15
May
Today is the national protest aimed at the oil producers where people are encouraged to not buy gas for one day as a sign of protect.
I won’t be buying gas today. My wife won’t be buying gas today. It’s not because either of us think this will work. It’s because we bought gas the previous day or two. and just don’t need any.
I really don’t think this accomplishes anything. What you don’t buy today, you’ll buy tomorrow. The oil companies could care less which day we bought their product. The only real protest that would work is when our entire society decides to eschew some things so that we don’t have to drive as much as we do now. Not just for one day, but everyday. Only then will there be any impact at all. So, I’d just as soon they quit pushing the idea that a one day temper tantrum will amount to anything and start pushing tangible ideas like giving up an activity that cuts gas use permanently.
And, buy higher mileage vehicles too.
And, build more eco-friendly houses, like the one I’m building now.
Then, they’ll see the writing on the wall that people want cheaper energy and look for something new that is not a vanishing resource.
Maybe I can help her.
Saudi Arabia is what is called an absolute monarchy. Now, what that means is there is no constitution. There are no civil rights. Women are subject to men, men are subject to the king. That’s it. That’s that. If Nancy Pelosi were living in Saudi Arabia, she would not be in government. Period. Nothing she says or does will change that because the king controls basically the only source of revenue in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the country is a third-world welfare state existing off the handouts from said king. I’m sure the people she talked to about women in government got a good chuckle from her amazing ignorance. Yeah, they’re gonna tell the king he needs to hire more women because Nancy said so.
Now, here’s the real fun eye-opener for Nancy. Saudi Arabia is quite liberal compared to Syria. Although Syria is a Republic as a lot of people assert, they sponser Hezbollah and Hamas. If she had asked that same question in the presence of either of those two, say in Palestine, she could have been shot or beheaded on spot and no laws would have been broken. That’s the people Nancy is selling the US out to right now. That’s who she’s legitimizing.
Just thought someone needed to elaborate just a little bit since the media won’t.
That’s the teaser for this pic on Colleghumor:
Girls making out is the new black. (from CollegeHumor)
It seems every generation wants to shock the previous generation by doing things they THINK their parents never did. My generation did it mainly by having guys primping like a girl, and girls appearing to be plastic replicas of Pat Benatar. I don’t think that worked too well. Most of the following generations simply adapted “shocking” words to describe mundane things or re-inventing old words like “frickin”. Big, big, whoop. About 20 years ago white girls decided to shock and disappoint their parents by teaming up with black guys. What they didn’t know then was that was a throwback to the 60′s. Everyone was on cheap drugs then and pretty much gave up on the shock value once they got decent jobs and kids. So, apparently this wave of kids have decided the shock value is girls making out with girls. Now, first of all, this ain’t particularly new. Second, most guys will flat out admit that seeing two good looking gals lip-locked is a pleasurable sight to see. And, I would guess quite a large percentage of the women would feel that way too ( a theory that I’ve been quantifying for about fifteen years now ). It just doesn’t have quite the shock value inter-racial dating did 20 years ago. However, if the girls want to think it does, and prefer to do that as opposed to drugs, free-sex, driving drunk, or other much more harmful activities, I’m 100% all for it. So go ahead, shock me some more. I can’t take it. I swear I can’t. Don’t. Stop.
And guys, don’t think for one second society will be nearly as tolerant if the guys decide they’re gonna shock us all that way!
( If you read collegehumor.com, you’ll get “shocked” about 20 times every single day. )
Where the draem, deram, uh, DREAM went wrong so far:
Having a dream’s fine, but you better get an education if you want to achieve it.
8
Dec
I received another one of those hokey emails that circulate ad nauseum. I get several every day. Most I just ignore after about two lines. This one kept my attention because it makes some sense.
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American public’s best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I’D LIKE?
Since we can’t pray to God, can’t Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don’t believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I’d like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it’s just another day.
I’d like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday,
Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it’s just another day.
I’d like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it’s just another day.
I’m thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn’t cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact….
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God…) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day…
This version is abridged, I’ve just kept the relevent parts. Although it has several very basic errors in its rhetoric ( I don’t consider the ACLU and Surpreme Court part of "the government" ), the main idea is pretty much what I’ve felt the whole time.
- Sunday is the day of rest according to the Bible. When’s the ACLU going to sue to compel government services be provided on Sunday as any other day?
