I Don’t Get the Controversy...

Despite high ratings and a strong local following in Pittsburgh, highly rated and highly controversial local ESPN host Mark Madden was removed from the airwaves almost immediately after saying, “I'm very disappointed to hear that Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is near death because of a brain tumor. I always hoped Sen. Kennedy would life long enough to be assassinated.”

Tasteless? Yes, but beyond reproach? Hardly.

Ted Kennedy’s recent illness is tragic, but it doesn’t make him above reproach, nor does it rehabilitate his odious, “far too liberal, for far too long” stint in the U.S. Senate.

Ted Kennedy’s done this nation far more harm than good, that’s for sure.

Is it sad when anyone gets an almost certainly terminal illness?

Sure, but Ted Kennedy’s had a long run and a very privileged life, so it’s hardly as “tragic” as a younger person coming down with that same affliction.

While the 1st Amendment DOES NOT protect controversial speech from private sector sanctions – anyone CAN be fired for making any number of controversial statements, from comparing the Bush administration to the Third Reich, to wishing Ted Kennedy a violent death.

That said, I think there is too much of an overreaction on the part of many commercial outlets, for as tasteless and controversial as Mark Madden’s comments regarding Ted Kennedy were, he merely said out loud what millions of Americans thought privately.

More Fun With Misleading Numbers...

A recent (May 12) UPI piece asserts that “ONLY 4% of U.S. firefighters are female, despite almost half of female firefighter candidates passing physical ability tests,” according to their cited study.

In EVERY locale in this country Fire and Police Departments give standardized written and physical exams to create “eligibles lists,” from which to choose their workers.

Thousands of the tens of thousands of applicants who take those exams, pass those exams, but only the hundreds of candidates at or near the top of those lists, based on those competitive exams have any chance of being hired.

In point of FACT, thousands, probably tens of thousands more men pass those exams and do not make the “eligibles lists” then women, but no one seems to be shedding a tear for them.

No one has yet made an argument that such competitive exams create “an undue barrier against women and some ethnic minorities.”

Disparate impact has been discredited in the courts as a “measurement of discrimination.” The fact that a given group does less well on a given exam proves nothing about that exam.

In fact, given that the Grand Valley State University's Human Performance Lab recently studied numerous physical performance parameters between males and females and found that in, “upper body lifting (Men= 1.45 + 0.2, Women= 0.78 + 0.13), men had significantly higher strength to body weight ratios for upper body strength, while there were no differences in lower body strength relative to body weight...This relationship was the same when computed against lean body weight...These results indicate that men have significantly more upper body strength than women, would seem to indicate that 4% may be much “better than expected” given the data on male/female strength differentials.

For the Human Performance Lab Study SEE: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/glassst/hpl.htm

Do We Really Need THIS???

You just knew it, after being bombarded with RACISM, SEXISM, AGEISM, HOMOPHOBIA (how that get in there among all those “isms?”), there’d be more...after all, inventing new “isms” is a lot like finding Waldo, it gets addictive!

So now we have WEIGHT-ISM!

Are you kidding me or what!

So now “Fat’s the new black?”

Get the F*^k outta here!

So porkers and wideloads are feeling discriminated against?

So, now fat jokes are out?

There goes half my comic repertoire? OK, who am I kidding? There goes 80% of it, easy!

Still, there it is in black and white, “Yale Researchers Find Widespread Discrimination Against Overweight People.” Really?

The article states that, “Weight discrimination "occurs in employment settings and daily interpersonal relationships virtually as often as race discrimination, and in some cases even more frequently than age or gender discrimination," the researchers report in the current issue of the International Journal of Obesity.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4568813&page=1

The authors note that, “Overweight women are twice as vulnerable as men, and discrimination strikes much earlier in their lives, the report states.”

Yeah right, so lemme get this straight, if fatty can’t get a date, it’s got to be “discrimination?!”

Are you kidding me or WHAT!?

I haven’t been this angry since I got ticketed for parking in a handicapped space with my homemade “I am handicapped...I’m psychotic” placard in the window.

It worked for Johnny Vermin in that flick Johnny Dangerously...what am I, made of f*^king obese or something?!

OMG! First Ted Kennedy has Brain Cancer...Now Jimmy Carter’s Got Alzheimer’s?!...

...Depressing enough is the fact that Liberal icon Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy has come down with brain cancer, now Jimmy Carter’s showing signs of all out Alzheimer’s disease.

Israel has never even acknowledged it HAS nuclear weapons, let alone how many it might have, as nations tend to keep information like that a “state secret” for obvious reasons.

Anyway, according to the Times of London, while at “the Hay-on-Wye festival which promotes current affairs books and literature,” the former President and currently adle-brained Carter noted that, “Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.” The Times saw this revelation as “startling because Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, let alone how many, although the world assumes their existence. Nor do US officials deviate in public from that Israeli line.”

Gateway Pundit argues that "Either Jimmy Carter is really, really stupid, or he really, really hates Israel.” http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/jimmy-carter-bashes-bush-wants-us-to.html

Whoa, now there’s a tough choice, even before the Alzheimer’s.

Oh yeah, and Jimmy Carter went even further in proving he has Alzheimer’s when at the same book festival said the U.S. should talk directly with Iran and should provide nuclear power technology and fuel to Iran as a show of goodwill. Yeah, I mean what's the WORST that could possibly happen with THAT?!

Can’t we seriously start talking about institutionalizing this poor bastard now?

$4/Gallon Gas NOT That Bad?!...

A recent article in Slate tried to make the case that $4/gallon gasoline WAS “still a BARGAIN.”

SEE: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/Why4DollarAGallonGasIsABargain.aspx

Close, BUT not quite.

Comparing America, an automobile-dependent nation, to other nations that are smaller and far less automobile-dependent (ie. England and Norway, both as large as some American states) is absurd. The ONLY real comparison for the price of gasoline in America is to compare current prices to past prices adjusted to inflation.

Since the all-time U.S. high (adjusted for inflation) was in 1981, at appx. $1.35/gallon, and given the inflation rate (0.85 dollars/85 cents = $2.10 in today’s dollars), our U.S. high in today’s dollars was about $3.46/gallon, BUT that was in the wake of one of the most crippling oil crises in history, with Iran holding U.S. embassy workers for 444 days and the world wondering about severe disruptions in the supply of oil.

