Ethanol or Tequila?

Wow.

The ridiculous push for Ethanol has even driven Mexican Agave farmers to burn off their tequila-producing agave land and plant it with corn so they can cash in on the ethanol craze.

Here's a little insight into the ethanol hoax, reprinted without any permission or anything from The American Enterprise Online:

The most perverse aspect of subsidized ethanol production was uncovered by David Pimentel. He calculates that it actually consumes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself provides. While a 2002 report from the Department of Agriculture claims that increased corn yields have converted ethanol from a net energy waste to a net energy gain, Pimentel’s 2003 study maintains that ethanol uses 29 percent more energy than it creates due to tractor fuel, irrigation pumps, and other inputs. According to Pimentel, 99,119 BTUs of energy are expended to create the 77,000 BTUs in a gallon of ethanol. In other words, the government is keeping farmers busy by paying them to waste energy.

Of course, the other fun thing is that our government (read: Senators in corn-producing states) has decided to subsidize the corn farmers, since if the "playing field were level" (hey, wait - aren't liberals always bitching about uneven playing fields?) the cost of growing corn would make ethanol more expensive than gasoline. So now Archer-Daniels-Midland gets something about $400 Million a year from the government to grow corn in South Dakota and Iowa (hmm, they have primaries in Iowa, don't they?). Land that should be left alone as forest or meadow is now being stripped and fertilized for corn crops, which adds tons of nitrate contamination (another baddie according to all the greenies!) to groundwater. And burning ethanol, far from being "cleaner" than petrol actually adds more crap to the air, water, and soil when you factor in the fertilizing, farming equipment, irrigation, production and the ethanol exhaust itself.
And don't forget, many states have mandated ethanol content in their gas (and therefore mandated subsidies) - which, if eliminated, would actually help the environment, not hurt it.

But, hey. Don't let facts get in the way of feel-good greenspeak! Corn is renewable! Who cares how much it costs to produce! Who cares if it artificially drives the cost of feed corn and food corn (that'd be corn for animals and people to eat, respectively) through the roof! The mamacitas in Mexico aren't going to be able to afford to make tortillas! But who cares! Poverty and starvation in Mexico ain't our problem, we have to quit burning oil!

Jeez. Does it ever end? Here is a good article with more scholarly presentation than my venting.

Fat Lazy Americans, Indeed!

And I thought I was a couch potato. Jeez.

nicked from LiveJournal

Insect Slapstick

Pretty cool. Apparently it is a Samsung commercial for very thin phones...

Three Amigos Trivia

After viewing the comedy classic "The Three Amigos" this weekend, I was digging around for information on one of the kids in the movie ("...can I have your watch when you are dead?"). He looks familiar, like he may be "someone" now. Anyway, I couldn't find anything. But I did see that Sam Kinison actually had a cameo role but it got cut. Wikipedia says:

He had a supporting role as a Mexican bandit in the 1986 movie ¡Three Amigos!, but his scene was cut. Kinison believed this was due to Chevy Chase being jealous of how Kinison stole several scenes in Back to School.

I also wonder, knowing Sam's "colorful" vocabulary, if his scene might have garnered the film an "R" rating instead of the more socially acceptable "PG-13". Incidentally, the descripion of PG-13 might read: "Some material may not be suitable for viewers under 13, or your Baptist Singles Department gathering". Is there a movie made for grown-ups that is actually funny without resorting to locker-room humor? I wonder...

Hate Crime Update

Sometimes you have to wonder at the blatant pandering of our wonderful elected officials. I mentioned HR 1592 in a previous post, and the House actually passed it. Unbelievable.
Thankfully, President Bush has pledged to veto it (this would only be his third or fourth, I believe).
In an email newsletter, Congressman Ron Paul summed up the unconstitutionality (hey, don't let that old piece of paper get in the way of pandering to gays and minorities! We got votes to buy!) of the resolution, and it bears reading:

May 7, 2007

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

As much as I think Bush has messed up, he gets some things right. This is definitely one of them. Texans may recall that he wouldn't sign hate crime legislation into law in this great state - and the NAACP created one of the most disgusting, polarizing, divisive, race-baiting commercials ever to air on the "public airwaves" (but Imus had to lose his job... I digress). They ran "re-enactment" video of the James Byrd dragging incident while his daughter provided the voiceover: "(I)t was like my father was killed all over again." because Governor Bush wouldn't sign the hate crime bill. Hmmm. Two of the three perpetrators got the death penalty and the third got life in prison. What more is there? You get killed "extra good" if it's a hate crime? Besides, I thought the NAACP was against the death penalty because too many blacks get death sentences. Oh wait... if it's white guys, they're all for it (and then some!), apparently.