- Why hasn’t the ACLU sued over recognizing Easter and Christmas as holidays? Sure, they’re trying to take the religious references out of those holidays, but the fact is we shut down the government almost exclusively for those religious based holidays. Does Walmart close?
- I expect members of the ACLU to work Sundays, Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick’s Day ( Saint is a purely religious title ).
I’m going to deviate from he script of the email completely at this point and just ask my readers to contact members of the ACLU and ask them how many Biblical days of rest they have worked recently. And, of course whether they plan on working on Christmas and Easter.
Caught this little bit on Volokh:
….Jonathan Adler cites evidence that the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think thank has "banned" conservatives and libertarians critical of the Bush administration from its events. I don’t know enough to comment on Heritage’s alleged banning of Bruce Bartlett and Ryan Sager (referenced in the links in Jonathan’s post). If Heritage did indeed refuse to invite them to events because of their criticisms of Bush, it is a serious mistake on their part.
Well, I had to jump into this a little deeper. Ryan Sager’s actual reply is a bit softer than the original insinuation on Volokh:
He then elaborates a little more on the why. Could be he’s blackballed, could be a perceived agenda conflict. Read the end of this post before drawing conclusions.
Andrew Sullivan takes a harsher take on things:
The Conservative Thought Police
….I don’t think many Republicans and conservatives have come out of denial yet about what was done to conservatism in Bush-Rove-DeLay years. Or perhaps the first stage of coming out of denial is anger at those who came out of it years ago.
Pretty harsh stuff. Now, the first thing that struck me was that the two fellas claiming to be blackballed have published books:
Now, I link these two books for a two-fold reason. If it’s thought police in action, they’re doing a pretty lame job since I imagine a few more people frequent Amazon than the Heritage Foundation. Secondly, I don’t see why they feel affronted since I can’t really see fault in the people being attacked by these two books just don’t really feel obligated to promote these two books attacking them. I mean, come on, use some common sense before leaping to wild conspiracy theories. There is no theory here to me, "the conservative thought police" generically applies to all who consider themselves conservative, and most of those people are not members of, or subscribe to, the Heritage Foundation. Me being one. The Heritage Foundation is the elitist group of the uppitiest ups. I’m not one of those. I am a conservative that those two books most likely would appeal to. But, Sullivan particularly is rubbing me the wrong with with his over-the-top knee-jerk reaction to what would be expected of any human being when insulted. So, I have to sort of question his grasp of reality.
Secondly, and more importantly, the problem I have with NEO-conservatism, which is not REAL conservatism, is REAL conservatism does not mix social ideology into the political spectrum. Where the conservative movement lost it’s true direction is when the Neos felt compelled to tell everyone else what is conservative and what is not ( see William F. Buckley as the prime example of what went wrong ). So, for these two guys to write books telling me what they think is the cure for conservatives is doing what I think is wrong about being conservative in the first place. So, having more of the same, with a different take and carrying a price tag as well, complaining about not being invited to more of the same, is incredibly meaningless to me. If they want real reform, and mean it, they’d be begging people to read their books for free. And, they wouldn’t be the least bit concerned at all with not being included as members of the group they blame for screwing things up.
However, this is the end of the post I told you not to miss. The resolution of the post from Volokh:
Again, I don’t know if Heritage really did ban Bartlett and Sager from its events. Perhaps the people who made the decision to invite me are not the same ones who decided to ban them. However, it would be strange if Heritage were to start banning people for making criticisms of Bush very similar to those advanced in its own publications.
That was my original gut feeling. The Heritage Foundation has at times agreed with the two authors claiming their criticism of Bush got them blackballed. I think Sullivan needs to re-examine why they didn’t feel compelled to invite him. If it makes any of them feel better, I didn’t get invited either. Doesn’t matter tho, they wouldn’t like my opinion any more than they do theirs.
18
Nov
Study finds Web isn’t teeming with sex ANALYSIS SHOWS ABOUT 1 PERCENT OF ALL PAGES HAVE ADULT CONTENT
That’s the conclusion the San Jose Mercury News comes to regarding an argument the ACLU presented in federal court last week regarding their challenge to the Child Online Protection Act President Clinton signed into law in 1998. It has been in court since then. The guts of the ACLU argument is:
“One of the things we think came out of the government’s study is that the chance of running into graphic content on the Web when filters are on is extremely low,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.