So $4/gallon is a pretty high price for gasoline under normal conditions. Even accounting for today’s “far from normal conditions," it’s still a high price.

The author also notes that "even back in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11, adjusted for inflation." Again, at the start of the automotive era, with fewer people driving, the cost of refining gasoline, relative to the demand cycle reduced the gasoline maker’s ability to make “bulk profits,” so the price per unit (gallon) was higher than under the eventual high demand/bulk profit scenario that became the norm in America.

Of course world demand has more than quadrupled and supply hasn’t kept pace and our refusal to drill offshore and in ANWR has made the higher price inevitable, but despite the reasons, $4/gallon gasoline is still a very high price...and yes, it may be going up even further, due to our own energy ineptitude.

A more apt statement would be, “$4/gallon gasoline is high, but not nearly as high as we should expect to see, given our current dismal energy policies.”

A “Dirty Bomb’s” Primary Component is Fear

Words like “Nuclear” and “radiation” are frightening to most Americans and yet, we’re bombarded by both ionizing (alpha and beta particles and Gamma wave radiation) AND non-ionizing radiation (ie. Sunlight) on a daily basis.

In fact, the average background radiation in the northeast United States is appx. 1 mR/day that’s ONE mili-Rem per day! That means that we get a “total dose” of about 1 Rem every 1,000 days (a little under three years), that’s 10 Rem over thirty years and about 25 Rem over a 75 year lifespan.

The FDNY’s “Action Level” for radiation or “Rad Events” is 1 mR/hour and our hot zone is set up at 2mR/hour. For life saving purposes and in extreme emergencies only, one can take a one time dose of 25R (25 Rem). That’s a lifetime’s worth of radiation in one dose!

But adverse health effects in humans don’t show up until we reach a dose of appx. 100 Rems. At 100 Rems, we witness white blood cell numbers decrease. Later on that person may get flu-like symptoms or a headache, but generally nothing observable immediately.

The LD50 (“Lethal Dose 50” = the dose at which 50% of the people will die within 60 days, even with medical assistance) is between 500 Rem and 750 Rem.

Huge doses like that are rare outside of nuclear events, a nuclear weapon detonation, or a Chernobyl-like industrial accident.

Since the West does NOT use the primitive kind of nuclear reactor used at Chernobyl, nuclear accidents in the West are exceedingly rare!

With terrorism being a far more likely scenario than nuclear war between nuclear nations, the “Suitcase Nuke” is the most likely sort of thermonuclear event.

While military analysts say that as many as eighteen former-Soviet “Suitcase Nukes” (pictured above left) are “unaccounted for, getting a Suitcase Nuke into a harbor city and set up without detection would be extremely difficult, and would be considered a long-shot.

The most likely type of nuclear scenario is a “Dirty Bomb” (one possible example pictured above right) in which low grade medical or industrial nuclear waste is combined with conventional explosives to scatter ionizing radiation all over a target area.

The Dirty Bomb’s radiation is generally NOT deadly, in fact, it’s often of very low dosage, though the conventional explosives could still kill, main or injure people within its blast radius.

A Dirty Bomb is really a “Weapon of Mass Disruption,” instead of a “Weapon of Mass Destruction!” Dirty Bombs are designed to disrupt commerce and government, to panic people to such an extent that they become afraid to enter that area again, afraid to use the subway, etc.

The impact of a Dirty Bomb is dependent upon the ignorance of the population targeted. It’s also dependent upon many people’s tendency to believe conspiratorial accounts or merely discount government’s assurances.

For instance, if a Dirty Bomb were to go off in New York City’s subway system, and the government told people that the radiation levels were checked and are so low that they pose no danger, the bomber’s would count on many people discounting that very accurate information!

The Dirty Bomb’s primary danger is from the conventional explosives themselves. Low grade medical or industrial rad sources generally don’t yield high levels of radiation, although some basic precautions must be taken around ANY rad source.

Alpha particles generally travel only a few inches and are easily stopped by something as flimsy as a sheet of paper, while Beta particles travel up to 10 feet and are stopped by heavier clothing – an overcoat, etc. The PRIMARY danger of particle radiation is ingestion/inhalation. At minimum a dust mask should be worn to keep you from breathing in radioactive particles. Ironically enough, while Alpha particle radiation is the least hazardous type of radiation and Gamma radiation is the most hazardous type of radiation, the most dangerous Rad emitter to ingest/inhale is an Alpha emitter, as an Alpha emitter will do more damage once inside the body, delivering its full energy only a few inches to nearby vital organs.

While Gamma (wave) radiation is the most severe radiation hazard, a Gamma emitter is the least hazardous type of emitter to ingest/inhale as that does far less damage when leaving the body.

Ignorance is the most effective and destructive component of the “Dirty Bomb.” There are still too many people who confuse a Dirty Bomb (conventional explosives coupled with a usually low grade radiation source) and a thermonuclear device (like a “suitcase nuke”).

Blog of the Month May 2008 – Cynical Nation

Barry Johnson’s Cynical Nation has long been one of my all time favorite blogs. The above image is taken from a memorable entry called "Shaken Not Stirred, With a Side of Eggs."

Barry (BNJ) tends to be more Libertarian then Conservative, but holds to traditional values, gun rights, and he’s generally moderate and reasonable in his views and always diplomatic in the manner in which he communicates them.

BNJ’s pieces are a pleasure to read and his comments section can be amusing as well as rollicking at times. It’s one of the few places where actual discussions (occasionally rancorous) over the issues of the day take place.

Cynical Nation is a must read for me and I try to check in at least every other day, just to see what’s going on over there.

In a blogosphere filled with all too many boorish characters, Barry’s blog stands as a beacon to reason and thoughtfulness.

While there’s much to be said in favor of the view, “Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is not extreme” (I LIVE by that), it is nice to see someone who consistently tries to breach the ideological divide in such a reasonable way.

http://www.cynicalnation.com/

Hey! They FINALLY FOUND That Evidence!...

Sometimes I feel like Frank Drebbin (the “Police Squad” series detective, played by funnyman Leslie Neilsen), as in, “Hey Frank, here’s that evidence on the Scrapaccio case! It turns out he really was guilty after all! I’d have felt a lot better if we’d had all this BEFORE they sent him to the chair.”

Same thing here; a few months back (OK, maybe eight months back...the end of last summer), I’d posted in a comments section somewhere that “Iran was directly funding the killing of coalition troops,” and I was called for “pulling that out of...either thin air...or my anus, I can’t exactly recall which.”

