We've Been Sold Out

I was going to write a post from this angle, but Christopher Chantrill over at American Thinker beat me to it. No sense in re-inventing the wheel. Here's the key excerpt, though:

It comes as a blow to the solar plexus to confront the fact that in urban African American communities all across America a frank racist hate-filled rhetoric is not merely condoned but actually celebrated. We white conservatives have been taught for the last generation to button our lips and never to give utterance to a racist thought. We thought that we were parties to a bargain: that if we shut up and truckled to the liberal race bullies sooner or later we would emerge from the post civil-rights era and its hypocrisies of affirmative action and diversity and we would ascend to the sunny green uplands of post-racism.

Now we hear the ravings of Reverend Wright and realize that we have been had. While we were buttoning our lips and attending compulsory diversity seminars liberals were not holding up their end of the deal and neutralizing the Reverend Wrights of America and their vicious racist bile. On the contrary, liberals were pumping them up! We used to wonder how it could be that blacks voted 90 percent for Democrats. How could this be, we wondered, when you can never get more that 60 percent of the rest of America to take sides on anything?

Here's another

Bill Kristol yesterday talking to Dennis Miller about Obama:

"His reaction to the Reverend Wright thing and these other criticism has been to sort of assume that the people criticizing him are idiots and don't have a legitimate ground of ... of concern about him."

In other words, typical leftist. Dismiss your opponents rather than engage in an actual argument with them. Easiest thing to do when reality is not on your side.

Quote of the day

Talking about Leftists in general - a culture he himself was once immersed and saturated in - David Horowitz used this description:

It's a kind of religion ... they get intoxicated with their own virtue ... so I was always preaching. I never listened.

Intoxicated with their own virtue - the very thing they claim to hate about the religious right.

That one goes on the shelf with "moral preening".

Some Pig

(for those of you familiar with Charlotte's Web)

What is unique about Obama is his Brilliance™ & Authenticity™! He's Incandescent™! Why, he's got Audacity™! He brings us Hope™! He's a New and Improved™ candidate! He's Different™! He'll bring Change™! Not only Change™, but Change We Can Believe In™! As if all that other stuff wasn't enough!

!!!

OMG! Im 7o7411y v07ing 4 him!

Right.

Other than all of the glowing adjectives and gushing hyperbole, I haven't heard much of substance from the man that could be meaningfully distinguished from your everyday Socialist speal. It's just very prettily worded.

Here's a challenge for Obama supporters. Describe why you like him using mainly nouns and verbs. Specific ones, not just "change" and "hope". Change to what? Hope for what? And how will he cause these things to come about? What will he do?

The other reason so many young people seem to like him reminds me of this story... While eating in an Ethiopian restaurant one day with my older step-son and a former daughter-in-law of mine (thankfully, "ex" goes in front of her title now) -- talking about our waiter -- announced to the table in a serious, hushed tone:

"We need to be sure and tip him really good, because he's gay."

I shit you not. True story.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Gort Klaatu Barack nikto.

We have been warned.

Michelle's got a good one

on Jimmy Dihimmi Carter

Dowdy

I avoid reading Maureen Dowd almost as much as I avoid reading Paul Krugman. Almost. It's probably the straight male-wiring in me, considering her head shot is far more attractive to me (c'mon, she's pretty cute) than Paul's will ever be and part of me wants to like her. While Paul's pontifications make my skin crawl, my attitude toward Maureen's columns are more akin to disappointment and resignation. Maybe I'm hoping that like so many I know who were former liberals who one day woke up to the fact that it was an insane world-view, that one day I can happily welcome her to the real world.

It's apparent that the Darling Redhead is in the Obama camp, and the headline piqued my interest to see what it was that she didn't like about Hillary. She wants her gone. And I'm reading along, and I get down to this paragraph:

The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. With gas prices out of control, with the comically oblivious President Bush shimmying around New Orleans — the city he let drown — and Condi sneaking into Baghdad as rockets and mortars hail down on the Green Zone, beating the Republicans should be a cinch.

