This time, I suppose, it's probably a good idea.

After all, nothing brings a recession to its knees like offering more bad loans to borrowers who can't afford them, right?

Just when you thought the vaults had been depleted of its stupidity reserve, here comes the latest bird-brained financier - GMAC - to tackle the cancer with a shot of typhoid.

A $5 billion government bailout aimed at reviving General Motors Corp.'s ability to make car and truck loans has dealers hopeful that cash-strapped consumers will return to their showrooms.

GMAC Financial Services, the automaker's troubled financing arm, on Tuesday loosened its tight lending standards, which in recent months have made it more difficult for would-be car buyers to get loans. GMAC's move marks the first time that a financial institution has said it will use money from the $700 billion bank bailout to offer more affordable credit to consumers.

This bailout money sure is getting around, isn't it?

In short, we the taxpayers will be financing car loans for people who cannot, under normal circumstances, afford them.

Can I get a "yippee?"

The government funds, on the heels of the $17.4 billion automaker bailout approved by the Bush administration earlier this month, could provide relief to auto dealers. They have blamed the industry's steep drop in sales partially on a lack of affordable credit.

You caught that, I'm sure.

Auto dealers.

The economic recovery will not happen as long as bonehead moves like this continue to add fuel to the recession fire.

Pouring taxpayer dollars into corporations that should rightly be dead is repugnant.

See what happens when you behave like a lefty?

Believe it or not, there are some GOPers who hate it when that happens - and they're determined to do all that is necessary to make their disdain official.

When the Republican National Committee has their monthly get-together in January, President George W. Bush could be on the hook - along with some less than principled Congressional elephants - for embracing socialism.

Harsh words, indeed.

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

See what happens when you decide that government bailouts of free-market industries make for sound policy?

See what happens when you make comments like, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system”? (Yes, President Bush said that).

Hallow continues:

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

- It's about time, but it could be too little too late. Bush HAS governed more like a socialist, and it's high time we get rid of the Bush-moderate-lib-socialist-demokissa$$ types. I guarantee you both Reagan and Goldwater would be VERY disgusted with Bush right now.

- no kidding! i am shocked, shocked! william kristol of the hated NYT had it right a week or so ago. the present republican party is the party of big government. what a shame. can we drop back, regroup and come up with a new contract for america?

- Thank God I'm not the only one living in mortal Terror of the impeding socialist regime. No more Bailouts, stop the political parties from saying whatever will get them elected and then doing everything other once in office.

- I am a republican but I do not agree with the rnc on this bull-calling Bush a socialist is the dumbest idea I have heard from this party-If the Rnc had gotten off it's butt and fought harder and given us someone to work with other than McCain, things might be different. Palin was his savior. I'm from Pa and never even got a chance to choose a candidate because of the damn way the RNC chooses it's candidate. The party supported a rino, now they want to blame Bush.

- You guys are a joke. I don't know who is conservative enough to meet your needs. Some of you tout Ronald Reagan, but I guess you are in denial that he signed that amnesty back in 1986. President Bush has done a fine job. The RNC and GOP pinheads want to pin the blame on him because the party is dying the death of a sad old man. Why did McCain lose? Because he was the best the GOP had to offer and it sure didn't persuade the majority in this country.

"WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

Three times in the last five years Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Charles Krauthammer has lauded the idea of raising the tax on gasoline as a way of suppressing consumption, thus - according to the theory - lowering global gas prices and reducing dependency on foreign oil. His latest construct of an idea he is obviously smitten with, published this past weekend in The Weekly Standard, calls for this new gas tax hike to be "offset" with a cut in the FICA tax, creating a "net-zero" effect.

So goes the hypothesis.

He breaks down the numbers this way ...

The average American purchases 14 gallons of gas a week. Krauthammer proposes a $1 a gallon tax increase to consumers while giving taxpayers a $14 FICA tax cut. The Feds therefore will not be taking in any additional revenue, according to the plan - and to Krauthammer, that's the key. It must be revenue-neutral to work.

The idea, as he explains it, is that "cash can be spent on anything."

He writes:

You can blow it all on gas by driving your usual number of miles, or you can drive a bit less and actually have money in your pocket for something else. There's no particular reason why the individual consumer would want to plow it all back into a commodity that is now ... more expensive. When something becomes more expensive, less of it is bought.

Krauthammer is a world-class thinker, no question. To this day, I admire him greatly.

But respectfully, I wonder if he has thought this position all the way through.

The idea is, first and foremost, predicated on the idea that the "extra" $14 a week "in your pocket" could be used elsewhere instead of at the gas pump. In fact, for the Krauthammer plan to succeed, it would have to be, otherwise why bother?

But is this a realistic expectation?