For Noelle

Cibo Matto - "Sugar Water" video



I was reminded of this while watching Bajo Fondo's "Perfume" video over at Noelle's blog. Lots of split/multiple screen stuff!

How is This Not "Hate Speech"?

Well, we can all rest easier now. Rage Against The Machine has reunited. Lead singer Zack de la Rocha apparently missed the Imus debacle:

Stomping, shouting into his microphone, grabbing his curly hair and inciting the audience to "keep fighting," de la Rocha powered through songs ranging from the bass heavy "Bulls on Parade" to the anthem "Killing in the Name."

He also railed against the war in Iraq and likened Bush administration officials to Nazi war criminals.

"This current administration is no exception. They should be tried and hung and shot," he said.

So, if you make an idiotic comment about some basketball players, you pay with your career. If you compare your President and his administration to Nazis, then call for their death... what, you're some kind of visionary? A hero? A role model?

If he had said it "on the public airwaves", would that been a problem? That's the excuse for the "Imus outrage". Somehow, I doubt it. After all, why would we care what a rapper/singer says when we let sitting members of Congress compare the administration and even our troops to Nazis & Commmunists and call them (in the case of the military) terrorists (Kerry) and cold-blooded murderers (Murtha). We obviously have higher expectations of our shock-jocks than our elected officials.

By the way, keep your ears open for the latest "if we repeat it often enough, people will believe it's official" term: "Hate Speech". It's been used somewhat in the past, but there's going to be a full-court press to shove it into the American lexicon as a catch-phrase, hopefully leading to sweeping unconstitutional legislation violating the 1st amendment. Just like "Separation of Church and State", or "Hate Crimes", it will be in so many sound bites that people will start parroting "Hey, that's hate speech" and assume that somehow it's illegal. Then will come the laws. Check out HR 1592. It's coming.

Of course, "hate speech" will only refer to white male conservatives saying things that any non-white, non-male, or non-conservative finds unpleasant. Calling the President a Nazi is Free Speech, saying he and his administration should be shot is Free Speech... but asking to be seated with English-speaking students in your elementary school is Hate Speech. See the difference?

Hey kids, open wide! Here comes another heapin' fork full of Double Standard Pie! Yum!

Stick Control!! Stick Control!

I just read that in Brooklyn, an 12-year-old boy was "impaled in the head" with a stick by an 11-yr-old boy. The victim is clinging to life in the hospital. This is a blatant indictment of our "stick culture" and raises serious social questions:
1. How was the male child able to get his hands on a stick?
2. Why have we made it so easy to acquire sticks?
3. Was this not a stick-free zone?

Clearly, by restricting access to sticks, we could avoid such ruthless attacks. Had it not been so easy for this troubled pre-teen (surely we'll soon find that this 11-yr-old was "teased" and likely "pushed down" by others in his short life) to get a stick, perhaps he would have "used his words", not only for the "give me your change" part of the attack, but also the last part of the confrontation after the victim refused.

Why didn't the victim simply quickly surrender?

According to Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages at the Los Angeles Times, quickly responding to the assailant's requests (surrendering) would have been the thing to do, as he did when mugged at gunpoint recently.

Mr. Plate also points out that in his opinion, the "NRA mantra" of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is flat out wrong. He asserts that the people at VATech were, in fact, killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22 caliber handgun.

So, by Mr. Plate's esteemed logic, the 12-yr-old boy has been attacked by a STICK. Not a crazy 11-year-old. People don't impale people in the head, sticks impale people in the head.

I say then it is high time we get sticks off of our streets. Perhaps law enforcement may be permitted to carry sticks. If Teddy Roosevelt were still alive, he might be afforded a stick, although probably not a big one, as those are scary and can only be meant for one thing: Impaling someone in the head.

