New Hampshire Primary

As we are all aware, the New Hampshire Primary is the essential first step in winning the party nomination. History shows us that while you don't have to be first, you must have a good showing if other State Primaries are to be won.

New Hampshire rules are different than most States in that party members can vote for anyone, not just their own party which means that a popular candidate can receive a much needed boost from the other party. We are likely to see some of this as we have in the past, and perhaps a little more of this than in elections past due to the slate of candidates. Guiliani, of course, is seen as strong on terrorism and Clinton is the first serious female candidate and as such both of these are likely to see some crossover voting.

Due to this being an open election we can expect 200,000 to 250,000 votes on either side of the aisle, but also to include independents. And considering that the field is exceptionally crowded especially on the Republican side it is likely to be a rather close election. Currently Giuliani and Romney are polling at about 22% with McCain, having made a comeback of sorts, following at 17%. Fred "Bulldog" Thompson trails at 12%.

So what is needed for a winner of this poll? Perhaps only 30% I would say that 35% will likely be a rather handy win over the others. But one should never overlook the 2nd place. GW took 2nd in 2000 as did Bob Dole in 1996 and Bill Clinton in 1992. Remember Howard Dean? He also took second and because of that was given a huge boost which he ultimately destroyed in a single outburst.

Looking at the history of this primary it seems to me that to be taken seriously a candidate will need to take at least 25%, even in this crowded field. This translates to 59,000 votes minimum or 83,000 for a win. This will be the challenge for us Ron Paul supporters. We need this. We are very active, we are very vocal and as evidenced by the post below we are willing to put our money where our mouths are.

To the Paul supporters in the North East: Get out there! Put in your time in getting the word out about Dr. Paul. His message of freedom IS quite popular and gets people energized to go out and fight for it. Don't just target Republicans, work the Democrats as well. Many of those Democrats are anti-war but do not realize that Hillary, Edwards and Obama are all on record saying they will keep the troops there.

We CAN do this but it is going to be hard work on our part in making this happen. We cannot sit back and let the advertising dollars take over because we all know we cannot compete money-wise with the media darling Rudy McRompson. What we can do is share our love of Liberty and let it infect others as it has us.

Damn Spammers!

Looks like those Ron Paul spammers are at it again! Not only did they spam the New Jersey Straw Poll giving the good Dr. a win with 73%, they have also raised 1 million dollars in less than a weeks time.

We all know this is just the work of 10 or 15 spammers sitting in their mama's basements spamming over and over again.

So, as of 10:31 Eastern the Ron Paul thermometer is over 1 Mil. Congrats Ron Paul!

I'm In Love!

I am in love with Doda Elektroda
I don't care what you think of the music, or that you cannot understand the lyrics... I don't understand them either. Love transcends all and international language of love and all that junk.

Caution: This video is not for those who don't care for risque pics or who have a heart condition. Thank you and have a good day.

Ron Paul Campaign

On Monday the 24th Ron Paul asked us to donate $500,000 by the end of the quarter. Well, we passed that goal quite handily. The goal was raised to $1,000,000. Lets make it happen people! I donated for the first time last week and will do so again tomorrow if I can swing it.
**Update**
I removed the flash file for several reasons chief amongst them is the 3rd quarter is over. Over 5 million raised! Woohoo Way to go Paulites! But the work isn't done. Head over to RonPaul2008.com and donate and then go join ronpaul.meetup.com and be an activist in your area.

Mueller

So you know, I haven't died or given up blogging. I have been quite busy lately with work and with hiking and just trying to live life.

This morning (yesterday now I suppose) I took my boy to Mueller State Park in hopes of seeing some elk. During the hike we did hear some bugling and as we made our way closer we finally found the source! A man. He had come from Kentucky to see the aspens and to hopefully see some elk. Well that of course was the bummer. But we did see a ton of evidence of the elk, from tracks to their eating of the aspen bark. Other tracks we saw include deer, horse, mountain lion (one of them was big), and coyote. We also got to see some deer, a bunny and a bunch of wild turkey and we were able to get fairly close to them.