I observe the following:

• Gas prices out of control = Government should do something to control gas prices.
• "comically oblivious" Bush shimmying around New Orleans = Bush should really be sitting in sack cloth and ash, at least partially because he's not moving to get government to control gas prices ...
• "the city he let down" = continuing drumbeat of an outright misdirection [lie] concerning where the responsibility for that fiasco really lies
• "Condi sneaking into Baghdad" amongst rockets and mortars = "Why can't we just pull out of Iraq already"... rather dismissive of the Sec'y State's committment, too. Girlfriend got kahunas!

Actually, the government is doing something to control gas prices. It's keeping us from drilling for domestic oil and keeping us from building new refineries. This crimps the supply, thus enhancing the effects of rising global demand. Thus Government is keeping gas prices high. If the government wants to do something about lowering gas prices, it should open up land to responsible domestic drilling. But... I digress.

As far as Bush "shimmying" -- I did see that on TV. I can see where Maureen wouldn't like seeing anything like a human side to George Bush since she and those like her have spent the last 8 years demonizing his every breath.

I found this passage a bit perplexing:

Hillary’s husband became the first person ever to play the Caucasian Card. First, he blurted out to a radio interviewer that the Obama camp had played the race card against him after he compared Obama’s strength in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s.

Huh? "The Race Card" is usually something used by a person of politically-sanctioned minority race to diminish or dismiss a person of a non politically-sanctioned race (which pretty much amounts to "caucasian"). I really don't see where Bill was playing a "Caucasian" card here. Bill made what, outside of the world of hyper-sensitive political correctness, should be considered at the very least a legitimate observation. He just wasn't supposed to observe it out loud. The race card was played when Obama's camp cried "foul".

Speaking of racist, she goes on to say:

Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game.

[plant tounge in cheek] What, is that all black people can do is play basketball? [/plant]

No, I'm not suggesting this was a racist comment. But you can bet if Bill or "W" or McCain had used this analogy it would have been considered racist. I'm not objecting to her language. Just the double-standard.

And just what are "all" his "incandescent" gifts, anyway?

I will agree, however, that members of the press should let people enjoy their waffles in peace -- even if they are running for president.

Democracy & America

Something that gets thrown around a lot by the left and by the right is this idea that America is supposed to be a "democracy", as if that is the highest directive. When Gore lost the 2000 election, "where's the democracy?" got asked a lot. When a very, very loud minority thought they were a majority because of the disproportionate coverage they were getting opposing the Iraq invasion didn't get their way, "where's the democracy?"

The right is guilty of this kind of thing, too, because sometime over the last 200 years "democracy" has been elevated in our collective mind to a level beyond the intentions of our founding fathers.

We get to vote on certain issues directly. We get to vote for people to represent us. And we get to vote on a person to lead us. Those people get to pick judges whose job it is to keep what they do inline with the framework of the Constitution.

Most young people today (and far too many older ones as well) would be surprised to learn that America isn't primarily about Democracy. Never was. Rather, the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, and it is about Liberty. Democracy is a tool for the people to provide input into the terms and constraints on that Liberty -- but democracy itself is limited by the Federal and State constitutions.

And incidentally, the Bill of Rights lays out 10 specific things this Democracy can't touch.

The second of which has been touched far too much in the past 50 or 60 years.

Bitter

I know I'm late to the game on this.

But it keeps coming up, and I'm getting more and more bugged by it.

Reading the stories in the press would lead you to believe that conservative Democrats and other "small-town" America voters are upset that Obama called them "bitter", as if "bitter" were the offending word and they're being petty about it.

Well, I resemble that remark. I grew up in small-town America, and I have small-town/rural American values. And if all cultures are valid in a Multi-Cultural Utopia, then mine is, too.

And I got news for the press. Yeah, I'm bitter, but not about being called "bitter".

Yes, the "cling" remarks about guns and religion were condecending and dismissive (dismissive being the primary progressive "argument" tactic) -- but they are only indicative of what we're really bitter about.

We're bitter about multi-culturalism and it's insistance on multi-lingualism. We're bitter about being called idiots for believing in God or even valuing Christian-based culture. We're bitter about being called "gun nuts" for believing in taking responsibility for our at least our own self-preservation and even that of our friends and neighbors. We're bitter about nanny statism with its inherent condecension and emaciation of human dignity, not to mention Liberty.