No one needs to have a stick. We certainly don't need to allow for people to keep a stick on them in a public place. It's also time to go after the stick manufacturers. This would include the Louisville Slugger people, and, well... trees. If we could remove those menaces to society, we need never read such a tragic tale again.

Oh, and Mr. Plate... I'll humor you for a moment and remove all blame from the psycopath who loaded, pointed, and pulled the trigger... and place the blame on the hardware. However, even in your idiotic assertion, you should be condemning the BULLETS, which actually entered the bodies of the victims, causing the wounds that in 33 cases lead to death. Even in your twisted logic, Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. If you're going to misplace your anger, at least misplace it properly.

Random

So, for some reason I haven't been feeling real well lately. I think if this were 18th century England it might be described as "a general malaise".

I'm finishing up a book called "This Beautiful Mess" (My friend Camille said "Oh, is it your biography?" - cracked me up!) by Rick McKinley. The subtitle is "Practicing the Presence of the Kingdom of God". It's the kind of book that bears a second read and some serious study. Go get it.

Someone smashed the window of an SUV two cars away from mine at the apartment complex. Don't know whose it was. Don't know if it was an attempted theft of stuff inside the vehicle or the vehicle itself. Makes me a little more paranoid, yet glad I drive a cheap car.

When I moved into this apartment complex, I think I was about the youngest person here. That's changing, however, not just because I'm getting older, but there is a different 'element' starting to move in. A little more hanging out in the parking lot, a lot more extremely loud stereos in cars, more "thugwear", more skateboards, etc. More mess in the laundry rooms. More noise late at night. Great.

I haven't really talked to anyone in almost two weeks. What's up with that? I mean, I still speak to people at work, when I'm amongst people, and all... but haven't really initiated a conversation with anyone. I think it's part of the 'general malaise'.

Why does everything have a ton of sugar in it? There's ONE cereal that isn't loaded with sugar -- shredded wheat. Great. Tasty. Need a snack in the middle of the afternoon? Sugar. Starbucks has all of these convenience store items, "frappucino", "double shot"... why don't they make a sugar-free or unsweetened version?

Sleep now.

We're Raising a Nation of Babies

In all of the ridiculous coverage of the Virginia Tech murders, I have wondered just how this guy roamed up and down the halls, even RETURNING to classrooms he previously entered and was able to shoot so many people. Is the 76-year old Liviu Librescu the only person there who thought to try to do something about it? We have emasculated our boys, telling them that "violence is never the answer", "use your words", "use your inside voice", "here is some medicine called Ritalin to make you feel better", "fighting is wrong - you can always walk away", ad nauseum. Where was the guy who says "enough" and whips a backpack full of college textbooks at this psychopath and jumps his scrawny ass? No one thought to pick up a desk and rush him? No one came up behind him and brained him with a fire extinguisher?

Of course, sadly, the real answer here would have been a responsible citizen carrying a gun. Oh, sure, guns are scary. Especially in the hands of a mentally deranged moron in a full break with reality. But the gun in the hand of a trained, responsible CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would have looked like HEAVEN to these now dead and wounded people. The proverbial knight on the white horse. A person who, with practiced discipline, could have taken this piece of scum OUT, saving who knows how many lives.

But no. We are to cower and wait for the authorities. Dial 911 and "stay on the line, let me try to decide if your call rates a response." Let the 'trained professionals' deal with an "alleged perpetrator." Believe me, when a crazy killer is emptying his magazine and reloading, you can safely assume that (a) he's not going to reason with anyone, (b) he's not going to wait until the police arrive, and (c) you are next.

I don't fault anyone for diving out a window. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct. But where was the person who takes to heart "and this is Love, that a man lay down his life for his friends"? Where was the person to say "Not in MY school, you don't"... where was the action? Are we really raising a generation of soft, "it's not my place to judge, therefore I can't take action" wusses? It surely seems so at VaTech. Hokie Pride apparently doesn't extend to protecting your Hokie brothers and sisters.

This column below points out the heroism of ordinary citizens.Nicely Done. Maybe former actors make the best presidents. I'm about ready to see if Fred Thompson would be as good as Reagan... Check it out -- Spot on!