I couldn’t exactly give the source for that information back then, but NOW, it’s been documented by a Left-wing British newspaper no less!

The story in the Telegraph states, in part, “Iran has secretly paid Iraqi insurgents hundreds of thousands of American dollars to kill British soldiers, according to a leaked government document obtained by The Telegraph.”

“The allegations are contained in a confidential "field report" written by a British officer who served in Basra during one of the most dangerous periods of the conflict. The report, which has never been made public, shows the full level of Iran's involvement in the insurgency for the first time.

“The document states that the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) – also known as the Mahdi Army – one of the most violent insurgent groups operating in Basra, used money from Iran to recruit and pay young unemployed men up to $300 (£150) a month to carry out attacks against the British. The findings have been passed to the highest levels in the military.”

Check it out: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2022631/Iran-%7Cpaid-Iraq-insurgents-to-kill-UK-soldiers%7C.html

At any rate, I’m really glad they found that evidence after all and that Iran/Scarpacci really was guilty...I really had my doubts for a while....(OK, not really).

For Those Who CLAIM to Support Democracy...

...Why is it primarily Conservatives who are championing the plight of Abdulkarim al-Khaiwani (pictured), one of Yemen’s foremost democracy advocates, something he’s facing the ultimate penalty for.

Leftists and America’s MSM (same thing) have barley noticed that al-Khaiwani faces death in Yemen under the tyrannical Islamofascist regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

According to supporters, al-Khaiwani was beaten and his six year old daughter was knocked unconscious during his June of 2007 arrest. While released on bail in August, Al-Khaiwani was kidnapped and tortured by thugs who threatened his life if he continued to write about Yemen's president.

One supporter notes, “Mr. al-Khaiwani is everything that is antithetical to most of the Middle East today. He is anti-dictator, and anti-theocracy. He's pro-America and pro-democracy.

“And he may be executed for it.”

Hmmmm, where are all those Western Liberals/socialists who claim to revere democracy?

A Sensible Ruling and a Victory for the Truly Disabled...

While I generally revile the litigiousness of our current society, occasionally the courts do seem to take some time out to do the right thing.

Last week a federal Appeals Court ruled in favor of a suit brought by The American Council of the Blind that charges, in effect, that since all paper money feels pretty much the same, the government is denying blind people meaningful access to the currency.

With so many disabled Americans working despite their disabilities (a very positive thing) it only stands to reason that the courts protect the interests of such people from the predators among us, people who’d cheat a blind person in a currency exchange (apparently a fair number of such people exist).

Some use electronic currency readers (pictured above), butut they can be expensive, and often have problems with the new $20 bills.

"It's slow," said Sam McClain, who manages a snack shop in a legislative office building near the Georgia Capitol. He has a currency reader but usually relies on the honesty of his customers. "Sometimes I have 10 or 15 people in here, and I can't use it."

The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were not sufficient under the Rehabilitation Act. The court stated that the government might as well argue that there's no need to make buildings accessible to wheelchairs because handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask passers-by for help.

A fair ruling, in my opinion, and one that’ll protect the blind from those who’d seek to take advantage of them.

Wa-Wa-Wa-WHAT????!!! No Guns for Violent Mental Patients in NY?

Now this really IS funny!

New York’s new Governor David Patterson is urging a gun ban for “violent mental patients.”

Apparently, despite the fact that gun licenses are incredibly difficult to get in the Empire State, violent mental patients can get all the guns they want.

How’d that happen?

Some kind of “Liberal loophole?”

The Bill would allow State officials to release a person’s mental health records to the FBI, provided they were committed to a mental health facility against their will.

We DON’T do that NOW?!

If not, why NOT???

Further, not all mental patients will be adversely impacted by this new law! The Governor noted, “It has to do with why you were committed," pointing out that only those patients with a history of violence or making threats will be precluded from owning a firearm.

Well that’s a relief. For a second there, I thought they were considering banning firearms to anyone who was committed to a mental health facility for ANY reason.

We wouldn’t want that...or would we?

Still, I can’t get over the fact that we apparently need this new legislation.

Who knew, with gun licenses and carrier permits as hard to get as they are, apparently violent former mental patients are having no problem getting them. Well, that’s Liberalism for you.

Wishing on a Very Merry SPITZMAS...

I think I’ve made clear in previous posts that New York’s former Governor and “Anti-business Crusader-in-Chief” Eliot Spitzer is a scumbag of monumental proportions, but just in case I haven’t, let me reiterate that point again – Eliot Spitzer is not only a freak, but a fake, phony, fraud!

Just as it looks like Hank Greenberg (who made AIG into the Insurance giant that it is) is considering suing Spitzer over a number of now demonstrably false charges, including a fraud charge, Mr. Spitzer used to extort money ($1.6 BILLION) and Mr. Greenberg’s severance from the Board of AIG, that has now evaporated, a former New York State Police Inspector (Gary Berwick), who served on the Governor’s security detail, hung himself Thursday, May 15th, leaving behind a crushed family and a suicide note that mentioned Spitzer’s Troopergate (using NY State Troopers to spy on political enemies) and NY State Trooper’s part in protecting Governor Spitzer during his many trysts with high-priced prostitutes as among the reasons for his suicide.

For my money, Eliot Spitzer is at least partially responsible for Gary Berwick’s suicide.
Now, I’m not much of a champagne drinker, but should Eliot Spitzer get charged and convicted (as he SHOULD) of a number of charges related to his prosecutorial misconduct (dating back to his time as NY State AG) and both Troopergate and using both taxpayer funded rooms and a taxpayer funded State Police security detail during his many illicit and illegal trysts, I’ll be among the first to pop the cork!

Eliot Spitzer bunking with “Tiny” the Biker and Jamal the gang-banger in Dannemora (a place he liked to threaten others with) would make for a very Merry Spitzmas for JMK!

Why Do Liberals Hate Our Freedoms So Much?

Among the very vital keys to “individual freedom,” defined by America’s Founders, NOT as “doing what we please,” but as “the grinding complete responsibility for ourselves,” are private property rights, a market-based economic model, the right to free expression, the right to defend your person and your property, with violence where necessary, equality before the law (the ONLY form of “equality” acknowledged in America’s Constitution), and equal access to opportunity – the right to compete against all comers on the SAME set of standards.