We're bitter about being looked down upon for wanting to preserve our culture of independence and responsibility. We're bitter about being painted as bigots when most of us are not. And we're bitter that we are seen as ignorant fools for not voting "in our interests". That's right, we're bitter about the very presumption that we don't know best where our interests lie.

Barak Obama says that he knows what blue collar voters he's having trouble attracting are going through. The truth is, he thinks he does, but he doesn't have a clue. Even if he does have a clue about what financial struggle is like, he is apparently completely out of touch with real American priorities. He can't imagine that culture, faith, self-reliance, and Liberty could possibly be more important than financial security.

Which sums up the progressive game. We'll take care of you, and you behave the way we think you should. They do an end-around of the church and state question by replacing all of our churches with the state -- and if we don't like it well we obviously belong in mental institutions.

What's there to be bitter about?

---

Update: Mark Steyn concurrs.

All The Fuss

I cobbled this together out of three pictures. The inspiration came from an ad I saw earlier featuring a polar bear with an Uncle Sam hat basically saying "I want you to save the planet" with a link to a carbon tax site.

One of the more irksome claims of the global warmingists is that somehow polar bears would not survive the melting of arctic ice. Even if that were to happen again (it has happened before, and we still have polar bears) ... polar bears are basically white grizzlies. They're a sub-species. They don't "depend" on ice floes. If they can't find food one place, they'll look for it somewhere else, like any other bear. The polar bears don't need saving. They'll be just fine whether the earth warms or not.

Of course, another irksome global warmingist belief is that all climate change is bad.

Tell that to the Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Elitists

So I'm reading this article at the Washington Post. Yeah, I've been keeping up with what's going on... just haven't had much to say and I've been preoccupied with other things... not much posting here.

The article itself was pretty straightforward. I didn't have a problem with it.

Then I started reading the comments. Wow. I have to wonder what most of these comments have to do with the content of the article. I saw a lot of name calling and straw men and empty leftist ranting...

• How often does Mchypocrite go to church? Elitist? Who married into the hundreds of millions Henley estate?
• oh, good grief. must propel the lies... as if john mccain, with his six homes, private airplane, top tier medical coverage -- has a friggin clue.
• I seem to remember in history class learning that a lot of people threw themselves from windows when the Great depression hit. I guess since he married a beer heiress he doesn't have to think about that.
• So the guy with how many houses and a second wife that is how rich tells us Obama is "elitist."
• Wow, now Republicans who have trouble getting people of color and white women to vote for them are not elitist?

So "Wealthy" = "Elitist", aparently.

Fortunately there were several commenters who obviously get it: "Elitist" means "We Know Better Than You Do", not "Wealthy". But "Wealthy" = "Elitist" is pretty much the attitude the rest of what was in the comments represented by the quotes above exuded. And I'm sparing you the sputtering diatribes of leftist rage. (oddly, "Halliburton" didn't even show up once, though. I guess that's so "last year"). They also seem to conveniently ignore that Obama and Hillary are also wealthy. But McCain is Republican, so he's evil. Plus he's white. And male.

This commenter summed it up pretty well:

Obama's comments are offensive because he's saying that small town voters are gun toting, xenophobic racists and that they can't help it because they're poor.

I don't think the "bitter" thing matters nearly so much...

A Clear Line

Here's what McCain says on Iraq:

"I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal - my goal - is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that to promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

A a goal and a plan not to abandon that goal. The most important plan in any victory is not to stop fighting and adjusting and working toward a goal.

Hillary triangulates:

"Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Maybe might could possibly mean that you could say that.... next!

Then there's Obama, who's looking with hope to a future of change where we didn't go into Iraq. 'Cause that'll fix everything.

"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder [and] that the two problems [of withdrawing troops] that you've pointed out - al-Qaida in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region - are a direct result of that original decision"

With that, and adding in the following from this article

Conservatives may not be thrilled with what a McCain presidency means, but if social conservatives care about the makeup of the House and Senate, as well state legislatures and the courts, then they should rally around McCain. They know better than most the importance of controlling the legislative and judicial branches to achieve long-term influence.