April 20, 2007, 0:31 a.m.

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© ABC
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwYzMyZmQ1YzQ1MDNmZTMyYzQ1Y2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=

This is Brilliant!

Forget my incoherent ramblings. Check out Jason Whitlock's comments:

Quoted from the Kansas City Star, 4/11/07:

Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

BRILLIANT!

And a footnote...

And,if it is so offensive, why can you buy this (and dozens of other items) online?





Imus has to lose his career, but now "pop-culture-savvy entrepeneurs" get to make money off of it.

When does this madness end?

Open Mouth, Insert Foot, Lose Career

The news is all abuzz about Don Imus' firing by both CBS radio and MSNBC. Too bad for him some loopy astronaut didn't don a diaper and head out to club her rival, or a D-List celebrity didn't die to take this story off the "front page".

No, since it's been slow news-wise lately, we had to watch the tiny simmer grow into a roiling boil of "outrage" at the comments made during some banter between Mr. Imus and Bernard McGuirk, one of his producers regarding the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Sure, what he said was asinine. But then, Don Imus pretty much says asinine things every day. I don't defend his comments at all, but I do shake my head at the blatant hypocrisy in the outrage. I would wager that NO member of the Rutgers women's basketball team actually witnessed the comments. They had to hear about it from someone else. I would also wager that their first reaction was "What a jerk". Period. I would wager that their need for a press conference, their little pity party about how their joy has been stolen and how offended they are was ginned up by other people who cajoled them into a false sense of outrage.
If someone calls you a name, what do you do?
Most likely, you remember what your parents told you when you were a kid: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Of course, parents probably don't teach that to kids any more. Now it may go something like this: "Anything I can possibly construe as 'hate speech' may grant me fame and fortune, so ALWAYS be looking for ways to be offended. There might be a big fat paycheck in it!"
Whether or not "all women of color" were, or even could be, offended by Imus' remarks, does this mean he should lose his career? Whatever happened to the concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
If Imus offends you, you have the power to force him to either (a) change his ways or (b) change his job by NOT LISTENING. Ratings keep radio hosts on the air, period.
So now, a guy who raises awareness and millions of dollars for Autism and kids with cancer, who champions "green" cleaning products, who was a driving force behind the Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio... this guy has to lose his career for saying something stupid?
WHO'S NEXT?
Will anyone demand that the contracts (and the CDs in stores) be pulled from the rappers who made phrases like "Nappy-headed hos" a part of the "urban vernacular"? Don Imus never would have had those words bumping around in his previously drug-addled brain if it weren't for the "Hip Hop Community", which continuously savages women in its words, videos, actions, and attitude.

Incidentally, just when did "Nappy-headed" become a racist, derogatory phrase anyway? The first time I ever heard it was in Stevie Wonder's "I Wish": "Looking back on when I was a little nappy-headed boy..." and this was said in fond reminiscing of his childhood. Black women today say "Nappy is Happy" in explanation of wearing their hair naturally. So don't cry to me about it being racist. It isn't.

Let's see if every talk show host, black, white, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, gets held to this new standard. They won't. You know they won't. George Bush and Republicans will still get called Nazis, our troops will still get called terrorists, whites will still be called oppressors, Christians will still be called (oh, just pick anything here!)...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Don Imus should have apologized to the Rutgers girls, and that is the end of it. A suspension, sure. Make him feel some pain so perhaps he'll think twice before touching the third rail of comedy for white people (black comedians, commentators, sports celebrities et al have no such boundaries). But "offending" someone is not grounds for losing one's career. Especially when you have made your name by being offensive and controversial. Billy Graham didn't suddenly break out with the comment. Brian Williams didn't suddenly spill it. Tim Russert didn't. The President didn't. It was IMUS, for Pete's sake. Ray Nagin didn't pay with his career for his racist "Chocolate City" comments (no, he got reelected!). Kanye West didn't pay with his career for accusing the President of racism. Spike Lee didn't pay with his career for calling Trent Lott a "card carrying member of the KKK" (that isn't offensive?????). Of course not. So why Imus? I shudder for the future of free speech.

Monday Blahs

So, it's Monday.
And it feels like a Monday.