That last key has, as have some of the others, long been under attack by an assortment of kooks, misfits and weirdoes on the political Left.

But “equal opportunity” and true Civil Rights have had a tireless champion over the past two decades – his name is Ward Connerly.

In 2006 his MCRI (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) which barred any race or gender based preferences in either College or job admissions, demanding, as mandated by the Constitution a completely race-neutral approach to opportunity.

The MCRI passed by nearly 58% to 42% majority despite having had expensive campaigns run against it.

In 2008, Mr. Connerly targetd five more states – Oklahoma, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona and Nebraska. Oklahoma’s tough qualifying laws have temporarily eliminated that state from the 2008 mix and in Missouri, Robin Carnahan, the Democratic Secretary of State tried to rewrite the Ballot in language Connerly’s group called “hostile to its support.”

A judge has ruled in favor of Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute, but the delay has kept the initiative from making the cutoff date.

At the moment, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative and the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative are all slated for the ballot this Fall!

Ironically enough, the opponents of Ward Connerly’s race neutral Civil Rights Initiatives have had to resort to trying to keep such initiatives off the Ballot, as even in predominantly Blue (Liberal) states, like Michigan, the overwhelming majority of people seem to support true “equal opportunity,” with a race-neutral component.

For Leftists who always pretend to support “democracy,” that’s highly UNDEMOCRATIC of them!

A Hillary Pity Party at the AP

.

.
Oh, this has GOT to be the headline of the year (at least, so far) – “When Can a Woman Become President?” as the Associated Press supposedly shares the laments of women across the country “crushed” by Hillary Clinton’s loss to Barack Obama.

It’s not hard to see the alternate headline, had things broken Mrs. Clinton’s way, “When Can an African-American Become President?”

And they wonder why most Americans feel the mainstream media (MSM) is out of touch! Here's a snippet of that AP story;

If not now, when can a woman be president?


“As Clinton's prospects sink in the Democratic race, Heintzman and many women like her are feeling the poignant letdown of seeing the first woman with a strong chance at the presidency fall short.

"It would hurt my feelings a lot because I think she should be No. 1, she should be president," Heintzman said of Clinton's likely loss to Barack Obama. "Give a woman a chance to do something good."

“From young feminist activists to the grandmothers who embrace Clinton along the rope line at her campaign events, many women who voted in large numbers for the former first lady during the primaries have begun mourning the turn of events. They know their dream of electing a female president this year probably will not come to pass — and wonder when it ever will.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24685257


So, when can a woman become President?”

How about when she’s the best candidate.....in her own Party??? Hillary's not even THAT!

Hillary Clinton lost because Barack Obama, as they used to say in the Catskills, “Schneidered her.” Obama has more charisma, a better speaking style and none of Hillary’s vaunted high negatives, nor any of the Clinton legacy to overcome.

When can a woman become President?

How about when one’s able to win an election on her own merits?!

How about that?!

Since I'm already going to hell for that last post...

...I figured I'd change the subject to something less ethereal - OIL PRICES.

For those who wonder why the price of oil has skyrocketed and better yet, who to blame, I came across this article today in, of all places, USA Today - it's a preety fair piece and very accurate;

Oil prices


USA Today
Fri May 16, 2008
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080516/cm_usatoday/oilprices


So who's to blame for record high oil prices?

In public opinion polls, oil companies get fingered as Public Enemy No. 1 by one-third to one-half of respondents. The other leading culprits include the OPEC cartel, President Bush, environmentalists and speculators.

Not one of them is as culpable as their critics claim. More important, none is capable of solving the problem, making the finger-pointing a destructive distraction. Before we get to some of the things the nation could have done, and should do now, to ease the crisis, let's assess the usual suspects:

Oil companies

Blaming Big Oil for higher prices is kind of like blaming bankruptcy lawyers for home foreclosures. Without doubt, oil companies benefit when shortages drive up prices, but they don't cause the problem, nor do they gain much leverage to increase profit margins when prices rise.

Take ExxonMobil, for instance. Last year, the world's largest petroleum company made an eye-popping $41 billion in profits. That's serious money, but it's a profit margin of about 10% on sales, a middle-of-the road level for major corporations. It's also the same margin ExxonMobil had when oil was cheap. In 2003, it made $21.5 billion on $213 billion in sales. Repeated federal investigations have shown no evidence of oil company conspiracies to drive up prices.

Oil producing nations

Producing nations can affect prices by limiting production. But that's a fact the United States can't do much about, other than trying to exert diplomatic pressure, as Bush will attempt to do on his visit today to Saudi Arabia. The United States can't really blame foreign countries for deciding how much of their oil to sell.

What's more, the fact that the Saudis and others aren't pumping more oil already — to prevent their customers from falling into recession or deter them from developing alternative energy sources — suggests they might not have a lot of excess capacity, a theory put forth years ago by people who predicted the current price run-up to near-universal skepticism. Further, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the demon behind the first oil crisis three decades ago, no longer has such control. It now pumps only about 40% of the world's petroleum.

Speculators

Oil traders are without doubt adding some cost to the price of oil. Some analysts say it's $10 a barrel. Some say more. Speculation, however, is a normal byproduct of tight supplies and actual or potential turmoil in oil-producing nations.

Environmentalists

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could produce about 600,000 barrels of oil per day. Although it's worth doing as a way to increase domestic supply, it's no panacea. It would still increase world oil production by only a fraction of 1%. Opposition to drilling there, as well as in offshore sites currently under moratorium, affects prices only at the margins.

Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

To judge by the debate in Congress, you'd think that the diversion of 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the Louisiana salt domes is a major reason behind the price surge. This week, in a laughable piece of political sleight of hand, the House voted 385-25 and the Senate voted 97-1 to suspend deposits into the reserve. Considering that daily world demand is about 84 million barrels, suspending SPR purchases increases the world's oil supply by less than one-tenth of 1%.

As gratifying as it is to point fingers elsewhere, the mirror is the main place to look for the reasons that oil prices are hovering around $125 a barrel. The nation decided to let the laws of supply and demand work. It was rewarded with two decades of low prices that led to larger cars, bigger homes and longer commutes. Meanwhile, with the Cold War's end, Third World countries suddenly saw the benefits of capitalism, fueling robust growth in places such as China and India. As in the West, oil fuels that growth, first for industry, then for consumers who, naturally enough, use rising incomes to buy cars. That trend more than anything else is behind rising prices. And it has just begun.