Pretty much sums up why I'm votin' for McCain. Period.

Why Sheep Are Dumb

Hang with me, here.

We were watching the Food Network last night, and Alton Brown came on with his "Good Eats" program. We like Alton. He's informative. He's entertaining. And we've never even pretended to try any of his recipes. He's just fun.

So last night he was doing this "crown" rack of lamb, and as he often does, he did a little skit on the background of the food he was making. Specifically, a background piece on sheep.

In the piece, a historian pops up and starts explaining that sheep were probably the first domesticated herd animal, yada yada... and Alton (after getting over being perturbed at her stealing his thunder... all in the script of course) asked her why lamb/sheep aren't too popular in America. She explained that it had something to do with the Brits not wanting us to compete with them on the wool market.

And Alton says something like, "besides, they're dumb."

She responded by saying yes, they're pretty dumb, and it's partially our fault. See, over the 6,000 years we've had them domesticated, they've lost their horns, their ears are all floppy instead of perky, and they have lost brain capacity.

Now let's think about that.

We took what was presumably a wild animal and started looking after their every need. Keeping danger away, making sure they were well fed, didn't get overly agitated. All they have to worry about is eating. And what happened?

They became less alert (ears are now floppy because they don't have to listen), can't defend themselves anymore ("horn" control ... they've lost their weapons), and they've gotten stupid.

Remember that next time someone starts talking to you about nationalized health care, gun control, promoting nanny statism, etc.

We the Sheeple.

Not for me, man.

"Swiftboating" Hillary

One of the most enjoyable things about this donk campaign season is watching the Dem's "chickens comin' ho-o-o-o-o-o-ome..... to roost!"

All that rot we keep hearing about Bush "stealing" the election. Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election. This vote should or shouldn't count. Wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game because following them didn't get you the result you desired. Kerry got "Swiftboated". Every vote should count. Identity politics -- the suckling toddler of the Progressive movement.

Well here we are ... one Democratic candidate will likely win the popular vote, and the other may very well get the nomination. People who served with Kerry questioned his version of events, and that was "unfair" -- but now people who were in Bosnia are questioning Hillary's version of events, and that's ok. It's ok for blacks to be racist -- we won't run them out of town on a rail, but we will if a white person even accidentally appears to touch the "race" line. Hillary wants to count votes that were invalidated by the Democratic party -- and in said invalidation the Democratic party "disenfranchised" voters from two states. Some votes count more than others... like 10,000 times more than others (superdelegates)....

Everything they accused the Republicans of in 2000 and somewhat again in 2004 ... they're doing and they expect everybody to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy.

Pass the popcorn.

Dems Tiptoe on Gun Control?

According to this article, there are 300,000 NRA members in the next big state -- Pennsylvania. And on April 16, Obama and Clinton are set to debate in that state, Obama trying to keep his edge, Clinton trying to gain one. It also happens to be the 1 year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre.

With 42% of households (that would report such a thing) have guns, 54% of Union member households there have them.

Now everybody, and I do mean everybody -- progressives and NRA folks alike, wants the same thing here. That is, the same result. That result would be people don't get killed on a massive scale by people with guns.

The Progressive (therefore, Democratic) point of view is that to solve this you get rid of guns. Now they know they can't do that in one fell swoop, so they don't usually say this out loud (though many have been caught saying just that) -- but they say they want to limit access to guns. Like only "allow" one gun purchase a month, a year... whatever. Ultimate goal being no guns at all. Can't buy this kind of gun. Can't buy that kind of gun. Can't OWN this kind of gun. Can't use that kind of ammo.

But of course what that that translates to in the real world is no legal guns. Just like when liquor was outlawed, there was no legal liquor. But liquor there was and a huge, violent black market developed around it.

You know, kind of like gangs and drugs. Also illegal. Also still a problem. Only people don't usually hold a bag of drugs to your head while they take your wallet or empty your cash register or rape you. Not quite as effective.

