Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    January 2010
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for January, 2010

Rothenberg rates Massachusetts a toss-up

Posted by Richard on January 15, 2010

From the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report:

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

UPDATE: Rothenberg's analysis (I misspelled his name earlier and have corrected it) is confirmed by the latest poll results (emphasis added): 

Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has surged ahead of his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, according to a new poll released Thursday night.

Brown leads Coakley by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, the Suffolk University/WHDH-TV poll found. It is the first poll to show Brown, who had been thought a long-shot underdog, leading the race.

It raises the possibility of an historic political upset in Massachusetts.

“It’s a massive change in the political landscape,” David Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center, told The Boston Herald.

Paleologos told the newspaper that the poll shows high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of independents compared to Coakley’s 30 percent.

That's great news! But I hope the Brown campaign has lots of lawyers and poll watchers at the ready. Hugh Hewitt famously said, in a book of that name, "If it's not close, they can't cheat." The flip side is: if it's close, they can — and will — cheat.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Make the negotiations open

Posted by Richard on January 14, 2010

Remember when candidate Obama promised transparency in the creation of a health care plan, that negotiations would "be on C-SPAN," and that "the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices being made"? Newt Gingrich remembers, and he has the video:


[YouTube link]

In a Dec. 30 letter [PDF], Brian Lamb, CEO of C-SPAN, asked the President and the leadership of the House and Senate to "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage" and pleaded with them "to allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

The campaign promises were broken. Lamb's plea was ignored. The secret meetings to craft a government take-over of health care continue. Nothing — not even the overwhelming opposition of the voting public — can be allowed to slow their headlong rush toward socialism.

Today, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid met for eight hours behind closed doors in the White House, and they're rumored to be "very close" to having put together a deal. A deal that we know almost nothing about, and probably won't even have a chance to read before Pelosi and Reid try to ram it through Congress without debate. 

This is outrageous, arrogant, elitist, and profoundly undemocratic. Please sign the Center for Health Transformation's letter to the President and Congress calling for open negotiations and the posting of all legislative language on thomas.gov. And contact your senators and representative. This has to stop!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“They’re not there anymore”

Posted by Richard on January 13, 2010

Shortly after midnight last night, I posted a clip of Republican Scott Brown from last night's Massachusetts Senate race debate. I'm all about fairness, balance, and equal time, so here's another clip from the debate featuring Democrat Martha Coakley:


[YouTube link]

At Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft put her remarks into perspective and provided a transcript (emphasis in original: 

There are no terrorists in Afghanistan?

On Wednesday December 30 Jordanian doctor and Al-Qaeda blogger Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi killed 7 CIA officers in a suicide bomb attack at an outpost in southeastern Afghanistan. Before he murdered the Americans in Afghanistan he recorded a tape with the local Taliban leader. The Taliban released the tape after his death.

On Monday Senate Candidate Martha Coakley told Massachusetts voters that it was time to pull out of Afghanistan. Coakley said she was not sure there was a way to succeed.

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

She’s not just wrong- She’s dangerous.

But good for a laugh.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“It’s the people’s seat”

Posted by Richard on January 12, 2010

For the benefit of the half-dozen people who visit this blog, but not Instapundit, here's a brief clip of Scott Brown in a recent Massachusetts Senate race debate:


[YouTube link]

Bravo!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brown “moneybomb” a huge success

Posted by Richard on January 11, 2010

Late last week, Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown's campaign scheduled a "moneybomb" for today — a one-day online fundraising effort. Their goal was $500,000.

Since it's past midnight on the East Coast, I thought drop by the website to see how they did. Oh, they met their goal all right. And blew right past it to their revised goal of $750,000. And then they blew right past that, too. 

Final total: "Thank you! $1,303,302.50 raised!"