Millions of Americans, for example, use their credit cards to buy gasoline. For millions more, debit cards have largely replaced cash for everyday purchases. Budget-conscious folks are increasingly concerning themselves with how much money is available "on their card," rather than how much cash is in their pocket. Personally, my wife and I use our debit cards at the gas pump. Our paychecks are direct-deposited on a bi-weekly basis without the money ever finding "our pockets" until we swipe the cards or hit an ATM machine. An extra $1 at the pump per gallon will mean virtually nothing to me - and many other debit card users - knowing that an extra $14 has been deposited into the bank thanks to the FICA cut. I suspect there will be many, in fact, who will be standing there at the pump, feeding their cars, thinking, "I just got a few extra bucks in my paycheck. I can fill her up."

Indeed, while I agree with Krauthammer that there does come a point when the price of gasoline gets so high that it directly affects the amount of driving Americans do - as we saw this year - is that point really fourteen dollars a week? Especially since we've seen such dramatic drops in the price of oil in recent times?

For Krauthammer's idea to work, in short, everyone who receives that $14 FICA cut would have to be sure to use 14 less gallons a week - on average. How many people would actually make the deliberate effort to cut back on their consumption in this way? Rest assured, I'm not giving the preverbal middle finger to $14. (That'll score me a couple of orders of small fries in Manhattan, won't it?) I'll take the extra money anytime. But I just don't see many gas pumpers trimming their fuel expenditures like that - certainly not as many as it would take for this plan to be functional and effective.

Second, the entire "net-zero" concept only works if gas taxes remain untouched. By a show of hands, who believes for even a fraction of a second that politicians - on either side of the aisle - have the ability to keep their meat hooks out of the gasoline pump?

I don't see many.

And if gasoline taxes were raised (bet a limb on it), a corresponding cut in the FICA tax would then have to be implemented. Is there anyone alive who believes this is possible while Democrats exist?

I invite you to stand on your head if you do.

Even smaller cities that do have a bus system - like Fort Wayne, Indiana, for example (a place I lived for a few years) - cannot possibly provide adequate public transpotation to its people, primarily because they no longer have centralized populations. Only the largest metropolitan areas of the United States can begin entertaining the concept of cutting down on automobile use in favor of mass transit - and good luck making that happen.

My wife, for instance, is originally from rural Northwest Ohio - a place I also had the pleasure of living for several years. (This Brooklyn boy has been around). Out there, the "blocks" are a mile wide and a mile long, with names like "County Road J" and "6." Living out in "walk to the mailbox naked" country, vehicles are lifelines. Krauthammer's proposal would disproportionately affect residents of communities that do not have mass transit alternatives - which is a sizeable chunk of the American population.

This would, in effect, mean that suburban and small-town America - far more reliant on their cars - are helping, to some extent, to subsidize urban America.

It is also important to remember that all across "fly-over" country, bigger and heavier vehicles are the norm because of the need to be able to commute in treacherous wintry conditions. These vehicles consume more gasoline.

Fourth, no matter where one lives in the United States, the goods that we purchase are made available to us because they are shipped to our local markets and stores via trucks - everything from clothing to food to electronics to gasoline itself. Higher gas prices for those who deliver the goods means higher prices for those who purchase and consume the goods.

I'm somehow missing the benefit of this.

NO ONE is reporting that, in this past year, over 1,000 trucking companies have folded, including some of the top 100; A year ago, the industry was short about 8,000 drivers - now, there are tens of thousands out of work. This is directly linked to the price of fuel.

The idea apparently, as Krauthammer proposes it, is to tax ourselves into energy independence. As he laments, the United States keeps letting these golden opportunities to raise gasoline taxes slip by.

By the mid-'80s, rational consumer reaction to high prices — home insulation, fuel-efficient appliances and lighter cars — had actually solved the energy crisis. We had OPEC on the run. In July 1986 oil plunged to $7 a barrel. It is now $41 a barrel. We had a golden moment, and we let it pass.

We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices. Put a floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes. Why is this a good idea? It is the simplest way to induce conservation.

And just this past weekend, he called his "net-zero gas tax" proposal a "once in a generation chance."

In June, when the price of oil was over $130 a barrel, Steven Mufson and David Cho of the Washington Post explained:

Economists fear that the steadily rising price of gasoline is eating into the money consumers have to spend on other items and that fuel prices could be a drag on an economy already weighed down with concerns about housing prices and the stability of financial institutions.

"It saps people's purchasing power," Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com said, "If they have to spend more to fill their gas tanks and heat their homes, everything suffers." He added that he worries that "the surge in energy prices overwhelms the economy if we stay here for very long."

Zandi said energy costs -- including electricity, gasoline and heating -- now account for about 6.5 percent of the average household budget. For the poorer half of the nation's households, energy costs are gobbling up close to 10 percent of family budgets.