A keep-energy-cheap approach would have worked if supplies were unlimited and prices didn't tend to lurch forward, as in the 1970s and now, rather than to rise gradually.

An alternative would have been energy policies that discouraged consumption with gas taxes and subsidized alternative sources. But doing this would have required voters to be willing to accept short-term pain for long-term gain. It would have required leadership, vision and political courage — the very same qualities needed now to stave off menacing crises in health care and Social Security.

Ominously for the nation, those characteristics seem in even shorter supply than oil.

OK, the article blames all of us, and that's largely true, although ALL of the aforementioned players play some role. Still, it's us, as consumers, who produce the demand.

The Trinity of Hell

OK, I don't know what to make of all this, EXCEPT that (1) it's one of the f*cking FUNNIEST things I've ever seen on the internet and (2) it makes me kinda glad I gave up organized religion long ago. Of course, I'm hoping he DOESN'T do my bio next. Still, "Barack and Jerremiah are gay lovers!!!!"....and it's all true, check it out!

Homosexuality is BACK...as a Political Issue!!!

Just as California’s High Court sent the issue of gay Marriage in CA back to the people, promising yet another election year referendum on the topic, Crystal Dixon (pictured), the VP of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, was fired for expressing her own private views (that the gay rights movement is not equivalent to the black Civil Rights movement) in the Toledo Free Press!

Crystal Dixon told a group of supporters yesterday her constitutional rights were violated when she was fired from the University of Toledo for writing a column that said people who choose to be homosexual are not civil rights victims because they can choose not to be gay and expressed her religious beliefs that there are consequences to those who violate God's divine order.

Ms. Dixon said she had a divine mandate to write the column, "Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective," for the Toledo Free Press as a private citizen and that she should not have been fired from her position as associate vice president for human resources at UT because of it.

"Whether you agree with me or not is really not the issue," she said. "The real issue is that I, like every citizen in the United States, have a First Amendment right to exercise free speech and to express my religion.

"I did so as a private citizen and I have been fired by a university that I have loved, served, and supported for many years."

Ms. Dixon's column appeared April 18 on the Toledo Free Press' online edition. It was written in opposition to a column written by Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller that said Ohio lags in gay rights.

She was placed on paid administrative leave the same day.Ms. Dixon wrote that people who choose to be homosexual are not civil rights victims because they can choose not to be gay and expressed her religious beliefs that there are consequences to those who violate God's divine order.

According to the Toledo Blade, “Her column was followed by one written by UT President Lloyd Jacobs on May 2 that distanced her opinions from the university, stating that among the UT's "core values" are diversity, integrity, and teamwork.

“A letter from Dr. Jacobs to Ms. Dixon said her public position was in direct contradiction with university values and told her that her position "calls into question your continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in your capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk. The result is a loss of confidence in you as an administrator."

Ms. Dixon cited her 25-year career in human resources in which she has hired and recommended the hiring of both homosexual and heterosexual people based on their qualifications.”

For her part, Ms. Dixon noted, "To say that I cannot have a personal opinion regarding the practice of some humans and not be effective in my job as a human resources leader is preposterous given my track record for the past 25 years."

Matt Lockwood, a UT spokesman, said yesterday the university welcomes dissent and input from others and the exchange of ideas, but her public expressions called into question her ability to do the functions of her job.

"Certain jobs within a public institution have restrictions on what those people in those jobs can express," he said.

The issue surrounding Ms. Dixon's termination has gained national attention, including mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show, the Family Research Council's Web site, and a number of Web sites and blogs with a focus on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Michelle Stecker, interim executive director of EqualityToledo, said she believes it's such a charged issue because Ms. Dixon wrote what she did while working in human resources at a public institution that promotes diversity.

"She's the one who made that choice to use this type of inflammatory language against the LGBT community," Ms. Stecker said. "If she was an administrator of the chemistry department, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Ms. Stecker also said she's glad Dr. Jacobs had the courage to take decisive action to support diversity at UT.

Chris Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the focus should be on Ms. Dixon's job performance, and not what she said with her First Amendment right to speech.

"It would seem perfectly fair and logical for the university to say if this is what you believe, we have to look at your job performance," she said, later adding, "look at their actions, not their words. People should be punished for their actions."

Ms. Dixon's attorney Tom Sobecki, who is working with the Thomas Moore Law Center in Ann Arbor on her case, said they are investigating legal action, including the violation of her First Amendment right as well as religious and racial discrimination. Nothing was filed as of yesterday.

If nothing else, Crystal Dixon’s case seems to be a blatant violation of the basic concept of diversity – IDEOLOGICAL diversity, which is of paramount importance.

It should be remembered that Republicans have benefited from Ballot Referendums on Gay Marriage, ILLEGAL immigration and Eminent Domain over the past few cycles. Those issues bring Conservatives to the Polls and they tended to vote Republican, lately they’ve been able to vote for Blue Dog Democrats.

For Liberals that trend has amounted to a “pick your poison,” faced with either a permanent Republican majority OR ceding a large part of the Democratic Party to Conservatives!

Joint Housing Deal Almost Done???

A Housing “Bail Out” Bill written by Barney Frank and forged between Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn) seems close to getting passed, though President Bush has wisely said he’d veto any measure that exposes taxpayers to potential losses. The White House has called a similar House plan a “burdensome bailout.”

The Senate package would tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that finance mortgages. It would also allow the Federal Housing Administration to back up to $300 billion in new loans for homeowners facing foreclosure, who would otherwise be considered too financially risky to get a fixed-rate, government-insured loan.

And under the tentative agreement with Republicans, a $600 million-per-year affordable housing fund financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be partially diverted to cover the projected $1.7 billion cost of the FHA mortgage rescue plan.

I doubt most taxpayers were even aware that the government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had set aside $600 MILLION/year for “affordable” (read very low income) housing.

But Liberal Democrats are reluctant to go along with tapping money designed to help poor people afford housing to pay for the anti-foreclosure program.

"It's a big problem for Democrats, because we've all been advocating an affordable housing fund for years now," said a senior aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks on the measure were ongoing. "We don't want that money to go to the foreclosure (plan). We need money for both."

Affordable housing advocacy groups unleashed a barrage of telephone calls and e-mails on senators Thursday to protest the emerging agreement.