So although they don't believe that the result would be only bad people having guns, and good people with nothing to defend themselves against those people -- that's excactly what history and common sense tells us would happen.

This would give the bad guys a huge advantage.

We didn't want shootings at schools, so we banned guns from schools. Guess what? We still have shootings at schools, because criminals, by definition, are willing to break laws. And on top of that, the shootings at schools are much worse now. Because the criminals are confident that nobody at the school will have the ability to stop them. They hold a monopoly on power, which is what it's all about for these mass murderers: A temporary feeling of being all-powerful.

Now pro-second amendment people, the NRA especially included, don't want shootings at schools, either. However, they believe if there are a few regular people around with guns who aren't afraid of being arrested for simply having one ... that should one of these crazed people start cappin' people, he won't get far. And the fact of the matter is far fewer of them will even get started because they will not have that assurance of having a monopoly on power.

In the article Clinton is reported to have said that her father took her hunting and she once shot a duck. (Under sniper fire!)

Queue Suzanna Hupp: "People, the second amendment is not about duck hunting."

Also, in the article, Mrs. I've Never Been Proud of America Until Now Obama is reported to have said that she worries about urban handgun violence but realized while driving in Iowa that she might want a gun for protection in a rural area.

In a rural area???? How about in an urban area, where your need for protection is substantially greater?

Frankly, Mrs. "O", I feel far safer out in rural areas than I do in urban areas. And more people per capita have guns in rural areas.

Think about that!

You wanna take my guns away from me in the city where I am more likely to need them because you think it's spooky in the country where people have guns but rarely shoot each other. What, because there are too many white people? (Hey, they'd level that charge at me if I said I thought I needed protection in the inner city). Or because you feel the police can't protect you out there? Well they already can't, and indeed are under no obligation to -- protect you in urban areas where you need it far more!!!!

How about this? Let the majority of Americans, law abiding, free, self-reliant citizens continue to be allowed to buy however many guns and whatever kinds of guns they like, because the bad guys are gonna do it, too and the good guys deserve to be able to level the playing field^*.

That oughtta be in some sort of Bill of Rights somewhere.

Oh that's right. IT IS!!!!!

^*And aren't progressives all about level playing fields? The one they're trying to design is vertical!

Why Would Gore Want to be President?

He's making far too much money scaring people about Global Warming.

What a gig.

A Tale of Two Houses

I've brought this up before, but in this election year it bears bringing up again -- especially in an age where people believe that the Democratic party is the Party of Civil Rights, and, as addressed here, the Republican Party is anti-environment. They don't care about it. Nay, they even delight in its destruction.

And so, when reading a paper by Lord Christopher Mockton, I ran across this little tidbit again, I thought it ought to be put out there again for people to read and digest.










House #1: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house has 4 bedrooms and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet holds geothermal heatpumps circulating water through pipes sunk 300 feet deep. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses one-quarter of the electricity used by a conventional system. Rainwater is collected in a 25,000-gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks, then into the cistern, from which the garden is irrigated.

House #2: A 20-room mansion with 8 bathrooms, a pool and poolhouse, and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs to over $2,400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not in the Northern or Midwestern snow-belt. It's in the South.

House #1, near Crawford, Texas, belongs to President George Bush. House #2, near Nashville, Tennessee, belongs to Gore.

Al can't be too worried about rising sea levels in the near future. He bought a luxury condo by the bay in San Fransisco in 2005.

A man with a carbon footprint as big as Al's and a recently purchased condo by the oceanside can't be nearly as concerned about global warming and rising sea levels as he pretends to be.

Another Hupp Quote

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

-- Suzanna Hupp

update: There are several good quotes by her and by others out here.

Suzanne (Suzanna) Hupp

Why did I not hear about this lady until this weekend?

This is some of the best articulated, powerful testimony I have ever seen in defense of the Second Amendment.

Go see the video. If you don't want to, her final statements are powerful enough in print (below). Still, I encourage you to go watch the video.

I'm mad at my legislators for legislating me out of the right to protect myself and my family. I would much rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive.