My hiking buddy! All bundled up against the cold. It was about 30 degrees this morning, possibly colder.


That shadow of the hunchback is me (technically, us)


Towering aspens


View to the east, north of Pikes Peak


This is just how striking the colors of the aspens are. They stand out beautifully against the pines.


Saved the best for last. I think this is my fav picture of all. It just seems to speak of the innocence of childhood. (Well, that is what I get from it anyways)

California To Poison Lake

California is going to poison* Lake Davis, not once, but twice in an effort to rid the lake of pike. "Since [the mid 90s], millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have been spent trying to spike the pike." Efforts have included a previous poisoning, electrocution and even explosives (which killed a whopping 5 fish.) So the States grand total of fish dead over the past decade is 65,000 fish.

The article goes on to almost give the solution to the problem and then immediately gives us the reason as to why their efforts have failed so badly. "While not a flashy menu topper like tilapia or trout, pike is edible, even glorified by some palates, though its bones make for challenging chewing. But in California, it is illegal to possess, dead or alive."

So close, yet so far. The simplest answer would be to not only allow fishing pike in this lake, but to completely remove all limits on it. There should be no restrictions as to the limit, size, time of day or season or to the method of catch. While this may not completely eliminate the pike it will severely drop their numbers to a point where they could be managed. Perhaps at that point a poisoning of the lake might make sense to off the rest of them but doing it before hand just seems to be a waste of time, money and resources (including natural ones)

* I should point out that the poisoning is really more specific to fish than to all animals. It is absorbed through the gills and blocks the ability to process oxygen. And tho it is considered safe adding chemicals to water is a hazardous thing at best.

CIA Says No Al Qaeda-Saddam Link

Wow, all this time later and we find that there was indeed no link between the two. More damning is the fact that the census among the CIA is that the two were rivals, not allies. This does make sense seeing as Saddam was a secular ruler and Al Qaeda is a loose collection of religious people.

Now if you will remember a large part of the leadup to the war was the "fact" that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda and was training, supporting and harboring them. This was put out in a report by a high ranking CIA official and was the justification used to drum up support for this war. But surprisingly this turned out to be just another lie. Inspector General Thomas Gimble says that the reports author Feith's actions were "inappropriate" and that he came to "A hugely different conclusion than what the consensus of the Intelligence Community was."

Now is the time

I must make [an] honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the [nation]. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that [our] great stumbling block in this stride toward freedom is not the [Democrats] or the [Left Wing], but the [Republican], who is more devoted to "order" than to [freedom]; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of [liberty]; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises [us] to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had also hoped that the [Republicans] would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a brother in Texas. He writes: "[We] know that [you] will receive [liberty] eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a hurry." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of [socialism]. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of [liberty] and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of [freedom]. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of [authoritarianism] to the solid rock of human dignity [and freedom].

[T]hough I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of [liberty]? Perhaps the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

Water As Fuel?

A cool video and one that I truly hope pans out

Congressional War Powers

Astro states as his main objection to Ron Paul is the good doctor's stance on the war. One of Ron Paul's biggest issues with the war is that it is unconstitutional. Let's look at that issue.

The Constitution defines the Congressional War Powers thusly:

United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to ... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Now that we know that it is within the power of Congress to declare war, and not that of the President lets see how this declaration of war has been made in the past:

WWII:

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 11, 1941, 3:05 p.m., E. S. T.

WWI gives us this Declaration of War:

WHEREAS, The Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and

That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

One thing to point out is that these are very simple Declarations. No justification was really needed. In contrast the current ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’ is 6 pages long. The resolution starts at the bottom of page four and I am cutting this down for brevity. Please see the cull document here (PDF)

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).

These are very different and the latest clearly is not a Declaration of War as a simple reading of the Constitution would seem to require. Obviously we new this in the past but in today's world our politician's choose expediency to Constitutionality.