A major sticking point has been how to insulate taxpayers from risk should homeowners who got government help default on their new mortgages.

President Bush, who has threatened to veto a similar House-passed bill, cites exposing taxpayers to potential losses as a top concern. The White House calls the plan a burdensome bailout.

Under the proposed FHA program, borrowers would have to show they could afford the new loans, while mortgage holders would have to agree to take a substantial loss on the existing loan in exchange for avoiding a costly foreclosure. The FHA would share at least half of any proceeds if the homeowner refinanced again or profited from selling the home.

The Senate developments came as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services chairman who wrote the House bill, signaled that his hopes for a broad housing agreement with the White House were fading.

"I won't tell you I'm optimistic, but I think there's a reasonable chance," Frank told reporters after addressing a Realtors' conference. "We're still trying to keep working together."

The idiotic “stimulus package” with its “tax rebates” to those already the least taxed among us (the top 20% of income earners, who already pay over 80% of all income taxes have been excluded) is a foolish idea rooted in the failed policies of Keynesianism. We have no lack of demand for products, we have a lack of jobs creation – a Capital Gains tax and Corporate tax rate cut would’ve better served that particular problem.

Adding an ill-conceived Housing bail out to lenders and borrowers who either made bad loans or took out loans they couldn’t afford is as foolish as any plan that rewards profligacy and sloth over industry and productivity.

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

WoW! Over 800 scientists signed onto the Manhattan Declaration (in its entirety below). Bet you didn’t see that in the NY Times, or on ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC!

We seem to be at an impasse here, with the Luddite and anti-Capitalist forces claiming “only government scientists can be believed, as private sector scientists get their funding from Capitalist, pro-Big Energy sources,” while Capitalists and anti-global warming hysteria folks claim, “Only private sector scientists can be trusted, as government-backed scientists get their funding through government grants, and thus are shills for the pro-public and anti-private sector concerns.”

Enjoy:

"Global warming is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ?consensus? among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individualcitizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend;

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/manhattan_declaration.html

Barry Bonds Charged With Fourteen New Felony Counts

Federal prosecutors have filed a new indictment against Barry Bonds, charging the home run king with 14 counts of lying to a grand jury and one count of obstruction when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds was originally charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice last Nov. 15, but on February 29th, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered prosecutors to rework the indictment so that each charge alleged only one lie rather than lumping several alleged falsehoods into single counts.

The new indictment doesn't add any new alleged falsehoods.

The case against Bonds is still built on whether he lied when he told the grand jury that his personal trainer Greg Anderson never supplied him with steroids and human growth hormone.

Can a Roger Clemens indictment be far behind?

The sad thing about all this is that it’s all SHOW no GO.

In the seventies ballplayers used amphetamines, and MLB juiced the ball, moved in the fences and lowered the pitcher’s mound to increase run production.

Starting in the 1980s, “designer steroids” and HgH came into vogue and both MLB and its fans winked and nodded at player’s use as both Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa battled it out for the single-season home record obviously fueled on by performance enhancing drugs.

But since then, MLB’s had a major image problem, and that image problem grew worse, much worse, when the surly misanthropic Bonds vaulted past Ruth and eventually Hank Aaron to wrest MLB’s career home run record.

Now MLB is trying to USE Congress to convince the American people that “only 5% of the players, at most, used performance enhancing drugs over the previous decade.”

THAT is utter nonsense.

The FACT is that performance enhancers WORK, just check Bonds and Clemens out!

Other players know that and they know that the regimen these guys were on weren’t near the mega-doses that, say, WWF wrestler’s use.

Bottom-line MLB wants to quiet down the fan base with a “Congressional Seal of Approval” and move on, even if current future players continue to use better and better drugs with better masking agents.

The theme going forward seems to be, “just don’t make it too obvious.”

Bob Barr Joins the 2008 Race

There are two ways of looking at Bob Barr’s accepting the Libertarian Party’s nomination to run for President, the first is that IF Bob Barr can successfully swing enough Conservative voters to the LP column, Barack Obama (the presumptive Democratic nominee) will cruise to an easy victory, the second is that Bob Barr will not garner any more votes than any other LP candidate normally does and will have pretty much no impact, especially considering the fact that most voters KNOW that voting for a “Third Party” candidate tends to benefit the candidate that voter likes least.

Of course, there IS a third way of looking at the Bob Barr candidacy and that is from an investor’s perspective.

We’ve had a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity largely due to our turning away from the “Big Government” Keynesian policies of the late 1960s and 1970s and embracing more market-based Supply-Side policies.

Wary investors are “shorting the American psche” right now. That is, investors are seeing that many Americans have come to take the prosperity that Supply Side policies have delivered for granted and are entering a cycle where they are growing less wary of big government and more demanding of governmental solutions.

Both Houses of Congress are now in the hands of Democrats. Liberal Keynesians now run the Democratic Party. Electing a John McCain may very well NOT do much, if anything to stop the spread of Keynesian policies...and the inevitable economic malaise that comes along with them.

So why not elect the most Liberal Democrat to preside over such a disaster?

Seriously, if we’re going to have a real economic downturn, isn’t it best to saddle a Liberal administration, with a largely Liberal Congress with that disaster?

But won’t the Liberal Keynesians just claim that it’s “the costs of the war” and other “inherited problems” that led to the downturn?

So what?

That never works. It didn’t work for G W Bush and he inherited a recession that began with the NADAQ implosion in the Spring of 2000...AND he inherited a radicalized Muslim menace that had been ignored over the previous decade...AND he inherited a slew of business scandals (Tyco, Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc) that broke in the summer of 2002.

When the people are hurting, they don’t look for nuance. When the economy tanks, the people running government AT THAT TIME take the blame...and the corresponding fall.

Well, shouldn’t people like yourself be fair about things? After all, YOU did continuously make the point over the past seven years that the current administration inherited many of those problems, you wouldn’t do the same going forward?

Of course, I’m going to be fair. BUT, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have NOT brought on any major economic dislocation and they HAD to be fought, as radicalized Islam NEEDED to be confronted!

The worst of the housing bubble will have occurred a full six months prior to the next administration’s taking office, whereas the NASDAQ collapse was in full effect, and just began taking down the DOW as the Bush administration took office.

I’m sorry, but if there’s going to be any major economic dislocation going forward it’s going to be BECAUSE of the Liberal Keynesians allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset in 2009 and 2010, and their increasing government spending as tax revenues contract, as more higher income earners defer more of their incomes in various tax deferred vehicles.