If you helped, thanks from me, too. If not, you still can. The election is only a week away, and the MoveOn.org/SEIU attack ads are coming fast and furious. Scott Brown could become the 41st vote against government-controlled health care, and an extra $10 or $20 (or $100, or $1000) just might make a difference. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Profiling at Montreal airport

Posted by Richard on January 10, 2010

It sure looks like Montreal's airport security personnel are guilty of profiling passengers:

MONTREAL (AP) – Canadian police say it was wrong for one of their officers to whisk Halle Berry, her model boyfriend and baby through airport security.

Police Inspector Jimmy Cacchione said it was the personal initiative of one officer and not something the department supported.

The officer will not be reprimanded and the police airport unit will institute stricter rules for the future, Cacchione added. 

Hey, if I were the cop on duty, I'd escort her through security, too. She has one fine profile.

But I'd make her airhead boy-toy and the rugrat stay at the back of the line. 

HT: Instapundit

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Scott Brown surges to lead

Posted by Richard on January 9, 2010

Massachusetts is one of the bluest of blue states — in Oct. 2008, fewer than 12% of Massachusetts voters were registered Republicans (PDF). But Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown is now poised to pull off a stunning upset. From Politico (emphasis added):

Republicans have a very real chance at orchestrating a Massachusetts miracle in this month’s special Senate election to determine Ted Kennedy’s successor, at least according to a new Democratic poll out tonight.

The shocking poll from Public Policy Polling shows Republican state senator Scott Brown leading Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, which would mean the race is effectively tied.

Among independents, who make up 51 percent of the electorate in the Bay State, Brown leads Coakley 63 percent to 31 percent.

Just 50 percent of voters view Coakley favorably, while 42 percent viewing her unfavorably.

Brown, who began an advertising blitz this month, sports a strong 57 percent favorability rating, with just 25 percent viewing him unfavorably – very strong numbers for a Republican in the heavily Democratic state.

On the issue of health care, which Brown has emphasized that he would be the deciding vote against, 47 percent said they opposed the plan in Congress while 41 percent supported it.

So let's summarize: According to a Democratic pollster, Scott Brown is in a dead heat with Coakley and leads two to one among independents. And opposition to Obamacare leads by six points. In Massachusetts!

Are you paying attention Sen. Bennet? How about you, Sen. Nelson? Sen. Lincoln? And what about you remaining sane Democrats out there — do you realize what your leaders' headlong rush toward socialism is doing? It's now a race to see which they manage to destroy first, their country or their party. 

I'm so hoping Brown can pull off the upset (although just the fact that he's close ought to give Dems everywhere pause). In fact, I just contributed another $100 to the Scott Brown for United States Senate campaign. How about you — can you help create the Miracle in Massachusetts?

UPDATE: One more thing. I tuned into Hannity the other night (which I rarely do) to see (and judge) Scott Brown. He was personable and articulate, and he nicely deflected Hannity's attempts to draw him into social-conservative issues and partisan bashing. He stuck to a solid message of fiscal conservatism — lower taxes, less spending, less regulation, and no government takeover of health care. He seems to be running a very effective campaign, and he made one other forceful point — he doesn't want outside groups, on either his side or Coakley's, dominating this campaign. 

MoveOn.org and the SEIU are apparently mounting a massive intervention on Coakley's behalf. And I've been inundated by emails from right-wing PACs asking for money to spend on the race. If you're in the same situation, I urge you not to donate to these groups. If you're for Brown, donate directly to his campaign; if you're for Coakley, donate directly to hers. Let the candidates shape their message — and be judged by their message, not someone else's. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More machinations in Massachusetts?

Posted by Richard on January 9, 2010

Massachusetts' temporary senator, Paul Kirk, was appointed to the office after the legislature cynically changed the law to deny its citizens the right to vote for Sen. Kennedy's successor. Now, he's hinting that there may be more machinations to subvert democracy if Democrat Martha Coakley doesn't win the Jan. 19 special election. From Red Mass Group:

Today Paul Kirk told the State House News service that he would continue to serve in the United States Senate until the health care vote is taken if Scott Brown wins the election.  

