally going to be the generation that stops the racial divide. I have great hope in them.

Your opinion, please. I promise we don’t bite and we won’t insult you on this blog, but if someone shows racism their comments will be altered or removed.

The other night my husband put some canned tomatoes in a dish that seemed hot even to him, so he added ketchup! Yes, ketchup. Don’t ask me why. He didn’t mention it and when I had a helping of the dish my mouth burned for two hours. It had chilis in it. I don’t eat hot, spicy food.

I like spices in spaghetti sauce and other dishes, but not the hot kind. I don’t eat red peppers (the hot kind) or any other peppers if they are the least bit hot. I don’t even eat the peppers on a salad from Olive Garden or on pizzas from Papa John’s. I won’t touch the food that comes into contact with them, but eat from the other side of the container.

Now comes news that salmonella has been found on a single jalepeno in Texas.

Government inspectors finally have a big clue in the nationwide salmonella outbreak: They found the same bacteria strain on a single Mexican-grown jalapeno pepper handled in Texas — and issued a stronger warning for consumers to avoid fresh jalapenos.

But Monday’s discovery, the equivalent of a fingerprint, doesn’t solve the mystery: Authorities still don’t know where the pepper became tainted — on the farm, or in the McAllen, Texas, plant, or at some stop in between, such as a packing house.

Nor are they saying the tainted pepper exonerates tomatoes sold earlier in the spring that consumers until last week had been told were the prime suspect.

Still, “this genetic match is a very important break in the case,” said Dr. David Acheson, the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety chief.

For now, the government is strengthening its earlier precaution against hot peppers to a full-blown warning that no one should eat fresh jalapenos — or products such as fresh salsa made from them — until it can better pinpoint where tainted ones may have sold.

Tomatoes currently on the market, in contrast, now are considered safe to eat.

The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.

If you like jalepenos be sure to eat them from a jar and not fresh until the all-clear has been given.

Who is at fault for us not drilling for oil in our own land? Mostly it’s the Democrats in Congress and not just Obama.

In fact, I think McCain is against drilling in ANWR, but maybe he’ll see the light on that one too.

Here’s McCain’s latest ad on the prices of gas:

The New York Times has refused to publish an op-ed piece by Sen. John McCain which rebuts an op-ed piece written by Barack Obama and published in the Times the previous week.

ABC’s Rick Klein and Sara Just report: This is not the easiest week for John McCain to get equal time in the media - not with so many journalists in the Middle East to report on Barack Obama’s trip there. And the New York Times op-ed page isn’t making it any easier.

As first reported by The Drudge Report, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, submitted an opinion piece to the New York Times last week and the paper has rejected it.

A week earlier, the paper published an op-ed by Obama, about the Democrat’s plans for troop draw-down in Iraq. A few days later, the McCain campaign submitted a column rebutting the Obama piece.

According to McCain campaign staffers, the Times rejected the McCain piece and asked for a rewrite to respond directly to some of the claims in the Obama piece, and include an outline of the Republican’s timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq and conditions for withdrawal.

According to McCain campaign staffers, the rejection came Friday night from New York Times oped editorial page editor David Shipley via email:

“I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the oped page. However I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written,” Shipley writes, according to a copy of the message provided to ABC News.

“It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.”

The McCain campaign has refused to rewrite the piece, saying that the Times’ suggestions are tantamount to insisting that he change his position in order to get his opinions published.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.” said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

The New York Times has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Drudge has published McCain’s piece and I am posting it here:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Fairness in the media? When all three major network anchors follow Obama on his foreign campaign trip and treat it as though he were already president? Then McCain can’t even publish his thoughts on the Iraq war? Fairness? What is fairness? Only the media know for sure.

Headed to the Scranton, Pa. area for a few days with my daughter and grandkids.

I sure hope we don’t come across a situation such as described by Harry Chapin in this song: (LOL)

Having seen Chapin perform this live many years ago, (1971 to be exact), “Bananas” instantly came to mind when the journey to Scranton was suggested.

Below though, is one of my all time favorites by this performer who left this earth far too soon:

Have a great week all..I’ll post as soon as I am able.