The news of the day is depressing, the UK is claiming that we (the US) started the mess in Iran by trying to seize some high-up security guys in a covert raid (we didn't get them - haven't we figured out yet that when we take helicopters into Iran, bad things happen? They could have asked Jimmy Carter...) and Iran has retaliated by seizing the British Navy Sailors and Marines. Great.

Also, I see that nearly everyone running for President is raising RECORD amounts of money, especially dear old Hillary. But wait! What about the constant whining from Democrats about how bad the economy is? I thought everyone was broke! The evil rich people are getting tax cuts while "working families" (someone define that, would ya?) are starving! Guess those tax cuts are working for the very same Anti-Bush, anti-tax-cut morons who are giving HUGE amounts of money to someone who will raise their taxes!

Not to mention, if the Dems have their way, we are in for the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY. But, fear not... somehow "working families" must benefit, right? I mean, surely the tax increase is only on rich white male Republicans. Oh, wait... it's going to affect everyone? Wow, I thought Democrats were "fighting for working families"... I mean, that's what I've heard for the past 20 years or so... it must be true! Alas, the tax increases will increase the marriage penalty (that doesn't seem "pro-family"), lower the child tax credit (wow, that doesn't seem "pro-family"), increase the death tax (only a democrat would try to get more money out of a dead person), and raise marginal rates, capital gains rates, and dividend rates. Wonderful! If anything can reverse the incredible economic growth we've seen over the last 15 quarters, the unbelievably low unemployment rate (check the numbers!), job growth, investment growth, and stock market gains, a big fat tax increase, compliments of the "I feel your pain (but let me REALLY MAKE IT HURT)" party will!

But, I digress. Washington is messed up on both sides of the aisle, up in the White House AND at the Supreme Court. Why would I be surprised at the idiocy of the newly elected jerks. I guess Economics 101 and the success of ALL previous tax cuts (by JFK, Reagan, and Bush) are just too hard to learn from.

So, I can't wait to get out of here (still at work), get back in the car and listen to "The Doorpost Songs" - that will fix my mood in a hurry. Thank goodness I was at the church today and was able to pick up a new copy (I keep giving it away!).

Monday. Who needs it.

An Actual Botched Joke?

So, Ann Coulter is speaking at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, March, 2, 2007 in Washington, D.C. and at the end of her speech, she says something pretty stupid:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.

Now, Howard Dean is demanding that anyone who shared the podium with her that night denounce her, the Edwards campaign has the video on his campaign website saying that she's taken hate-speech politics to a new low, etc.
This was truly a foot-in-mouth moment. While obviously a reference to "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington's recent remarks about a co-star (and his subsequent "getting help" to save his career), this one went over like a wet leaf. After some gasps, you hear some nervous laughter and muted applause after people had a minute to figure out what she was talking about.
The use of the (new?) "f" word was just idiotic, and a blunder that will probably fire up the gay rights community, etc. However, I doubt that Ann truly thinks that Edwards, by all evidence a dedicated family man, is actually gay. So, this would be a prime example of "botched joke" - as it was clear that she was going for laughs with this one.
I'm sure the feigned outrage about her comment has barely begun. But I encourage Ann to use the "botched joke" excuse, since as soon as John Kerry uttered those words, the press fell right in line and dismissed all criticism of his belittling of our troops as needless "partisan politics" and killed the story as fast as they could. Let's see if they give her the same kid glove treatment.
Want to take any bets?

Should We Kill James Cameron?

According to a Discovery Channel.com article, famed filmmaker James Cameron claims that he has discovered the tomb of Jesus Christ. Not an empty tomb, mind you -- a family tomb with bodies.

Now, I'll leave the reading of the article to you.

The implications, of course, should this "prove" to be the real tomb of Jesus, complete with body, would pretty much negate Christianity (for those of you who don't know, Christ's resurrection is the cornerstone of our belief).

So, here's my point. Are Christians mobbing the streets of (insert any city here), demanding that James Cameron be put to death? Have the "streets run with blood"? Has anyone issued a, err... umm (what's an English word for Fatwa?) against Mr. Cameron and his associates? After all, here's a guy who basically has come out announcing that he has proof that believers in Christ are at deceived, followers of Christ are liars, and blaspheming the name of Jesus by indicating that He is not who He claimed to be.

