Welcome to khan.org

We're nearing the time for Spring Barrel tasting in the Yakima valley on April 25-27th.

Having done this last year, it is loads of fun to go around, find (and taste) fine wines you want, and buy them at a discount.

The lowdown is simple-- you pay $20 (advance price) and pick up a lanyard/ticket. Then, any time between 4/25-4/27, you can visit as many of the 50 participating wineries, sample their spring barrels, and any other vintages they have available for sale, sample delicious cheese, sauces, salsas, desserts.

Find out more at the Wine Yakima Valley website, and if this sounds remotely interesting, book a room at our hotel, the Richland Marriott.

If you end up booking it, then drop me a note and tell me you'll be there. At a minimum, we can get together and enjoy a glass of wine at a local winery, or if we get enough people to make an event of it, I'll book a limo/minibus/minivan and we can all travel in style!

Assuming, as unlikely as it is at this point, that she gets the Democratic party nomination... Hillary's outrageous, offensive ridicule of Obama has made me lose whatever shred of respect and admiration I ever had for her.

It's almost like she expects that she will be coronated, and is offended by the fact that the people want something else.

She could learn a thing or two from the likes of Al Gore who suffered real indignity and kept his composure throughout. (Never mind that Obama has served Hillary a case of defeat fair and square)

This morning I read that Ralph Nader is running for President in 2008.

I admire Ralph Nader in many ways, and if he hadn't postponed for so long before running, I might have even seriously considered being a Nader supporter.

But there are a few concerns I have about Nader's positions. For example, he is steadfastly opposed to nuclear energy, which is shortsighted. When we rely on dirty, carbon-positive fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, you burn hydrocarbons, which release CO2 into the atmosphere. True, nuclear energy is not the most environmentally friendly technology, but it is CO2 neutral. Also, today's nuclear technology is the gateway to the future of clean (nuclear) energy.

I've spoken about He3 (Helium 3) on my blog before, but I see that as the ultimate clean-energy source for sustainable growth for the future. To get there means significant investment in cleaner and cleaner methods of nuclear fusion, which in turn I believe means a reasoned policy view on current nuclear plants. (In fact, I consider the environmental problems caused by the internal combustion engine as posing a more immediate, more significant, threat than that of nuclear power, so why the exuberance to end nuclear power in the US?)

America isn't doing itself any favors by sticking its head into the sand when it rejects technologies that hold promise because the current state of the technology raises certain technological or philosophical questions (whether it be stem cells or nuclear energy). The spoils will go to those that correctly weigh risks against benefit, and who can lay out a roadmap that presents the best promise of advancement.

Secondly, let's not forget Nader's age. If elected, and then subsequently re-elected, he'll be nearly 83 years old when he leaves office. Reagan, by contrast, was nearly 78.

And that second point, for anyone who naively thinks that Nader is a viable candidate for presidency, truly illustrates the purpose that Nader is hoping to play in this election. He and his supporters are insane if they think he'll actually be elected, but crazy like a fox if they recognize his plan as simply to act as spoiler/agitator. I see Huckabee and Nader as having the same general goal-- to offer an alternative viewpoint during the campaign to force their competition to speak to issues that they otherwise would rather avoid discussing (like single-payer health care, for example).

And in this role, I'm hopeful that Nader will keep all three front-running candidates honest. I'm hopeful that the points his campaign will likely raise about our foreign, environmental and social (principally health care) policies will be a force for keeping a progressive focus on this contest.

To wit, I think Obama can (and more to the point), should explain why he didn't select a single-payer system-- which I suspect would contrast ideology with realism.

My friend Gavin has a blog post today about caucusing for Obama yesterday.

Christine and I can report nearly the exact same caucus experience that Gavin did with one exception... Our precinct was 38/15/2 (Obama, Clinton, Undecided), and the undecided's split evenly, making the total 39/16, or 71% for Obama which meant we send 7 of our ten delegates (of which, yes, I am one) on April fifth for Obama.

What the hell is there to say about Romney?

The guy is purely plainly batshit.

I'm referring, of course, to Romney's surreal ramblings.

Not only did he start by laying the blame of all of the worlds ills on the decommissioning of the military industrial complex after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the hands of the Clinton administration...

But [the military's] numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years, when troops were reduced by 500,000, when almost 80 ships were retired from our Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25 percent. We were told we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend; we didn't get the peace.

Riiiight... What Clinton should have done was to keep 500,000 troops because had he done so, then our invasion of Iraq could have happened in parallel to an invasion of both Iran and North Korea, and before you know it peace would be blossoming in every corner of the world!

But is this the end of the "batshit crazy" this demagogue has to offer? Not by a long shot:

Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat... And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

Right. Democrats = terrorists win, and Republicans = God's intended victory against the evils of godless liberals and god-fearing islamofascists... So leave it to the voice of reason, the voice of moderation, Mitt Romney, to explain why he's withdrawing from the race:

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Nice. The only thing that speech was missing was equating the Democrats with Nazis and child molesters.

Not that anybody cares about Khan Klatt's profile at Classmates.com.