Precisely.

These are the among the barrel-o-concerns I have when reading proposals like Krauthammer's that call for tax increases.

Krauthammer's desire to slash American dependency on foreign oil is one I wholeheartedly share. And if I actually thought there was even an iota of likelihood that something like this could work to achieve that end, I might actually consider it - might. But even after three readings of his piece, I just cannot get on board. Admittedly, I am predisposed to loathe supporting federal tax increases as a means of fixing anything - but his proposition, well-written as it is, does not click for me.

Perhaps I have a bit of an antiquated view of things - something I am fully prepared to admit. Maybe I even exude a smidgen of naivety - something I am happy to entertain with the more learned around me. But I'm wondering if it at all makes sense to formulate some sort of proposal that is inclusive of something other than raising the gas tax, like ... oh, I don't know, some tasty tax cuts (thus keeping more money in the hands of those who make it ... and spend it) ... leaving the price of gasoline alone (no government intervention, if you please) ... and more domestic and offshore drilling? (more windmills, Mr. Kennedy!)

At least as a start?

Or something like that?

Just a thought.

Senator Charles Schumer, from New York - the state where the Governor is proposing a "fat tax" on sugary non-diet drinks, and the daughter of an ex-President who has never been elected to anything wants to be Senator - says that his state (my state) could get up to $18 billion dollars of federal stimulus package money (there's that phrase again) during the first two years of an Obama administration.

Did you catch that? Eighteen billion bucks to New York.

And for what?

The $800 billion economic package is expected to include $5 billion for New York as part of $80 billion to $100 billion in additional Medicaid payments to the states, Schumer said. That's meant to ensure Medicaid remains strong, and that states can avoid tax hikes and spending cuts that would counteract the federal stimulus, he said.

What was that? Medicaid in New York? Siphoned from wallets in Nevada and Louisiana?

How exactly does this latest step of the "save us from ruin" stimulus package shuffle affect the proposal by the National Retail Federation last week to create sales tax-exempt shopping days at the state level, only to have the federal government make up for any loss tax revenues by siphoning wallets in Nebraska and Missouri?

If the Feds actually made available to the public the seeds to those money trees they're obviously hoarding, they could eliminate the national debt quicker than Obama can say, "Anyone have a light?"

This would all be very funny if it weren't so nauseating.

Said the Senator from New York:

"President-elect Obama understands we have to push money into the economy or it will get worse. If the federal government is putting money in while the state governments are taking it out ... the government is giving with one hand and taking away with another."

He thinks that is convoluted?

Think about what is being proposed here.

The federal government will take money from taxpayers in Colorado, Utah and Mississippi, throw it all into a big hat in Washington, D.C., then redistribute it back to the states in ways they determine.

Isn't it amazing how the first instinct of Schumer, et al - the first resort - is to take away from its citizenry so that it can be redistributed to its citizenry? Clearly, the situation is a complicated one - but just once I'd like to hear one of these bubble-headed "do-something" cocktail party jockeys mix in a "comprehensive income tax cut" or a "significant tax incentive for business owners" or something where more of one's own money being kept by the taxpayer is at the core of a recovery plan.

According to Schumer's office, Congress and the transition team are working to have the stimulus measure signed in to law by the end of January, with a second package to follow the next year. That would mean $10 billion in direct additional health care aid to New York over the two years, though Schumer noted, "If the economy starts moving ahead, the second year may not come to pass."

You cannot make this stuff up.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Blue State Bailout '09.

Just curious ... How many red states are asking for their own chunk of stimulus cake?

The New York Jets are not going to the playoffs, and as of a little while ago, Eric Mangini has been axed.

If anyone is surprised by this move, please come forward.

I'm glad he's gone.

What else can be said?

Over the last five games of the 2008 season, The Jets went 1-4 - and if not for a miracle play against the Buffalo Bills, they would have been 0-5. There were more questionable calls on the part of Mangini during the home stretch run of the season than there were fainting women at Barack Obama campaign stops during the summer.

To say the Jets played horribly over the last five-game stretch would be a disservice to the word "horrible." To say they choked over the last five games would be unfair to those gagging for air.

The New York Jets were, in a word, disastrous.

The Jets did not deserve, even in make-believe land, to go to the playoffs.

And the funny thing is ... five weeks ago, the Jets were being mentioned among the elite teams in the AFC. There was actually talk of the Jets possibly becoming the number two seed for the post-season.

Five weeks ago, they had an 8-3 record with a relatively easy schedule ahead of them with almost no injuries.

What the hell happened?

As recently as two weeks ago they still had their own destiny in their hands.

Two measley little wins and they would have won the division outright.