Umm... no.

Why not? I don't think I'll go down the list of reasons why not. Suffice it to say, that in contrast with another religion dominating the news these days, the one who calls a murdering homicide bomber a "martyr", the one who burns down buildings and carries out death threats against cartoonists and their employers who dare to "make an image of" their prophet, the one who sees no problem with an "honor killing" by a male against his own sister, wife, or mother, the one who says to convert by the sword... well, we are commanded to love our enemy, pray for and endeavor to reach the unsaved, and are to leave vengeance to the Lord God Himself.

So, you probably won't see much outrage directed at James Cameron. I will, however, bet that the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, History Channel, or a Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw "special report" will give this "discovery" a lot of airtime, trying to call into question the fact of The Resurrection. I base this on the breathless reporting of the "Gospel of Judas" and the avalanche of programming based around "The DaVinci Code".

Funny, I can't recall seeing the special that looks at the historical Mohammed. The likely epileptic. The bloodthirsty conqueror. The "do as I say, not as I do" leader of a ridiculously oppressive, dogmatic religion worshipping a deity that was a minor moon god in Mecca until Mohammed decided to elevate him to Supreme status when starting his religion. OH wait. That will get you into trouble. And it might offend.
And offended Muslims have: put a knife in the heart of Theo Van Gogh, shot up Jewish Community Centers, flown planes into skyscrapers and government buildings, murdered millions in the name of their god, blown up thousands of innocents in Israel, Indonesia, Egypt, (Oh man, this list gets long...), kidnapped and beheaded "infidels" who dared try to rebuild Iraq, torched and defiled the bodies of US servicemen, hung more burned bodies of contractors from bridges in Fallujah...

So... I guess James Cameron is lucky he didn't discover, for instance, some of the original 'scribbled down' bits of rantings eventually compiled into the Koran (since it would disprove the tenet that it was handed down, 100% complete, to Mohammed), eh?

America The Beautiful (or is that Ugly?)

So, there's this way cool, "Film Independent's Spirit Awards" show. Oh yes, let's get together and celebrate the "real" films, the independent films that fly under "Big Hollywood's" radar. Let's gather up a bunch of hip, cool directors, actors and producers of such films. Let's have them deliver the corny award presentations. So far, I'm OK with all of this... I tend to enjoy independent films more than the big studio releases (even though I love the megabucks special effects of the big boys).

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with America? Or politics?

Well, one of the hip, cool presenters this year was America Ferrara (star of the TV sitcom "Ugly Betty" and the independent film "Real Women Have Curves"). Now, here is a lovely latina (ironically portraying an 'ugly' character on tv - why didn't they have the cajones to cast someone actually unattractive?), whose parents named her "America"... succeeding wildly in America... bashing our President and minimizing the freedoms that she and all of us enjoy in America!!

Her comment was that America will be the land of the free once Bush leaves office (or at least I think that's what she meant... she said "it will be again in 2008"... Bush won't leave office until 2009).

Sure, she was probably only pandering to the all-too-eager Bush-hating left that dominates the film industry. Sure, she didn't think it was anything but a funny little comment. But for pete's sake, here's a triple minority (in Hollywood, anyway): Female, Latina, "curvy" (read: not anorexically thin). AND SHE'S SUCCEEDING IN AMERICA. Succeeding beyond the wildest dreams of 'normal' Americans. And yet, America isn't the land of the free? There's a baseball bat with her forehead's name on it somewhere. When will this"Winner of life's lottery" (some ridiculous Democrat's words, not mine) ever realize that she, were it NOT for our freedoms, fiercely defended by people such as George W. Bush & our entire military, might well be illiterate, oppressed, right-less, status-less, and unprotected from discrimination, degradation, and even violence?!

Unbelievable. Now, I don't know why miss America's parents named her "America". However, I would wager it was in gratitude for all this country has afforded them. If I'm right, then she has not only spit in the face of our commander-in-chief and the armed forces he commands, all of those who have DIED defending her right to be an idiot... she's also spit in the face of her parents. For someone who stars in a show that puts family above all, this is the worst kind of irony. Boo, traveling pants girl, boo.