What planet does she live on? The planet I live on is a lot different. Using Google, if you search for these terms, you’ll get these responses:
- Spongebob – 1,360,000
- cartoon -91,900,000
- Little Einstein – 59,800
- Jimmy Neutron – 1,160,000
- Scooby Doo – 2,730,000
Big numbers huh? Well, try these on for size:
- Pussy – 42,600,000
- sex – 31,900,000
- fuck – 103,000,000
- lesbian – 86,900,000
- transexual – 297,000
- homosexual- 17,800,000
- gang bang – 2,180,000
- teen sex – 2,210,000
- porn – 84,900,000
- voyeur – 20,500,000
- whore – 20,200,000
It’s about eight times more likely a kid will find something about “fuck” than “Spongebob”. Toss in all the other terms, and you’re talking porn SWAMPING kid topics by a long shot. In fact, if you Google “cartoon”, chances are profoundly more than 1% that some of those cartoons will be porn.
These results actually were derived by Phillip Stark at the University of Californa-Berkeley. He does state that there are many equivocating circumstances for him to come to that conclusion ( ie, filter are in use ). Bottom line, I think his conclusion is total BS and if the same research had been done in rural America, it would have come to a totally different conclusion.
The question I have, is what does someone living in the most liberal city in the United States, employed by probably the most liberal university in the United States, even consider to be porn? I mean, would an openly lesbian page, with pictures, on Myspace, be considered “porn”? Think I’m stretching things? You can cruise the lesbian pages on Myspace, with pictures, for HOURS. That’s just one non-porn site. How many porn flicks do you think exist on these video servers? All they ask is that you “say” your legal age, and poof, all the porn you want is there. Do they consider Youtube and the others porn sites? Are viruses and re-directs Google-able? Did they count the amount of porn on newsgroups? I’ll bet not.
And, more importantly, why did the government use someone who would most likely be so biased to support their argument in the first place?
And, lastly, if these results are the result of using filters, what is the ACLU’s point in arguing against the Child Online Protection Act in the first place? If censorship is OK by one entity ( the provider ), why is not OK by another ( the government )? Seems to me my rights are being intruded upon equally in both situations.
I don’t even think these filters work. The best protection in my opinion is to sit very close to your kids when they’re cruising anyway or expect them to be exposed to it whether they want to be or not.
Bottom line, there’s more porn for free, without age verification, than anything else. Porn is what drove the internet to what it is today. To now make some bizarre claim that it’s not much of an issue is amazing. For a judge to blindly accept that statement to me is incredulous. The Child Online Protection Act needs to be passed not so much as some catch-all protection for children, but, more importantly to me, a means to prosecute those that intentionally lure kids to porn by means of re-directs and similarly named sites such as whitehouse.com did at one time.
Diane Sawyer was interviewing Barack Obama yesterday and asked an intriguing question to him, are we more racist or sexist? Obama dodged the question, not terribly effectively, by stating each individual makes their own decision. I don’t believe that to be true. Sawyer has taken some heat for even asking the question. I don’t believe that to be fair. It’s a fair question to ask. However, it’s not terribly fair to dump that on an actively campaigning politician. If I were Obama, I would have dodged it like a bullet as well. I think I would have suggested she consult a sociologist rather than someone who stands to risk getting burned answering the question sincerely.
But, the question is intriguing to me. Not so much because of it’s blatantly obvious answer, but because it pits two human traits against each other. Every single human on this planet is racist to some degree. Every single human is sexist to some degree. It’s a human trait that predates politics. To put it most simply, we feel most comfortable with people most like us. People develope biases to protect themselves from perceived threats. If a person is bitten by a bull terrier, they develope a protective mechanism against all bull terriers even though a beagle might be as likely to bite them. It’s a natural thing. When people perceive social threats to their lifestyle ( comfort zone ), they generalize those threats even though the vast majority may not pose the same risk. Because of this, I think forty years ago Obama’s race would have been a lot more of an issue than it is today. I would bet that if a person of Middle Eastern decent and strong cultural appearance ran against Obama, Obama would cream them. Americans sort of have an issue with anyone that looks like Osama Bin Laden. The gender bias I really don’t think is that big of an issue these days. It’s there, but it’s a lot more subtle. The majority of voters in the US are women, the minority of voters, men, can enjoy a woman. So, it’s not a fear factor thing so much. Where gender WOULD play an issue IMO is if the male ran as a conservative, since, the general bias is women are more liberal ( see Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton ). In that case, the males, would have the inherent gender bias reinforced by the social bias. In other words, there’s no comfort zone at all for the average white male.