Instead, the Jets will be sitting at home watching their former quarterback Chad Pennington (MVP possibly?) lead the dreaded, evil Miami Dolphins into the first round of the playoffs against Baltimore.

How delightful.

How embarrassing.

Yesterday, the Miami Dolphins came into the Jets' house and did what they had to to win the AFC East.

I'm sorry ... the Dolphins are not even in the same building talent-wise as the Jets ... but, of course, that just sounds like whiny sour grapes on my part.

It is, I admit it.

Bottom line ... the Freaking Dolphins have more football to play.

So do eleven other NFL teams.

The New York Jets finished 2008 in pathetic fashion.

There is never any need for deep analysis when it comes to assessing the New York Jets. No one needs to spend inordinate amounts of time monday-morning quaterbacking this team to figure out what the problems are. It's a waste of energy reviewing and picking apart this team. The answer is always a simple one, and it never varies. In three words, "They're the Jets."

Period.

Whether or not Brett Favre returns is another issue. Let's see how many Number "4" Jet jerseys we see in New York now.

And who will Mangini's replacement be?

I have a better question ...

This is why leftists cannot be trusted with national security.

That liberals - like Ezra Klein at the American Prospect - are condemning Israel's actions against the terrorist organization Hamas is no bombshell.

That liberals like Klein castigate Israel because of her "disproportionate" response to the daily barrage of rocket and mortar attacks coming from the Gaza Strip is downright frightening.

As I wrote yesterday, you don’t provoke a lion with constant harassment and then express outrage at the volume of his roar when he’s had enough.

Leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they spend their time attempting to balance the scales of moral equivalence as a response to dastardly acts while the enemy exploits.

Leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they refuse to label it.

Leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they wonder what it is we have done to incite it.

Mr. Klein writes:

No deaths and few injuries. "Deeply disturbing." Hamas lacks the technology to aim its rockets. They're taking potshots. In response, the Israeli government launched air strikes that have now killed more than 280 Palestinians, injured hundreds beyond that, and further radicalized thousands in the Occupied Territories and millions in the region.

The entire "proportionate response" argument is a further example of why liberals cannot be taken at all seriously in real world situations and why matters of national security need to be left to the adults.

What does Klein and his ilk actually mean?

The fact that Hamas does not fire their rockets at specific military targets - or any explicit targets for that matter - means that the proper Israeli response should be what? An equivelant number of indiscriminate, misguided rocket launches into civilian pockets of the Gaza Strip that, too, cause "no deaths and a few injuries?"

Should this be overseen by the Minister of Equality?

The Secretary of Tally?

Or maybe Israel should do nothing at all and figure out how much more they need to relinquish to the terrorists to "keep the peace."

(Yes, this is how the modern liberal thinks).

That Hamas hasn't the technology to kill as many Israelis as they would like to with their daily attacks means what? That Israel should calm down, relax and stop being so unreasonable?

And if Hamas were not firing rockets into Israel in the first place, would this be an issue at all? What exactly does Mr. Klein believe the intent of Hamas is with these launches into Israel?

Of course, it is worth noting that Israel has been targeting military positions and outposts in Gaza. The vast majority of those killed by the strikes were Hamas types - not civilians.

Plus, it is imperative to point out that according to an Associated Press story:

Militants often operate against Israel from civilian areas. Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

A warning? Really?

I wonder how many cell phone messages were sent out by Hamas prior to the rocket launches from Gaza into Israel. Certainly their technology is advanced enough to be able to work the "send" button, no?

Klein writes:

The rocket attacks were undoubtedly "deeply disturbing" to Israelis. But so too are the checkpoints, the road closures, the restricted movement, the terrible joblessness, the unflinching oppression, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlement -- I'm sorry, "outpost" -- construction, "deeply disturbing" to the Palestinians, and far more injurious. And the 300 dead Palestinians should be disturbing to us all.

Disturbing is the failure to acknowledge that all of this so-called "unflinching oppression" is a rejoinder to terrorist activity perpetrated by Hamas and other murderous groups who wish to see Israel wiped from existence by any means possible.

Some points are meant to be made over and over again.

As I wrote on Saturday:

Talk show host Dennis Prager often poses two questions in regard to the never-ending unrest between Israel and the nations that want her destroyed.

-What would happen if Israel laid down her arms?

-What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah laid down their arms?

As Prager correctly points out, one scenario would result in the destruction of a nation. The other would result in peace.

With all due respect, you are a moral coward, Ezra Klein.

-

For a second straight day, Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip took a much-needed pounding from Israeli forces. The terrorist organization's main security compound was among the marks that took a heavy beating from Israeli war planes.

The campaign by Israel is retaliatory - a more-than-appropriate response to daily rocket and mortar attacks launched by Palestinian "militants" after a truce between the two sides expired last week.