Note the date (1963) - Prophetic and Scary

This doesn't get much press, but it's in the congressional record. If it were not, I'd say someone made it up, because it's practically word-for-word a playbook of today's Left. Please copy and distribute as you see fit:

Communist Goals for American Takeover

Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen: [From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]



CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS:
AMERICA

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one, or both, of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture -- education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etcetera.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit, and eventually dismantle, the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Note to Muslims: Learn the Definition of "Irony"

So, the Pope reads a quote from a 14th century Byzantine Emperor that says (and I'm paraphrasing) "Show me anything new that Mohammed brought us. You'll find only evil, including conversion by sword to the faith he preaches."
So what do "modern" muslims do? Engage in a debate about the dearth of inventions, literature, art, contributions to medicine, etc. from Islamic lands over the past several centuries? Challenge the "medieval" notion that Islam is violent with examples to the contrary? Laugh at the foolishness of an old man?
No, they protest wildly in the streets, burn things, fire off guns and attack churches.
(A side note: Don't these idiots have jobs? How is it that they are always available to protest in furious numbers at the slightest "offense" against their prophet or their religion? I'm sure the Huffington Post readers or Rosie O'Donnells of the world would say they are unemployed because of George W. Bush, since every malaise worldwide, past, present or future is somehow traceable to his administration.
I'd say they've got so much time on their hands because they are not contributing to literature, art, science, industry, or anything else.)

When you're offended by people saying you're worthless, ignorant, and violent... perhaps ignorant, worthless displays of violence aren't exactly bolstering your argument.


PS: Why don't the gun control freaks in this country ever mention the random, wanton firing of automatic weapons out in the streets of these peaceful hamlets while women and children are outside? Are burkas bulletproof? Do Islamic bullets continue heavenward in their peaceful arc, never returning to earth? How is it that hunters, sportsmen, and people who want to protect their families and property from crime are ridiculed as ignorant rednecks (or worse: Republicans), but maniacs in the streets of populated areas firing indiscriminately are merely "disenfranchised", or "righteously outraged", "misunderstood" people? Silly me, I forgot: the gun control freaks are liberals. Nothing has to make any sense, it just has to make them feel superior.

'Easy' Doesn't Enter Into Grown Up LIfe

That's a quote from Michael Caine in "The Weatherman". And, I believe it's true. No one ever promised anyone anything easy (well, except for some infomercials and televangelists... and communist dictators... and... OK, people promise easy all the time!).
I guess that line jumped out at me as I half-watched, bleary-eyed, the movie a couple of days ago. Overtired, but can't sleep, too many things to do, but not getting them done... great fun.
There's a HUGE happy occasion on the horizon, my parent's 50th Anniversary (8/19), and being able to look forward to that is making the current pile of crap that is my worklife easier to bear. We've had someone quit, and his workload has been "democratically" spread amongst the rest of us. That's just dandy. I already have too much on my plate for one person and have been filling 1-1/2 to 2 job positions for the last 2 years. Hey, what's one more responsibility? I'm sure it will all translate into more compensation -- NOT.
At this point, I hope that we "get over this current hump" (something we've been saying pretty much every week for 6 years now) and life will resume some semblance of normalcy.
And, it ain't just work. I try, when I can, to volunteer with things at church, mostly Sound/Light/Video stuff since that is where my skills lie. I will refrain from the details of the latest escapade, because I can't find the positive spin on it and don't want to blast away at our leadership. I guess people are people, no matter in what walk of life, and being in church leadership does not automatically mean you'll have common sense or take people's physical/emotional well-being into account when you come up with grand plans.
I guess there's one other thing that has made the last few months kind of crappy: The idea that I might (just MIGHT) be interested in someone -- for the first time in probably 4 years... and she (is there any other way) had JUST decided to go 'exclusive' with some guy she'd started dating online. I suppose God intends for some people to remain single, but if I'm one of those people, I sure wish He would give me some peace about it. It screams in opposition to the fiber of my being. I know I'm dealing with consequences of stupid choices made earlier in my life, and I suppose the possibility exists that I'll never get an answer. Shit. 'Easy' doesn't enter into grown up life.