In other words, IF there is going to be a major economic dislocation post-2009, it’ll be due virtually entirely to Keynesian policies and it will be incumbent upon fair-minded people to place the blame squarely where it belongs – on those failed Keynesian policies!

So, from an investor’s standpoint, (1) money can be made from “shorting” the American economy, just as surely as “buying” it and (2) if we are going to be saddled with Keynesian policies anyway, why not have a true Keynesian (like an Obama) in the WH when they fail and then heap all the scorn and blame on him and his fellow Liberal Democrats?

Why not, indeed?

In many ways, the investors viewpoint is the clearest. IF we are going to get a switch to a more Keynesian styled approach, then why have a John McCain in the WH to muddy the water and allow the media to erroneously blame the “Conservative” (even though he’s not) John McCain?

With a Barack Obama, already over-hyped and over-promising at the helm, and with both investors taking their money OUT of the market AND higher income earners deferring more of their income in tax deferred vehicles, he’ll be faced with both DECREASING job creation and DECREASING tax revenues, a veritable “double whammy.” Under those conditions, an already fragile economy (as the one we have now and will have through the rest of the year, even as job creation increases, though home foreclosures reach their peak in July 2008) may not be able to avoid being plunged into a severe downturn.

Under that scenario, midway through Obama’s first term, we would witness Carter-styled Stagflation, with near double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates and double digit inflation. At that point even the MSM would bail on the Liberals they once helped elect. THAT would spell doom for Keynesianism and for the Liberal Democrats who advanced it, perhaps opening up the Democratic Party for a takeover by the Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats.

Could investors be insuring a Keynesian winner in 2008?

Wouldn’t It Be IRONIC???

.
.

If Blue Dog Democrats wound up saving the day for Conservatism!

I’ve long said, “The South is gonna rise again,” meaning precisely that it’d be the Southern Conservative Democrats who’d one day take over and bring the Democratic Party back to relevancy. That “rise” certainly appears to be within sight now.

With the mid-term election of 2006, “Blue Dog” or Conservative Democrats, most from down South or out West, became a force within the Democratic party.

Since that election, nearly a quarter of the Congressional Democrats are now Blue Dog Democrats!

The May 3rd special election in Louisiana to fill the seat vacated by Republican Richard Baker, brought Don Cazayoux (pictured above), yet ANOTHER pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-border enforcement “Blue Dog” Democrat into the mix!

In an upcoming battle (Tuesday May 13, 2008) in Mississippi’s First Congressional District, ANOTHER “Blue Dog” Democrat, Travis Childers may beat Republican challenger Greg Davis.

But the question the media asks is, “But how much influence can conservative Southerners such as Cazayoux really have on a House leadership headed by liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” hoping the answer is “very little.”

But the facts indicate otherwise. As the size of the Conservative Democratic contingent grows, so does their influence within that Party!

As with the Republican Conservatives, we will have to take the good with the bad. Don Cazayoux crows about his supporting “the strongest anti-abortion Bill in the country,” and insists that the Blue Dogs are intent on overturning Roe v Wade, and not merely “tinkering around the edges, as the Republicans did.”

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Democrats wind up responsible for overturning Roe?

Mind you, as I’ve said many times, I support abortion on demand UNTIL such time as that fetus/child can survive outside the womb, because a parent who does not want to be a parent, is by definition, an “unfit parent,” at least at that time.

Add to that, the fact that slightly over 40% of the abortions carried out in America are among the 12% of the population that is indigent and you can see that Roe has had a somewhat eugenic impact upon the country, as noted by Stephen Levitt (author of Freakonomics). Still, Roe is "bad law," just as was the fifty state ban on Capital Punishment that was overturned shortly after it passed. Issues like abortion and Capital Punishment should be decided at the State level.

Beyond that, these “Blue Dog” Democrats seem poised to make fiscal accountability a lynch pin of their agenda.

“The biggest effect is that this is going to strengthen the hand of the Blue Dogs as far as calling for fiscal responsibility. You are going to have more guys who have come from an environment where they’ve had to live within their means, and who made pledges back home that we’ve got to get back to living within our means.”

“We’ve already had a tremendous impact,” said another Blue Dog Democrat, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee. “The Democratic caucus for the first time established paygo (pay-as-you-go) policies. Those of us who agree with paygo will constantly be a thorn in the side of any leadership who wants to change that or ignore it.”

THIS, as they say, is going to be GOOD!

A Strange Double Standard...

Despite the very obvious fact that about forty IQ points separated Barry Goldwater from LBJ (in Barry Goldwater’s favor), Goldwater was portrayed, by Leftist dupes, as a “Right-wing stooge.”

Jerry Ford was a “bumbling dufus,” in their view, while the bumbling and disastrous Jimmy Carter was “brilliant.” Likewise, Ronald Reagan was a “fool” in the eyes of the Left, while the likes of Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis were stellar intellects.

Yes, the Left likes to flatter itself.

While George Bush Sr., wasn’t seen as all that dumb (he was also pretty socially Liberal), his VP Dan Quayle became the poster boy for “dumb politicians,” specifically “dumb non-Leftist politicians,” for his halting speaking style and his famous faux pas of erroneously adding an “e” to potato, in correcting a grade schooler in a spelling bee in Trenton, NJ back in 1992.

Today the Left is ga-ga over Barack Obama, a “brilliant Harvard educated, politico from Chicago,” whom the Left sees as the best of hope of rescuing America from the intellectual morass of the Presidency of a man they deride as “Chimp.”

But what happens when that bubble is burst?

What happens when someone like Barack Obama makes a gaff far worse than merely adding an “e” to potato, a gaff like matter-of-factly stating that he’s been to 57 states, with “one more to go.”

I can understand a candidate not knowing the name of the new PM of Pakistan (Yousaf Raza Gilani), but not knowing how many states are in the United States of America?! Yikes! Most fourth graders know THAT!

No wonder Barack Obama doesn’t like wearing a flag pin on his lapel, it seems he knows so little about this country!

So what does the Left do?

If you guessed, “Ignore it,” you’re 100% right!

Still, this has been all over the internet, and it IS pretty amusing!....albeit in a very dumb kind of way.

The fact is that most politicians aren’t really dumb. Both Dan Quayle and Barack Obama are lawyers. Both apparently passed the Bar Exam in at least one state, and perhaps more. None of these guys are “dumb” by any stretch of the imagination.