As far as these so-called assault weapons, you say that they don't have any defense use. You tell that to the guy that I saw on a videotape of the L.A. riots, standing up on his rooftop protecting his property and his life from an entire mob with one of these so-called assault weapons. Tell me that he didn't have a legitimate self-defense use.

Just one final statement, I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose; no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. And I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about all rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.

Certifiable

This evening this nobody went to read his favorite blog -- you know, the one that nobody reads -- and I went to leave a comment on his post. He was talking about IT certification, outsourcing, etc. I went on and on. And decided to make it a post of its own over here. Because, it's long, and this ties in to so many things -- many of which I'm sure I haven't covered... but I think faster than I type, even faster than I read, so I didn't get it all. But here's what I got:

It's about a lot of things. It's about avoidance of responsibility. It is built on the idea that you can bypass the need to understand something, even going so far as to ignore the value of said understanding.

If I hire somebody who is "certified", my rear end is "covered" if it doesn't work out. "Hey, I hired a certified System Administrator. What more do you expect?"

And so we find one more thing that Morgan and I have in common. We are problem solvers. We have had jobs that were basically "outside the box" jobs that our CIO's didn't really understand, and it made them nervous. But we also had some smart people in our organizations somwhere between us and the CIO that did recognize the value of a general problem solver.

I've never been "certified" in anything save for the two bachelors degrees I have and hey, maybe you want to count the high school diploma, too... that's a certification.

But any more, "certification" means you sat through a course -- and, depending on the quality of the instructor and/or the training company, you were simply able to regurgitate what the instructor said ... and sometimes not. Sometimes it's just sitting through the course. Here's your paper. Such courses can open cognative doors for someone who understands things and builds his worldview on understanding things rather than memorizing things. To those who get by on memorizing things, it's just a hoop and a badge for jumping through said hoop. When's the bagel break? Is there gonna be soda this afternoon?

I don't have that job anymore. I liked it. I was like a one-man swat team. People would come to me with problems they couldn't solve and say, "can you do this" ... and I'd think for a minute and almost always say "yeah". And I'd find a way to get it done. Sometimes I'd just verbalize a plan and others did it. More often, I did it myself, or did something that others then improved on.

Then I got a widget boss, who wanted everything counted and how much time did you spend doing this and what training have you been to this past year and what are your goals -- all things practically impossible to articulate for someone in the position I was in -- at least to someone who wanted to show their value by showing their boss how many widgets his department made in a department that did not make widgets.

So I bailed.

I now have a job where I don't get to do much of that. In many ways it's boring. I don't get to play McGyver much -- and that's my favorite role. The skill set I had in what I leaped to was not as extensive as the skill set I had to deal with the problems brought to me in the previous job. I jumped in, sank deep, and only now am I beginning to see the surface of the water 3 years later. But I've been able to do the job because I know stuff in general, not because I'm certified in anything.

I talk to tech support folks on the phone, and maybe 1 in 5 of them (if you're lucky) seem to have the skills it takes to model a problem and try to come up with a solution. The other four are reading from "if this, try that, if that, try this".... which only gets you so far. Most non-trivial problems are going to have a "this" which isn't listed in the decision tree, and then they're just stuck and in these cases I end up solving the problem on my own more often than not.

It occurs to me that this is the way progressives want to run the world. They want all the problem solvers to map out their decision trees so nobody has to think and everybody can be "cross trained" to do anything by being handed a knowledgebase.

Knowledgebases are cool and useful. But they are no substitute for problem solving skills, and problem solving skills aren't something you can objectively test for.

Ahem... for which you can objectively test ;-)

It's the way the UN runs. There's no need to think critically about this global warming thing. We have a team of certified experts who all agree it's happening and we're causing it. Hey, we sent inspectors in and they didn't find any WMD in Iraq. Therefore, Bush lied (but Clinton et. al. didn't when they said the same thing but did nothing about it. But I digress.)

Experts say the war was in Iraq was lost by winter, 2007. They're "certified".

Expert? My favorite definition actually came from a [probably very progressive] lady I used to work with.

Expert:

Ex: from has been. Spurt: A drip under pressure.

Here's your sign? Here's your card!