Now I kept up Section 4 because I wanted to point out where this current "war" came from. It started back in 98 under Clinton. And this is where Dr Paul's opposition started. Paul knew that this would lead to an aggressive war and indeed it has. Paul pushed his colleagues to reconsider their support for the Iraq Liberation Act and tried to keep the bill from passing. Despite Paul's efforts we have become an aggressive nation, a danger to smaller countries and mark my words, this WILL come back to bite us. A few more such aggressive wars and the moment we start rattling sabers at a small country they will know that the end for them is near and there is nothing they can do to stop it so they will attack us anyways in the attitude that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

I do not have a problem with war itself. I do think that war should be legal in our own country and should be covered under the just war doctrine. In other words, start nothing, finish everything. Currently it looks like we are starting everything and finishing nothing. We are still in Afghanistan and on our third premise for being there. We are in Iraq and have completed only one of our objectives, even though getting Saddam was the only objective at the start. And then we failed to even have a proper trial for him. What he received was a politically motivated kangaroo court. One would think that with all the crimes that could be put against Saddam that a proper trial could have been held, but no, we failed on that count as well.

I will post more on the Iraq "war" and Ron Paul soon, as this post covers but one aspect (legality.)

Why I Support Ron Paul For President 2008

Dr No. An odd nickname and seemingly a negative one at that. But just who is Ron Paul, and why are so many people saying Yes to Dr. No. A good question and one that deserves an answer. I will endeavor to answer that fully so that you might know why I support him and why you should support him as well.

Background:
Ron Paul is indeed a doctor. An OB/GYN to be precise and he has delivered over 4,000 babies in Brazoria County, Texas. Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon in the Air Force. Dr. Paul first became a Representative in the 1970's and even then made a name for himself as a Constitutionalist. Dr Paul was one of just 4 Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan in 1976.

(This post is long and this is me blathering, skip to the first pic if you just want to read of Ron Paul)
Now this is where I start to join the story. I still remember the second election of Reagan. I remember wholeheartedly supporting him and being glued to the TV watching my hero win as the results were coming in. I think I should point out that I was 7 at the time. I grew up a Republican. I watched a betrayal by Bush the Senior when he betrayed his promise to the nation of "No new taxes." When I was 14 or 15 I became a full fledged Ditto Head. I watched, supported and was even excited about the Contract With America. But then I noticed something. Once in office, the Republicans just had a quick vote on those things and they didn't pass so they just brushed it all under the table and hoped we forgot about it. But I didn't forget about it. I realized that they kept increasing the size of the government. Nothing went away. Not the National Endowment for the Arts, not the Dept. of Education. Nothing. The Republicans moved away from their rhetoric of small limited government and took the positions that had been abandoned by the Democrats who moved left for a more liberal/socialist stance. Each time the Democrats became more liberal it is as if they redefined the Republicans to move them to the left as well.

My ideals and beliefs had changed very little but my party had moved out from under me. This is when I decided that my party was the Libertarian party. But not completely. In 2000 I made a conscious decision to vote against Al Gore. My only option in doing so was to vote for Bush the Younger, whom I didn't particularly like but at the time the "Lesser of Two Evils" argument seemed very persuasive to me. Needless to say, I have learned my lesson and will no longer, in fact ever again, vote for the LoTE. I will abstain from voting if evil is my only choice. This is both a religious reason as I believe I will be held responsible for supporting evil, as well as a practical one. The practical reason is that lending my vote adds legitamacy to the evil.

Ron Paul has very much earned the nickname of Dr. No. He has done this by steadfastly supporting the Constitution and it's requirement of a limited federal government. The No comes from being a lone voice voting no against unconstitutional spending and bills despite the rest of the group voting for it. You may see a vote of 434 to 1 and you can almost be assured that the no belongs to Ron Paul. He doesn't do this to spite anyone or to simply be contrarian, but because he believes that what the Founding Fathers wrote is indeed what they intended. So if they wrote Congress shall make no law, Paul believes that what they REALLY meant is that Congress shall make no law. It really IS revolutionary, hence the banner shown below which was designed by the very first Ron Paul meetup group.