To no one's great surprise, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned the Israeli operation.

Their statement, in part, read:

"Despite the public 'green light' given to the Israeli military by the Bush administration, American Muslims join our fellow citizens who respect international law and the sanctity of human life in repudiating this massacre carried out using U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons.

"It must be clear by now that the only future offered to the Palestinian people by the outgoing administration was one of perpetual subjugation and humiliation at the hands of the Israeli occupiers. Unfortunately, our nation's timid response to this tragic episode will only serve to fuel anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world.

"We therefore call on President-elect Obama to demonstrate his commitment to change our nation's current one-sided Mideast policy by speaking out now in favor of peace and justice for all parties to this decades-long conflict.

"We also call on world leaders to take direct action to end Israel's counterproductive and wildly disproportionate attacks and to end the humanitarian siege of Gaza, which led to the recent breakdown of the ceasefire."

First, the 'green light' was lit by Hamas with their daily barrage of rockets into Israel.

Second, the phrase "disproportionate attacks" is a laugher. You don't provoke a lion with constant harassment and then express outrage at the volume of his roar when he's had enough.

Third, as far as "international law" and the "sanctity of human life" is concerned ... there is a general guideline for Americans to follow here.

If the rest of the world supports something or takes a certain position, go with the opposite.

It's a good rule of thumb.

Let’s see … there’s that famous photograph of the sailor kissing that gal on VJ Day in Times Square … and the one of astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the surface of the moon … and the one of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima on February 23. 1945 …

And, of course, how can we forget one of several different history-making shots of a lone clinging-to-dear-life polar bear stuck on a quickly disappearing block of ice somewhere in the gradually warming Arctic Zone?

These are the indelible images that serve as bookmarks to history – unforgettable moments forever captured in time. These are, in fact, the days of our lives. (Cue the hourglass).

Or maybe not …

The question of the hour, just four days before the launch of a new year ... Will 2008 be forever remembered as the year man-made global warming was “disproved?” Will those pictures of cute little polar bears floating away on chunks of disconnected glacier ice fade away into the ash heap of desktop wallpaper history?

It's a shame.

Those polar-pics had a certain urgency and power to them - like a migraine or bad gas.

According to Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph.com website, the beginning of the end of the myth is at hand.

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. ...

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artifact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades ... panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Let's hear it for the "debate is over" detachment of humanity - which, incidentally, includes out next President.

A question I have asked for a long time - and one worth asking again: If it were proven unequivocally that any and all warming occurring on the planet was not the result of any actions of mankind - just as it had always been throughout the history of this planet - would leftists even care anymore?

You know the answer.

Israel is doing the right thing.

With the news of that country unleashing retaliatory strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip - in which at least 228 were killed - as a response to the daily rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian terrorists, the White House made a critical point that terrorist sympathizers refuse to consider.

Said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, "If Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel, then Israel would not have a need for strikes in Gaza. What we've got to see is Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel."

Bingo.

This is all on Hamas.

Talk show host Dennis Prager often poses two questions in regard to the never-ending unrest between Israel and the nations that want her destroyed.

-What would happen if Israel laid down her arms?

-What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah laid down their arms?

As Prager correctly points out, one scenario would result in the destruction of a nation. The other would result in peace.

Any bets as to which action would yield which result?

As Johndroe said, "The United States holds Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire; we want the ceasefire restored."

The Egypt-brokered six-month truce between Israel and Hamas officially ended on December 19th.

Israel said the daily rocket and mortar attacks, which have intensified since the truce came to an end, were "intolerable."

Naturally, as a response to a response to something they initiated, the good folks over at Hamas vowed revenge - which, according to them, would include suicide bomb attacks in the "cafes and streets" of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel said the attacks against Hamas would go on as long as necessary. The possibility of using land forces was not ruled out as Israeli forces reinforced the border between Israel and Gaza.

Good for you, Israel.

Call it breaking down stiff resistance.

It could also be called a successful tactic in the War Against Islamo-Fascist Terror... that is, maybe until now.

With a veritable smorgasbord of potential rim-shots waiting to be thwacked at the idea of using Viagra as a means of getting an upper hand in the war, the more serious matter of exposing a successful gambit while the battle is still ongoing becomes the front-burner issue.

The Washington Post is reporting that the "little blue pill" has proven to be an effective tool (no pun intended) in helping to gain information from otherwise tough-to-crack Afghani warlords and bigwigs.

In an effort to win over fickle warlords and chieftains in Afghanistan and get information from them, CIA officials are handing out Viagra pills in exchange for their cooperation, the Washington Post reports.

"Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people - whether it's building a school or handing out Viagra," an agency operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Post.