"Absolutely," Kirk said, when asked if he'd vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States Senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy's agenda and the rest of it … I think you're asking me a hypothetical question but I'd be pleased to vote for the bill."

The Scott Brown Campaign had the following to say about Paul Kirk's admission.

This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine today. Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we've already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign's leading supporters.

First Deval Patrick and the legislature changed the law so that Paul Kirk would be a vote for health care. Today the Beacon Hill machine threatened to instigate a Constitutional crisis if Scott Brown is elected.  The Democratic machine in Massachusetts has no shame.  On January 19, 2009 we can take down the machine. Cast your vote for Scott Brown to tell Paul Kirk, Deval Patrick, Bill Galvin, and Martha Coakley that you have had enough of their politics as usual.

If that senate race is close (and Coakley's lead has dropped from 30% to single digits, with the difference within the margin of error among the likeliest voters), expect chicanery at the polls and voter intimidation. And should Republican Scott Brown win, it will be Minnesota squared — an army of Democratic lawyers will descend, challenges will be filed everywhere for every bogus reason they can think of, "misplaced" ballots by the hundreds and thousands will suddenly be "discovered," …

The Democratic Party in Massachusetts and across the country is now firmly in the hands of an undemocratic, arrogant, elitist, and unscrupulous gang of political thugs who will stop at nothing to ram their socialist agenda down the throats of the people. From the President on down, their ideology and tactics come straight from Saul Alinsky, and their role models appear to be Hugo Chavez and Manuel Zelaya. And we don't have the Honduran Supreme Court and Army to protect us from them. 

I've just contributed another $100 to the Scott Brown for United States Senate campaign. If you can spare a few bucks, please do likewise.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Surprised by al Qaeda’s determination

Posted by Richard on January 8, 2010

A couple of days after Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab almost managed to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CNN that "one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked." Which, if true, means the system is utterly dependent on courageous passengers with impeccable timing to thwart such attacks. 

Yesterday afternoon at a press briefing, Napolitano revealed the depth of her knowledge and understanding of the enemy that declared war on us, seeks to destroy us, and is responsible for the terrorist acts that it's her job to protect us from. Gateway Pundit has the video and transcript excerpt (emphasis added): 

Q What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well.

MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is an extension of al Qaeda core coming out of Pakistan. … The fact that they had moved forward to try to execute this attack against the homeland I think demonstrated to us — and this is what the review sort of uncovered — that we had a strategic sense of sort of where they were going, but we didn't know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here. And we have taken that lesson, and so now we're full on top of it.

SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence.

Yeah, who know that al Qaeda was really determined? Or that they might use an individual suicide bomber? Who could have possibly known these things?

Heckuva job, Nappy! 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who is Wesley Mouch?

Posted by Richard on January 7, 2010

John Stossel is airing an "Atlas Shrugged hour" tonight, and he's taking a poll asking the above question:

Tomorrow, my Fox Business Network show about Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" will finally air. That should stop the emails like this one from Karen Cooper:

"Oh for the love of god! 'Atlas Shrugged' explains about 99 percent of what's wrong in all of the arenas of topics: health care, education, climate change, unions, the economy, etc. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE cover 'Atlas.'"

Cooper makes a good point. Even though Rand published "Atlas" in 1957, her descriptions of intrusive and bloated government read like today's news. The "Preservation of Livelihood Law" and "Equalization of Opportunity Law" could be Nancy Pelosi's or Harry Reid's work.

The novel's chief villain is Wesley Mouch, a bureaucrat who cripples the economy with endless regulations. This sounds familiar. Reason magazine reports that "as he looks around Washington these days," Rep. Paul Ryan "can't help but think he's seeing a lot of Wesley Mouch".

Me, too. I also saw a lot of him under George W. Bush.

So I'm conducting this unscientific poll: Who is our Wesley Mouch? Hank Paulson? Tim Geithner? Barney Frank? You can vote here.