Dr. Paul has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for a congressional pay raise, has never voted for federal gun control, and never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never taken a government paid junket, and significantly, he has refused the Congressional Pension which is a MUCH sweeter deal than is available to us peasants.

Ron Paul spoke against the Iraq war starting in 1998. Yes this long predates the current war but its beginnings are there. He also spoke against the war before we went into this current "war," urging a vote of Congress which is what the Constitution demands. Ron Paul voted against the poorly named USA PATRIOT ACT. He did so out of a respect for Liberty. His colleagues should have done so because no one even had the bill in front of them to read it. (It was made available just 4 hours before the vote)

So those are some of the things Dr Ron Paul is against. What is he for? Dr. No has submitted legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve. He has submitted legislation to allow the farming of hemp (we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't allow it) Paul wants to abolish the IRS, the Dept of Homeland Security, and the Dept of Education among others. Interestingly Paul notes that abolishing the IRS and the income tax would mean rolling back spending... to 1997 levels. Just 10 years ago. And for those who don't know, that wouldn't make SS go away. Those taxes are, somewhat, different than the income tax.

Paul intends to bring home the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support the action in Afghanistan as it seemed that chasing Bin Laden was in our national interest. We have failed in that however and it is time to bring our boys home. And not just from there, but from across the world. Now I don't know the extent that he would pull our troops from other countries. I doubt he would remove them all, but nations like Germany really don't need what amounts to a monetary handout, and he has stated as much.

Those troops would then be available to defend OUR borders. Currently it is insanely easy to get across our borders and with all this talk about terrorism we still leave our borders, particularly the southern border completely open. If a terrorist wanted to get in all he has to do is walk or maybe hire a coyote to smuggle him in. Not so under Paul. We would have defended borders. This is needed for security, economic and even health reasons. Further, the savings provided from having out troops home could be used to shore up social entitlements until we wean the public off of those entitlements, and this is Paul's plan.

Paul is very pro free-trade. By this he means allowing trade with all nations and removing the entangling alliances we find ourselves in. He holds that we do not need things like Most Favored Nation status for countries like China, rather we need to simply allow the market place to decide who wants what goods, and where they will get them from.

Paul wants to return us to a commodity based currency. Doing so will remove the ability to continually dilute the currency which is THE cause of inflation (by its very definition.) This would remove the inflation which steals away the savings of every individual which leaves them with nothing at retirement and therefore dependent upon the government for assistance. This move would also ease the bubbles we have been seeing a lot of lately.

I could go on for quite some time on Dr Ron Paul, but I have probably lost most of you by now. So in closing... Paul is a staunch defender of Liberty. He upholds the Constitution, he is very well read which is evident in his responses to questions. And he actually answers questions posed to him rather than evade them. His ideas are not open to being bought, they are based upon the concepts of Liberty and Freedom and as those ideas do not change, neither do his positions. I think I can boil all this down to calling him a Statesman.

Ron Paul serves US, he has defended US repeatedly. It is time that we stand up for Ron Paul. To that end, I am actually going to make my very first financial contribution ever to a political candidate. It won't be much as I don't have much. But I can be assured that Dr. Paul's campaign will use it wisely and far more prudently than the others running for President.

Links:
RonPaul2008
DailyPaul.com

Grassfire Poll

Grassfire.org conducted a poll of 39,000 conservatives and found support for Fred Thompson at 28%, double the #2 Mitt Romney at 14%. Fred's support will obviously vary in the coming 2 months or so due to his getting into the fray. Now of course, I feel compelled to point out Ron Paul's ranking in this poll. He actually did quite well, moving from 6% in may to 13%. And yes, that does place him in third place in a very large poll.