The growing Taliban insurgency has forced the agency to get creative in how they obtain certain information from Afghan warlords and tribal leaders, including Taliban movements and supply routes.

There is something slightly more clandestine about the below-the-waistline benefits of the famous "blue pill" than there is in, say, building a school. Members of the Taliban can actually see a school - but the point is well-taken.

This story is, understandably, a hard one to resist, but the real question is why is it seeing the light of day at all? This is a covert operation in an ongoing war. Why is it necessary to expose it? (So to speak).

And how exactly does it help the war effort to know that the CIA is dispensing little portions of blue manhood to unsatisfied Afghani war dogs?

(Rhetorical knob switched to "off").

It doesn't.

What it does illustrate, however, is the ongoing fascination - nay, a hard-wired compulsion - by the mainstream media to expose any and all war strategies conceived and implemented during the administration of George W. Bush as questionable, unusual or downright dumb (not to mention unethical) - something almost certain not to carry over into the Messianic Age that begins on January 20, 2009.

This is especially true of the New York Times - the staggering and stammering broken down Old Lady in desparate need of cash - that in December, 2005 reported:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Remember that story?

What purpose, other than to insinuate illegal activity from the President, would there be in publishing such a story?

What good could have come of it?

Bush, at the time - on one of the rare occassions where he actually rose to defend his administration, the handling of the war, and the relentless attacks against him - was absolutely correct when he said, "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

Spot on.

Recall six months later, in June, 2006, when the Times "uncovered" an international financial surveillance program run by the Bush Administration and plastered it all over its fishwrap.

I suppose that was also "hard news." And important for the general public to know, why?

The New York Times apparently decided that being informed was more important than being secure.

As long as the suggestion was perpetuated by "legitimate sources" that President George W. Bush was quite possibly a war criminal - or at the very least, pervasively unethical - the unveiling of covert war operations (and all the illegalities supposedly associated with them) could "pass" for news.

Seeing as Barack Obama will almost certainly have to follow much of the same path of President Bush in prosecuting the war - at least for a while - it is a very safe bet that not one story will emerge from the mainstream media unearthing anything remotely covert during the next four (possibly eight) years.

Not one.

Granted, the Viagra story is not quite the national security issue that the two New York Times' stories were - some would say treasonous - but it is indicative of a trend, and may mark the end of the Viagra program's effectiveness.

Afghan veterans told the Post that the usual bribes of choice - cash and weapons - aren't always the best options because they can garner unwanted attention and fall into the wrong hands.

"If you give an asset $1,000, he'll go out and buy the shiniest junk he can find, and it will be apparent that he has suddenly come into a lot of money from someone," Jamie Smith, a veteran of CIA covert operations in Afghanistan, told the Post.

The "benefit" of a Viagra payoff isn't quite as conspicuous as, say, some new "shinky junk."

The program is covert in all senses of the word - that is, until now.

All it would take is some loose-lipped chatter from one of the warlord's wives or mistresses about her man's "blue pill" experience to sink his ship. Once it got back to the bad guys - the Taliban - that there are now other means of compensation to American sympathizers outside of guns and money, it would make things far more difficult for our side.

Nice job, Washington Post.

Don't worry. With a bit more practice, and a few more tasty top-shelf national security secrets exposed, you'll be up there with the Times.

But make it quick. You only have twenty-four days of Bush.

After that, all bets are off.

Being good for the sake of goodness alone - without all of that God nonsense mixed in - may indeed be one of the more industrious advertising campaigns implemented by atheists this holiday season, but fear not ... environmentalists aren't too happy with Christmas either. In fact, according to scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia, Christmas may be ruining the planet.

If you happen to be one of those self-involved, less-than-conscientious observers of Christmas who bothers to decorate his or her home with holiday lights, without as much as a stitch of consideration for what you are doing to the environment, you are dead-red guilty of contributing to the demise of the Earth.

In other words, your string of Christmas lights is killing us.

Scientists have warned that Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste and urged people to get energy efficient festive bulbs.

CSIRO researchers said householders should know that each bulb turned on in the name of Christmas will increase emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Glenn Platt, who leads research on energy demand, said Australia got 80 per cent of its electricity by burning coal which pumps harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

The culprit here is electricity - or rather, "centralized carbon intensive, coal-based power stations" that produce the electricity needed to power these little flickering balls of grim death.

"Energy efficient bulbs, such as LEDs, and putting your Christmas lights on a timer are two very easy ways to minimize the amount of electricity you use to power your lights."

Dr Platt added: "For a zero-emission Christmas light show, you may consider using solar powered lights ..."

That sounds so remarkably festive, doesn't it? A "zero-emission Christmas light show." Someone ought to compose a song.

While the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has not - repeat not - been proven to cause a rise in surface temperatures (as the Al Gore Green-o-crats would have you believe), I'm willing to pretend for a moment it does.

My question then would be ... can we possibly get more cars on the road? More smoke stacks a-pumping? More incandescent light bulbs a-burning?

If growing carbon dioxide levels do lead to rising temperatures, we need more of it here in the United States.

I assure you, I did my part. I even had Christmas lights burning inside the damn mailbox.

And to all of you across the nation who experienced some of the worst ice storms in decades, please accept my most sincere apologies. I strung up as many lights as I possibly could.

It has been a wonderful holiday season thus far for my family and me, and I sincerely hope it has been the same for each and every one of you.

As I try to work myself into a post-Christmas blogging mind set, and veer away momemtarily from the political, I am curious if there are any less than serious Christmastime mishaps anyone would like to share? Any retail store nightmares? Goofy little Yuletide anecdotes? Traveling disaster stories?

I have an interesting little situation that I hope will be resolved soon – and I’m confident it will. I thought I'd pass it along.

I won’t mention the name of the chain store involved in this story. Rest assured, however, it is a well-known national retail outlet that I'd be willing to wager practically everyone has been to at some point.

Anyway, I purchased two items through this unnamed chain store’s web site – let’s call them “Pest Pie” for the sake of this discussion – on December 21st using a debit card. These items were meant as gifts for my twin teenage daughters who, incidentally, are inching ever so-closer to college age. (Not quite there yet, but soon).

The method of delivery I chose for these gifts – two mini portable HP notebooks that can fit in the palm of your hand - was “store pick up” - a good choice, I thought, because it would, first of all, save me money on shipping charges. Second, it would guarantee the gifts to be in hand by Christmas.

It didn’t take long – maybe a matter of a few minutes – before my debit card had been sucked of the money it cost to buy these two items and I received a confirmation e-mail that the two notebooks were, in fact, in stock at my local “Pest Pie” store, waiting to be picked up. The receipts that came via e-mail had actual, honest-to-goodness, bona-fide, real-life confirmation numbers for each item.

The next morning, with a Burl Ives tune in my head, a steaming debit card in my pocket, and the feeling of a guardian angel hanging over my shoulder (because I found a parking space within one half-mile of the store’s entrance), I frolicked into “Pest Pie," with receipts in hand and confirmation numbers at the ready.

After giving the young man at the pickup window my driver’s license, the debit card used to make the purchase, and printed receipts, I waited.

And waited.

And waited.

Seventeen thousand people came and went to that little pickup window while I stood there waiting.

And waiting.

Finally, with the rings around my trunk growing exponentially, and the moss already covering the tops of my feet, the clearly-disinterested young man came back to me and spoke those fateful words that send chills down the spine of even the most hardened men – “There’s a problem with your order, sir.”

Me: “Really?”

Happy Employee: "The items you purchased are missing."

Me: “Excuse me? Missing?”

Happy Employee: “Yes, sir. They’ve gone missing. We cannot locate them.”

Me: “But I have confirmation numbers.”

Happy Employee: “Yes, sir. But the items aren’t here.”

Me: “But the e-mail said they were here.”

Happy Employee:“I know. They’re missing now.”

Visions of a famous episode of Seinfeld came roaring into my head – the one where Jerry is wanting to rent a car, and despite having the reservation in hand, he discovers there are no cars to be had.

“Well, I’m sorry we have no midsize available at the moment.”

“I don’t understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation?’

“Yes. We do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars.”

“But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.”

“I know why we have reservations.”

“I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car. You see, you know how to take the reservation. You just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation – the holding.”

As I tried to wrap my brain around the idea that these items that I paid for were somehow "missing" - and with the young "Pest Pie" representative in front of me texting away to his heart's delight to who knows whom - I decided that with only three days remaining before the holiday, I would ask for the money to be credited back to my debit card immediately so I could make other arrangements for the twins' presents. I was told that I would need to call the customer service number and cancel the order. Once that was done, I could get the immediate credit.

So I made the call.

Right there in the store.

If I told you how ridiculous I must have looked making this phone call, right in the middle of "Pest Pie," trying to avoid being crushed by holiday shoppers near the front doors (so I could get phone service), I couldn't do it justice. It, too, was something out of a Seinfeld episode because I simply couldn't hear a single word the woman on the other end of the line was saying. She was, in Seinfeldian-speak, a "low talker" - and I wasn't about to hang up and try again. I had already waited on hold seventeen minutes.

So there I was, standing in the middle of the "Pest Pie" lobby, with throngs of irritable Brooklyn Christmas shoppers teeming past me, one finger buried in my free ear to block out noise while I frantically tried to make out what this useless customer service rep was mumbling. Within minutes, I'm yelling into the phone at the mute-mouthed telephone rep (as if that would make me hear her any better), "I'm sorry?! Can you say that again? What?! What?! You want the last four digits of what????"