Check out these cars which were once owned by Saddam:

These are various cars found by the Coalition in downtown Baghdad. An accounting office from DoD was sent in to ‘inventory’ these and I was invited along as a resident gear head. They were reported to us by an ‘informant’ who detailed where they were. Several levels under ground, they had been there for some time and not used at all in years. Several of the newer ones were wrecked. We could never figure out why several were even notable enough to keep around. See how many you recognize!

That’s quite an inventory, wouldn’t you say?

Rick Moran never shies away from telling it like it is, no matter the political party. He did not break with his tradition in this post

It was two summers ago that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Washington and addressed a joint session of Congress.

Except there were quite a few empty seats in the Chamber when the Prime Minister rose to speak. That’s because Democrats were boycotting Maliki’s historic appearance according to some, because he was an American “puppet” and not the head of an independent country.

That was then, this is now.

My choice for artist of the week? This baby elephant:

Add this to the very long list of reasons the United Nations is considered a useless organization by so many.

A very appropriate song

for those who make a lot of noise, but take little action: HT:RCP

Gas is still at $4 a gallon, but the good news is there’s an emerging consensus on a measure that would help: Drill for more oil here at home. President Bush dropped the executive ban on offshore oil and natural gas exploration last week, and House GOP leader John Boehner plans to lead a congressional delegation to Colorado and Alaska to highlight America’s abundant energy resources this week. Polls show more than two-thirds of the public support increased domestic energy exploration and production. Guess who stands in the way.

Congress has its own ban on offshore energy exploration, and the Democrats who run Congress have shown no sign that they are willing to follow Bush’s example. They have preferred to make excuses–about why the price of oil is rising, who is to blame for its rise, and why increasing domestic supply won’t do anything to ameliorate the problem.

It isn’t working. Democrats are losing the fight over gas prices, and they know it, too.

Related and a must see at Instapundit.

Andrea Mitchell interviews General Petraeus.

The General wastes no time in making his positions crystal clear..now only if the media would listen.

While the Democrats attempt to jockey for position to take credit for us “winning” in Iraq, (we all know it had to be that pressure they put on the President), their steady drumbeat of words fall on deaf ears with me.

This is the party whose leader told us the war was lost. Remember Mrs. Clinton’s “willing suspension of disbelief” of General Petraeus’s report to the Armed Services Committee?

How about the disgraceful actions and words of Congressman John Murtha?

We should not forget the continuous threats on the Left to cut funding for the war, knowing full well the American people would not tolerate our troops being left in further jeopardy.

As for the media, well they have done their level best to turn public opinion against the war and the President perhaps not realizing there are those of us who resent their constant negativity and lack of support and recognition for the successes achieved.

President Bush has remained steadfast in his claim that when Iraq was stable and their government was certain they could maintain the peace, we would leave. His recent conversations with Prime Minister Maliki are the beginning of that process, not some artificial time line the Democrats would prefer our troops and Iraq follow.

Wars are not won or lost by presidential nominees (especially those whose positions change like the wind) or those in Congress, many of whom have never set foot in today’s hostile environments.

No indeed, they are won by men and women like these:

Something a bit different this week, in keeping with our the war was won theme. This is a video produced by the Third Infantry Division (aka Task Force Marne and MND-C) the surge division in Iraq.

and, those who have stepped up to defend their own country as it struggles (as our nation did) to form a democracy:

Then there are times when the change hits you across the forehead like a 2×4. Yesterday I found inspiration in the tears of joy on hundreds of faces at the graduation for the Iraqi Military Academy at Rustimiyah as 252 young men graduated from the one year course of instruction and were commissioned as 2nd Lieutenants in the Iraqi Army and Air Force.

I happened to run across an article about a product called “Lifesaver”, a water bottle much like a sports bottle, but it has a filter in it that can make the dirtiest and most contaminated water pure and safe for drinking. It does not filter out salt, so if you’re stuck in the ocean it won’t help you, but if you are ever in a situation when clean water is not available this is the product to have.

It’s a bit expensive, costing about $253 to be shipped from Great Britain, but there is a US distributor in Virginia, so maybe it won’t be so costly since shipping charges should be lower.

This is definitely something the disaster agencies and military should have on hand so the expense of shipping water only to have the containers thrown away, is greatly reduced. Also, you don’t have to pack as much water because any fresh water source will work.

For more information go here. For the US distributor go here. The cost is $229 plus shipping, so it’s not cheap…yet.