Of the five choices, I had to pick Geithner. But I think the best answer is that all of the President's czars, collectively, are playing the part of Wesley Mouch.

Go cast your vote. And if you get the Fox Business Network, be sure to watch the show: 

My first guest on the show (Fox Business Network, 8 p.m. Eastern Thursday, repeating at 10 p.m. Friday) is BB&T Chairman and "Atlas" fan John Allison. Allison's bank, the ninth largest in America, is doing very well, but he's angry the government forced him to take TARP money.

Allison once told The New York Times, "To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it's bad because he's alive."

Plus, you'll get to see John get a fish pedicure!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Ritter is latest Dem to bail

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2010

On the heels of the news that Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) won't seek reelection and that Sen. Chris Dodd, too, has decided to slink away quietly rather than face a humiliating defeat, Denver's 7News has now reported that Gov. Bill Ritter has also pulled the plug on his reelection campaign:

Gov. Bill Ritter, who was in for a tough re-election fight this year, canceled a scheduled fundraiser on Tuesday night and has decided not to seek re-election, according to Democratic sources familiar with the governor’s plans.

There was no word on why Ritter chose not to seek re-election.

The Call7 Investigators have learned that a press conference will be held Wednesday.

The "leak" came out of Washington, suggesting that the DNC and/or Obama administration are behind his sudden interest in spending more time with his family. It's rumored that he'll get an appointment to a job in the Obama administration — maybe Czar of Whatever We Don't Already Have a Czar For. 

It's also rumored that the purpose of having the unpopular Ritter step aside is to entice State Rep. Andrew Romanoff into abandoning his primary challenge to the equally unpopular Sen. Michael Bennet and going for the governor's race: 

ABC News is reporting that former Rep. Scott McInnis is the likely GOP nominee and will have a far clearer shot at becoming governor in an open seat race. Colorado is likely to now be a potentially good pickup opportunity for Republicans.

However, Democrats are far from ready to concede the race just yet, ABC News reported. Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has been a thorn in the national Democrats side with his primary challenge to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. Several Democrats believe Romanoff will now take a serious look at the governor’s race instead of continuing his Senate battle.

Ritter's decision may have been influenced by his dismal poll numbers, like a recent Rasmussen poll showing him trailing McInnis by 40% to 48%.

If poll numbers are any indication, we may see a bunch of congressional Democrats deciding to spend more time with their families. Among likely voters, the Democrats are cratering in Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot (emphasis added): 

Republican candidates start the year by opening a nine-point lead over Democrats, the GOP's biggest in several years, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the year. Support for Democrats has declined eight points since Obama's inauguration while Republican support is up nine points.

There has been a notable shift this week among women, who now favor Republicans slightly 40% to 38%. Last week, women favored Democrats 45% to 38%. Men prefer Republicans 49% to 32%, showing little change over the past week.

Among all voters not affiliated with either party, the GOP leads 48% to 17%.

That last set of numbers really strikes me. Among independent voters, support for the Democratic candidate is in the toilet.

If that isn't enough to give Dems everywhere pause, maybe the polling numbers from that bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, will do so. Among likely voters, Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley leads Republican Scott Brown by only nine points. And if you dig further into the numbers, they're even more disturbing for Coakley (emphasis added): 

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

I donated a few bucks to Brown a while back. A Brown victory is very much a long shot (Dems have something like a 6-1 voter registration advantage in Massachusetts), but I figure if he can get within a few percentage points, it should scare the beejeebus out of a bunch of Dems. Maybe make them think twice about supporting Obamacare and the rest of the headlong rush to a Socialist America. 

And if, by some miracle, Brown pulls off a win — wouldn't it be the most delicious irony ever to have the deciding "No" vote on Obamacare cast by the man elected to replace Ted Kennedy?