Other very interesting tidbits from this poll. In a Giuliani-Clinton race, 29% said they would abstain or vote 3rd party. 25% said this of a Romney-Clinton race. I think this is rather telling of the love that conservatives have for these two liberals even if it doesn't say quite whom they support. I suppose that one could say that 10-13% of those numbers could well come from the Dr. Paul supporters and therefore may not fully reflect the party at large but rather those conservatives that are rather fed up with the fascist wing of the party, A.K.A Big Government Conservatives, A.K.A. Compassionate Conservatives.

Grassfire is a network of over one million conservatives out of which 39,440 participated in this poll. Paul gained 13% of this somewhat self selected group's favor and I think it must be remembered that Dr. Paul's support comes from both sides of the aisle. He is a candidate that could actually pull votes away from HRC as opposed to causing conservative "defectors" like Rudy McRomney. He is certainly a more viable and "electable" candidate than this trio. I think at this point Rudy needs to be finished off and then Fred needs to be faced. With luck Rudy Ghouliani will destroy his chances much like Senator McCain did.

Colorado Balloon Classic

The Colorado Springs Balloon Classic takes place every labor day and is three days full of fun for lovers of hot air balloons. This was the 31st year and we have a total of 79 registered balloons. They launched at 7AM on Saturday, Sunday and Monday and there were balloon glows Sat & Sun night.Lil Bear and I were able to get to the Glow on Sunday and the launch on Monday.

The Classic takes place in Memorial Park which is where all of the big events happen in Colorado Springs. It is a huge, fully manicured park with a small lake. The balloons setup on the north side of the park, launch and float over the trees to the south and immediately dip into the lake. The lake is where you want to be. From here you can watch them come over the hill, just over the top of the trees and into the lake. Sometimes they actually hit branches as they are trying to cut it very close. It isn't a big lake and of course you don't want to be coming down too hard. But it makes a GREAT show, especially for the little ones.

I thought I would share just a few of the nearly 200 pics I took.







I hope you enjoyed 'em! We sure enjoyed getting them.

Texas Straw Poll results

Saturday, 4 p.m.: The votes are in . . .
And the winner of the first-ever Rebpublican(sic) Straw Poll in Texas is: California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who claimed 534 votes, or 41.1 percent of the ballots cast this afternoon. Finishing second is candidate-in-waiting Fred Thompson, who formally launches his candidacy next week, with 266 votes, or 20.5 percent.

Third was Texas' own Ron Paul, a GOP congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, who got 217 votes, or 16.7 percent. Paul was far and away the most aggressive campaigner at the two-day Straw Poll event in downtown Fort Worth.

Not bad considering the total lack of MSM coverage. Also something to consider is just who these voters were. The Texas Straw poll placed the following limitation upon voters
Must have been a Delegate or Alternate Delegate to at least one of the last 4 Republican State Conventions (2000, 2002, 2004 or 2006) or one of the last 2 Republican National Conventions (2000 or 2004). This of course means that these were likely longtime Bush supporters.

Duncan Hunter was introduced as "a guy who won’t only protect our borders, he’ll close our borders." This position no doubt gained him much support from Texans. And it is also a position that I think he believes in. We could certainly do worse than Hunter.

The Salton Sea

For those of you not familiar with the Salton Sea, it is an inland sea in California which is fed by the Colorado River. The sea's surface is currently 227 feet below sea level and as such has no outlet. Because of this it is one of the saltiest bodies of water in North America and is actually saltier than the Pacific Ocean. But the Salton Sea isn't old, not by any means. In fact, one could say it is celebrating it's 100th anniversary.

In 1901 the area where the sea is now was called the King's Basin. It was being reclaimed by settlers farming the basin and water was being diverted to water their crops. In 1904 the canal had become clogged so a cut was made elsewhere to allow water to come through. This proved to be the downfall of the entire settlement.

The daily reports from the gauge at Rubio City showed an increase in the river's volume of twenty thousand second feet; then thirty thousand more; and on top of that came another twenty thousand. The assistants of the new chief engineer tried to tell him what it meant, but the assistants were subordinates and friends ofWillard Holmes. The man from New York, who was privileged to write several letters after his name, was supposed to know his business.

Then the assembled forces of the river reached the intake, and the trembling wooden structures that stood between the pioneers and ruin, besieged by the rising flood, battered by the swirling currents, bombarded by drift, gave way under the strain and the charging waters plunged through the breach.

Too late the Company's forces were rushed to the scene. Before their very eyes the roaring waters, as if mad with destructive power, wrenched and tore at the Company's property, twisting, ripping, smashing, until not a trestle, plank or stick was left in place and the terrific current, rushing with ever increasing volume and power through the opening, plowed into the soft, alluvial soil of the embankment, undermining and carrying it away until nearly the entire river was admitted.

As quickly as men and material could be assembled, the Company's chief engineer began the battle to regain control of the mighty stream. The warfare thus begun meant life or death to the greatest reclamation project in the world. Millions already invested by the settlers in farms and towns and homes and business enterprises were at stake. Many more millions that were yet to be realized from the reclaimed lands depended upon the issue of the fight.

Against the efforts of the engineers and the army of laborers the river massed from its tributaries in the regions of heavy rains and melting snows the greatest strength it had assembled in many years. Five times, with piling and trestles and jettie sand embankments, the men who defended The King's Basin were in sight of victory. Five times the river summoned fresh strength-twisted out the piling, wrecked the trestles, undermined the jetties and embankments and swept the nearly completed structures, smashing, grinding, crashing, away--a twisted, tangled ruin.

This is from the writings of Harold Bell Wright in his historical novel The Winning of Barbara Worth. Read the entire account here

From 1905 until the breach was dammed in 1907 nearly the entire Colorado River flowed into this basin. What is left is a salty, nutrient loaded (and can become oxygen poor) sea that is none the less habitat for many species of birds and a huge number of fish. Click here for more info on the Salton Sea

Jamie, Is That You?

I just have to believe that Jamie had SOMETHING to do with this project. If nothing else perhaps he volunteered to drink the beer. Or maybe they were just raiding his trash.

Shrimp Boat Captain Delivers Baby at Sea

By Associated Press
THU AUG 30, 11:44 PM

FREEPORT, Texas - When the cook on his shrimp boat went into labor 30 miles offshore, captain Ed Kiesel grabbed a new roll of paper towels and a first aid handbook and did the best he could.

He successfully delivered Cindy Preisel's baby boy, even though the baby's feet emerged first.

"I'm no doctor, but even I knew that's not supposed to happen," Kiesel said.

"I reached with my fingers ... as gently as I could and popped out his left shoulder and then his right," he said. "But then the little guy was stuck by his head, being strangled. So I did the only thing I could _ I waited for a contraction and then slid my fingers in around the top of his head and scooped him out."

But the newborn wasn't breathing, so Kiesel gently administered CPR.

"I started giving mouth-to-mouth, three short puffs, and then thumping and rubbing its back," he said.

The baby began to take short breaths, and after 20 to 25 minutes of CPR, gulped in air. His lips turned rosy and he started crying.

"I was so happy and relieved," Cindy Preisel said. "It's hard to put into words."

Kiesel used net twine, sterilized in boiling water, to tie off the umbilical cord and cut the newborn free from his mother.

Friends waited at the dock in Freeport, about 55 miles south of Houston, with bottles and baby clothes. Preisel named the baby Brian Edward Mawhorr, after his father and the captain who delivered him. The baby wasn't due until mid-September.

Kiesel said the boat, which set out from Fort Myers, Fla., on July 15, will head out to the Gulf of Mexico again on Friday. The newborn's father, Brian Mawhorr, will continue on as a deck hand, but Preisel planned to stay with family.

"We set out with a crew of three, and we came back with a crew of four," Kiesel said. "We're not getting too much new blood in the shrimp industry, so I guess we have to manufacture our own."