Some of them ARE however disconnected from what most regular Americans would consider the basic realities of everyday life. These are men as spoiled and pampered as any Big League athlete, only they lack the requisite athletic skills that earned that spoiling and pampering today’s pro athletes get.

A pretty sweet deal huh?

Who’d have thought that you didn’t have to throw 100 mph or hit a baseball a country mile, or be able to knock 250 pound running-backs through brick walls to get the perks that pro-athletes get?

Here are some of the sited that have run with this already;

Violence Worker:

http://www.violenceworker.com/my_weblog/2008/05/barack-obama--.html

Ace of Spades HQ:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/262095.php#262095

Wake Up Black America:

http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-barack-obama-smarter-then-5th-grader.html

And of course, the YouTube video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Finally SOME Common Sense on Education

.
.

Arizone State Rep. Russell Pearce is quickly becoming one of my new heroes! He’s stepped to the plate to take a stand AGAINST the new political correctness that is undermining American education at every turn.

Under Rep. Pearce’s plan Arizona public schools would be barred from any teachings that run counter to democracy or Western civilization under a proposal endorsed last month by a legislative panel.Additionally, the measure would prohibit students of the state's universities and community colleges from forming groups based in whole or part on the race of their members, such as the Black Business Students Association at Arizona State University or Native Americans United at Northern Arizona University. Those groups would be forbidden from operating on campus.

Is this guy GREAT or what?!

Pearce, a Mesa Republican, said his target isn't diversity instruction, but schools that use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate students in what he characterized as anti-American or seditious thinking. The measure is at least partially a response to a controversy surrounding an ethnic-studies program in the Tucson Unified School District, which critics have said is unpatriotic and teaches revolution.

Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said he hopes the measure helps return cultural studies in the state's schools to a "melting pot" model."

This bill basically says, 'You're here. Adopt American values,' " said Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican. "If you want a different culture, then fine, go back to that culture."

Amen to that!

The fact is, "Multi-culturalism" advances ethnic resentments and segregation. It has a corrossive impact on any multi-ethnic society.

Some links:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0417unamerican0417.html#


http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/51961.php


http://www.azconservative.org/Pearce_Domestic_Terrorism.htm


And Russell Pearce’s own website is pretty fair reading as well:

http://mesa18.com/candidates/russell_pearce.htm


Rep Pearce has become a lightening rod for the Open Borders advocates, who’ve taken to smearing him, every chance they get.

Thanks to Jere and Heidianne for reminding me to post a few pertinent links!

Much appreciated!!!

A Sad Day for America’s Children

On October 1st, 1997, 10 year old Jeffrey Curley (pictured) was raped and murdered by two men (Salvatore Sicari, and Jaynes, of Brockton).

That led, not only to the two men’s conviction on rape and murder charges, but to a Civil Case against NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a pro-pedarist organization).

According to the Boston Globe, “Lawyers for Robert and Barbara Curley filed papers Tuesday in US District Court in Boston ending their wrongful death and civil rights lawsuit against the North American Man/Boy Love Association and 18 reputed members after almost eight years of litigation.

“Robert Curley said his lawyer recently told him that the plaintiffs had only one witness prepared to testify that the association somehow spurred Charles Jaynes, one of the boy's convicted killers, to commit rape and murder on Oct. 1, 1997. A judge ruled that the witness was not competent to testify, Curley said.

"That was the only link we were counting on," said Curley, a 51-year-old mechanic at the Cambridge Fire Department. "When they ruled that out, that was the end of the line."

Under the pretenses of promising Curley a new bike, the two men lured ten year old Jeffrey into their car. When Charles Jaynes made sexual advances toward the boy, Jeffrey fought back in a struggle that authorities claim lasted around 20 minutes in the back seat of the car. Jaynes finally subdued and smothered Curley, stuffing a gasoline-soaked rag into his face.

The child's body was sexually assaulted in Jaynes's apartment in Manchester, N.H., before he and Sicari placed their victim in a 50-gallon plastic container, filed it with lime and concrete, and dumped it in a river in southern Maine.

Both men were convicted of murder charges and are serving life sentences.

The First Amendment only protects an individual or entity from government censure, it does not necessarily protect one from the reactions of others. Many controversial speakers have been fired for making controversial remarks by corporations rightfully concerned about their bottom-lines.

Many legal reformers have advanced the view that the criminal and civil protections the law provides can be removed due to “special circumstance.” That is, those in the commission of a felony can have their legal standing placed in a sort of limbo, at least during that act, so that, in effect, a robber caught breaking and entering into a home and shot and paralyzed by the homeowner, would be unable to sue the homeowner civilly and see the state unable to charge that homeowner with ANY crime, even if that homeowner had violated other laws during that act.

The same standard could easily be applied to such groups. For instance, so long as NAMBLA was distributing information about how best to commit a crime (pedophilia), they would NOT enjoy any legal protections. That is, they could not sue anyone for committing any damages against them, while the state could not bring criminal charges against anyone who committed a crime against that organization while it was engaged in distributing pro-pedophilia information.

Yes, THAT would indeed be a better world. A far better world for the Jeffrey Curley's of this world!

Ciao Vito!

Vito Fossella's political career, as a six term Republican Congressman from Staten Island, is rapidly circling the drain right now. Maybe the GOP is heeding investors and tanking the coming election to allow for a "Carter Redux?"

Not only was he arrested for DUI last week in Virginia, with a BAL of nearly twice the legal limit, he's now admitted to fathering a "love child" with a Virginia woman...the "sick child" he told Virginia cops he was going to visit.

Apparently, he was bailed out of jail by his mistress, Laura Fay!

In a statement issued via email today, he said, "My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry."

He'll probably be even sorrier when he finds out that his gummah's affections are almost certainly intrinsically linked to his political status. That's a tough break.

Fossella, who is married, is the only Republican member of Congress who represents New York City. His congressional district includes parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island. He won re-election to a sixth term in 2006 with 57 percent of the vote.

This November will almost certainly be a far more interesting one, as a seat that's been in Republican hands since Susan Molinari was elected to it nearly two decades ago (1989). Being excoriated in the local newspapers as "Vino Fossella," is one thing, fathering an illegitimate child....well, that brings this thing to a whole new level!

As they say in the Mob movies, "Ciao Vito."