I'm sure there has to be a security tape somewhere of a bouncing idiot with a finger in his ear, screaming into a cell phone making the rounds of "Pest Pie" employee break rooms everywhere.

Eventually, the low-taking woman - who was either named Jennifer or Window Slat - was yelling back at me so that I could hear her.

When it was over, I went home and bothered no one for the rest of the day.

The next morning, I checked my account online and found (predictably) that my card had not been credited for the purchase amount of two mini notebooks.

I did, however, receive another e-mail confirming my original order, with a whole new set of confirmation numbers. I was charged again for two HP mini notebooks and told they were in stock, ready for pickup at "Pest Pie."

I had now paid for four of these things, and had none to show for it.

Please understand that I am rich by no means (except maybe to Barack Obama, depending on how low the threshhold goes this month). As I do every year, I started saving for the holidays just before baseball season started. I always use that a reminder to start stashing cash for the holidays. Indeed, I did have enough money in that account to cover the cost of two additional HP mini notebooks. However, that money was reserved for other things - like presents for other people ... and msicellaneous incidentals like food and water for us, that we might eat and sustain life.

Naturally, I called the good folks at "Pest Pie," and told them my little story - this after having to choose "english" as my main-menu telehone language not once, but twice, and waiting on hold for twenty-three minutes.

Would you believe me if I said I didn't even receive an "I'm sorry, sir," or a "We apologize for any inconvenience," or anything remotely similar to a smidgen of human decency?

I bet you would.

So, the only thing I could do - seeing as I had already purchased accessories for the mini notebooks - is try and get enough money together to purchase them from elsewhere - yet again - so I'd have them in time for Christmas, i.e, borrow from someone or sell a kidney, and then pay back that money with the refund cash I'm supposed to get from "Pest Pie" the moment it is credited to my account.

It wasn't easy, but as it turns out, I did purchase the gifts for my girls - and they absolutely loved them.

Of course, I have yet to see the any money credited to my account. I'm sure it will be a "three-to-five business days" deal.

*cough*

I wonder if that's the first time anyone ever had to pay for six computers just to get two.

Okay, Christmas is over. Now it's time for some real giving.

Reality, anyone?

The “gimmee gimmee” train continues its steady roll along the rails. This time, a group representing America’s retailers is pleading its case for their share of the stimulus pie in the form of sales tax-exempt shopping days.

On the surface, this doesn't sound like a half bad approach. After all, similar ideas from economists, pundits and serious thinkers who believe in the power of the free market have been batted around in abundance - that is, giving working Americans some form of substantial tax breaks to help stimulate spending (as opposed to taking from the big money makers and spreading their wealth around).

However (and here's the kicker), according to the proposal from the National Retail Federation, tax revenues lost to the various states during these tax exempt shopping days would be reimbursed by the federal government.

No, seriously.

In other words, the feds would foot the bill for tax breaks at the state level, which would be paid for by the people through federal taxes, which would be collected and then paid back to the states to make up for those tax breaks.

Or something like that. (Oh yeah, and at least someone would be doing something.)

Slipshod, vulgarly expensive and laden with unnecessary extra steps.

Can anyone say Federal Government?

Ann Zimmerman at the Wall Street Journal writes:

The country's largest retail trade association asked President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday to add a series of sales tax-exempt shopping days to a coming economic stimulus package in an effort to revive consumer confidence and spur spending.

The National Retail Federation called for three periods of sales tax-free shopping that would last 10 days each in March, July and October 2009. The trade group estimates that it would save consumers about $20 billion, or $175 per family.

Under the industry group's proposal, which would exclude alcohol and tobacco sales, the federal government would reimburse states for the lost tax revenue. State sales tax rates range from 2.9% to 7.25%, the group said. The five states without a sales tax -- Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon -- would also receive monies.

In a letter signed by the chief executives of retail chains, including J.C. Penney Co., Saks Inc. and Petsmart Inc., the NRF warned the situation was "critical," with consumer confidence in October falling to the lowest level in the 41 years data has been collected.

"Without swift, additional Congressional measures, the current economic weakness could worsen, creating a more rapid downward spiral -- beyond what economists are predicting for 2009 -- in the years ahead," the NRF said.

The group said it supports Mr. Obama's efforts to create a long-term stimulus plan to generate jobs by rebuilding the country's infrastructure and investing in public schools and alternative energy. However, the NRF said short-term incentives are also needed to encourage consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of the U.S. economy.

States without a sales tax would also receive money?

Is that the same line of thinking that proposed giving tax "cuts" to people who paid no federal income taxes?