The bigger question IMO, is not so much whether we are more racist than sexist, but whether Obama can break out of the black liberal bias, especially against a white liberal female. He would have the curse of being male appealing to female voters, black appealing to white voters, AND liberal appealing to conservative voters. And, if he pulls that off to any degree at all, he wouldn’t be black enough for black voters ( see Colin Powell ).
So, it’s not really a simple comparison of race vs gender as Sawyer put it. But I do appreciate her putting it out there.
’08 may be the year we elect a minority or a woman as President. However, it will be because the men running aren’t men enough to the male voters, which is a whole other bias in itself.
I am basing this not on polls, because polls are just as often wrong as they are right. I am basing this on things that matter, that are really happening. The stock market has moved up strongly today. Wall Street LOVES a useless split House. When there’s no chance of significant legislation being produced for a couple of years, the members of Wall Street see stability and the ability to basically run amok. Therefore, I predict the House goes Democrat and the Senate remains Republican.
The results of this, oddly enough, will assure
- the supporters of stem cell research, namely the Michael J. Fox’s, will get no significant legislation for at least two years.
- No pressure will make it through Congress to compel Bush to change any positions on Iraq until he chooses.
- Health care reform, which has seen some progress the last four years, will stop immediately.
- Homeland Security will be compromised by the inability of Congress to change it, which it desperately needs right now.
- Bush most likely will turn to foreign policy to stake his destiny as presidency, and will lead to nothing tangible ( See Clinton ).
- The tax incentives, which the Democrats never allowed to be made permanent, will die on the vine thereby stalling the economy, which Nancy Pelosi will then blame on Bush.
- Expect a renewed attack on the Patriot Act, returning us to the confused and helpless days pre-9/11.
- A sense of vindication by terrorists and probably a renewed vigor to try more attacks within the US.
- The Mexican Wall, which was legislated but not funded, will remain so for at least two more years.
- And, since the margin in the House will be so slim, no meaningful agenda by the Democrats will emerge either. All they’ll be able to do is form and head committees with the knowledge that very little to anything will make it out of the Senate. That just means Nancy Pelosi will form a mindless number of committees to persecute Bush while all of the above issues are totally ignored.
That’s what a useless split government offers us right now. If someone can give me a little more optimistic opinion, I’m certainly game for it. But, do be prepared to make a logical argument as rhetoric won’t survive here. Just saying something will happen won’t cut it. I need to know HOW they will get it done in a completely dead-locked Congress.
"The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war" against the North, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the statement said.
Now, North Korea might just get what it’s asking for. RARELY has Japan, South Korea, China, AND the United States ever agreed totally on one issue. The Russians have pretty much stepped back. Probably the only person North Korea could count on to help them would be Hugo Chavez, who’s pretty much screwed Venezuela out of a UN Security Council seat.
However, I’m not too terribly concerned about this. China REALLY gets serious, North Korea exists no more. North Korea is sandwiched between two of the fastest growing economies on the planet right now. To assume the North Korean people don’t see that and want some of it is a tad bit hard for me to buy. My guess has always been the leaders of North Korea are seeing that and trying to figure some way to bring prosperity to their people without allowing unfettered capitolism which generally tends to lead to democracy. Basically, they’re in a lose-lose situation right now and they know it. Hence, the bullying tactics and desperate attempts to level the political playing field by telling the planet they have a nuke and more than willing to use it.
All this will do in my opinion is send a clear signal to China that refugees pouring accross the border is inevitable and they may as well take some action now to cool Kim’s heels. Because, the United States has already said that if North Korea has nukes, there is no reason on this planet Japan should not be allowed to as well. And, I agree. And, the very last thing I think China wants to see is Japan, South Korea, and North Korea staring each other down with an arsenal of nukes and China in the middle.
China has got to take the responsibility that they are the super-power of the far east and need to be bringing stability to their region. Reigning in North Korea will be the perfect chance to make that statement to the world.
Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention the United Nations doing anything about this?
I guess I did. It wouldn’t make any difference anyway whether they did or not.