I can dream, can't I? 🙂 If you'd like to help the dream, go here and contribute what you can. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Airport security done right

Posted by Richard on January 3, 2010

In the comments to Sensible profiling, I pointed out that the Israelis use profiling and do it right. An excellent story in the Toronto Star details just how different Israel's airport security procedures are from those used in North America:

"It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago," said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He's worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

"Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don't take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, 'We're not going to do this. You're going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport."

That, in a nutshell is "Israelification" – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.

Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport employs a multi-layer security strategy. At multiple points — a checkpoint on the approach to the airport, the parking facility and terminal entrances, airline check-in desks, and the security checkpoint — trained  personnel watch passengers and ask simple, innocuous questions (How are you? Where are you coming from? Who packed your luggage?) while looking people directly in the eyes, alert for nervousness, stress, and other tell-tale signs. It's called behavioral profiling.

There are no long lines at the security checkpoint. Passengers don't have to take off their shoes and belts or go through full-body scans. They don't confiscate liquids or GI Joes, and they don't make people put their toiletries in Ziploc bags. The process is quick and convenient. And it's worked well for decades at one of the prime terrorist targets in the world. 

Today, there was a "security breach" at Newark Airport — a man walked into the secure "sterile" side of the terminal without being screened. In reaction, flights were halted and thousands of people evacuated from the terminal for re-screening. As I write this, it's been six hours, and they're still not back to normal. This happens all too often at U.S. airports, and it's usually just a dumb mistake by someone. But it always leads to a terrible mess — costly, inconvenient, frustrating, and stupid. 

At Ben Gurion, they don't even evacuate the terminal if they find a suspected bomb: 

First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.

So why hasn't TSA learned from the Israeli example? Why do they foist upon the American traveling public a brain-dead, inefficient, ineffective, and horribly frustrating system? Because they can. We have become sheep. Unlike the Israelis, we'll put up with almost anything to avoid trouble and gain a sense of security.

With one exception. Remember the "flying Imams" and similar incidents? The lawsuits and accusations of racism and Islamophobia? If TSA adopted the Israeli methodology, training security personnel to look people in the eye, ask questions, and make judgments about their behavior, the perpetually aggrieved (and those attempting to test or undermine the system) would be in the courts and in front of the microphones screaming about profiling and discrimination every other day.

So the path of least resistance for TSA personnel is to treat people like cattle and go through the motions, giving us the illusion of security by confiscating shampoo and examining shoes, and selecting people at random for additional screening. It keeps CAIR and the PC crowd off their backs, and the rest of us just suffer in silence. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Happy 2010!

Posted by Richard on January 1, 2010

Nappy You Hear! 

 
New Year fireworks

May we all have a wonderful 2010 and close out this decade on a positive note.

What's that you say? It's the start of a new decade? No, no, no. You're wrong. Yes, I know — everyone's saying it's the start of a new decade. But they're innumerate — and wrong. 

Look, I'll walk you through this. It's not that complicated. Christian or not, we reckon time from the birth of Jesus, right? The year of his birth is 1 A.D. (Anno Domini — "The Year of Our Lord") (yeah, the strident secularists label it C.E. — Common Era — but it's the same starting point and they're not fooling anyone). So what was the year before that — 0 A.D.? No, it was 1 B.C. ("Before Christ"). There was no Year Zero. So you can't start counting with zero

The first decade (ten years) ran from the year 1 through the year 10 A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer), and the second decade began with the year 11 A.D. The first century (one hundred years) ran from 1 A.D. through 100 A.D., and the second century began with 101 A.D. The first millennium (one thousand years) ran from 1 A.D. through 1000 A.D., and the second millennium began with 1001 A.D. 

So, to bring us up to date, the last year of the second millennium was 2000 A.D., and the first year of the third millenium was 2001 A.D. Thus, the first decade of the third millennium runs from 2001 through 2010. The second decade starts on January 1, 2011 — one year from now. 

This brief lesson brought to you by Pedants 'R Us, insisting on mathematical accuracy even while inebriated, and wishing you and yours a most happy new year.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »