August 31, 2010

More "climate change" hilarity

"Settled science":

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming. But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.

The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper - it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic. Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

Meanwhile, add poison ivy to the things for which global warming can be blamed:

“It is a good year for poison ivy,” said Alonso Abugattas, the acting director of the Long Branch Nature Center in Arlington. “We’ve noticed it more in our park. I think it’s the timing of the rain.”

Or it may have to do with increasing carbon dioxide, or CO2, levels in the atmosphere, said Jacqueline Mohan, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia’s Odum School of Ecology.

I wonder if Ms. Mohan was interviewed by telephone too?

Posted by Hube at 04:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Just imagine if he "invited" employees to attend Beck's rally

Via the Washington Examiner:

President Obama's top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall.

"ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.

Although the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, which forbids federal employees from participating in political campaigns, Education Department workers should feel uneasy, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

"It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department. It's highly inappropriate ... even in the absence of a direct threat," Boaz said. "If we think of a Bush cabinet official sending an e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally, there would be a lot of outrage over that."

'Ya think? The MSM and the usual suspects would be all over it in a heartbeat.

Posted by Hube at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

There's that word "moderate" again

Just when you think the Ruling Class boneheads can't get any goofier, along comes NBC's Richard Engel. Now, here and elsewhere, I've asked numerous "progressives" why [Ground Zero mosque chief] Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a "moderate" to them, but, for instance, evangelist Pat Robertson is a "radical extremist." I've yet to get an answer. Really. The question is just outright ignored.

So, back to Engel: He claims that Saddam Hussein was -- wait for it! -- becoming "more moderate."

If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. The, the sanctions regime that was holding in place was starting to fail. So I think he would, it would be somewhat of a basket case but it would still, it would be - Iran would be a lot more contained. So it would be a dictatorship that was trying to break out of its box but Iran would not be as dangerous as it is, as it is today.

Engel, an admitted pacifist who believes "war should be illegal," is probably not the best person to weigh in on this. Nevertheless, is this the infamous "bigotry of low expectations" being applied to (now) Muslims? I mean, by Saddam supposedly becoming more "moderate," does Engel mean he "cut in half the reasons for which he tortured people?" I know it sounds facetious, but "progressives" have lauded Imam Rauf's "moderation" constantly during the Ground Zero mosque debate.

Refusing to dub Hamas as a terrorist organization is "moderate?" Saying the US was an accessory to 9/11 is "moderate?" Saying that the US's response to the 9/11 attacks "could be considered 'jihad'" is "moderate?" Calling the [pre-war] US-led sanctions against Iraq the equivalent of al Qaeda terrorism is "moderate?"

Keep all this in mind the next time a "progressive" labels a conservative/Republican a "radical" or an "extremist." Either the lefty will be made to look like an idiot (not hard, mind you), or he'll have to admit his bigoted belief that Muslims are incapable of achieving Western standards of "moderation."

Posted by Hube at 04:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Unbelievable

Please remember this story next time someone tells you that Americans are morons:

Blue badge snub for hero: "Lance-corporal Johno Lee has accrued �800 in fines for parking in disabled bays in Newark on days when he uses a wheelchair or feels unable to walk very far.

Lance-corporal Lee, from Coddington, said when he first applied to Nottinghamshire County Council for a blue badge he was advised he was young and ‘may get better.’

His right leg was amputated below the knee after he was caught up in an explosion in Helmand Province in 2008.

He said: “I replied that they possibly didn’t quite understand the situation and that I thought it unlikely that my leg would grow back."

Posted by Duffy at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Power of Music


Posted by Duffy at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 30, 2010

I blame the hate rhetoric generated ...

... by hate sites like this.

Bishop shot and killed at Mormon church.

Posted by Hube at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Glenn Beck/Ground Zero mosque hypocrisy rocks on

Just remember that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is lauded by "progressives" and the MSM (one and the same, really) as a "moderate;" however, one would think Glenn Beck is the devil incarnate based on the reporting of his Washington DC rally this past weekend. We've already shown you the preposterous double standard in the MSM regarding the GZ mosque and Beck, and it got worse the past few days.

First, there's the pathetic Howie Dean calling Beck a "racist" (surprise!) and a "hate monger" (surprise!), and those who attended his rally "lost souls."

You know, I think, it was kind of a Tea Party type of event. You know, 300,000 people is a lot of people to have on the Washington Mall, but in terms of who, how many people vote, it's not a very big crowd. I don't know what, I think that Glenn Beck has got a few things the matter with him, up here, up in the head there. So I just don't know what to make of it. I mean, it's a lot of people.

What I see is, these folks are kind of, and I don't mean this in a mean kind of way, but they're a little like lost souls in the sense that they really do, they're at sea, the country's changed a lot, they don't, they're in the middle of a horrible economic downturn which has probably affected a lot of them personally. So they follow this guy who is like Father Coughlin from the 1930s. He's a racist, he's a hate-monger.

Dean followed on the aptly named Charles Blow who had earlier said,

Well Beck is an incredibly divisive figure, and no amount of him wrapping himself in the flag and hiding behind a cross is going to scrub his history of the things he has said and done. And he is part of what I see as a rhetorical assassination of a good man (Barack Obama).

Again, I'll ask: Who is more "moderate": Imam Rauf or Glenn Beck?

Elsewhere, the WaPo thinks Beck is out of line for criticizing Obama's version of Christianity. (Jeremiah Wright, anybody? Not the WaPo.)

Meawhile, the "Rev" Al Sharpton said regarding Beck's rally that "We're not giving them this day. This is our day, and we ain't giving it away." Now, just imagine how the MSM would react if that was a conservative Republican saying that about Ground Zero (just replace "day" with "site").

Then, ABC's Ron Claiborne pressed Dr. Alveda King, niece of MLK who attended Beck's rally, to answer the charge that "Beck's rally is an affront to what the Civil Rights Movement stood for." How often has the MSM pressed Imam Rauf and other GZ mosque proponents similarly?

Perhaps the "best" instance of moonbat hilarity was offered up by "progressive" pundit Bill Press who compared Glenn Beck to al Qaeda.

CBS told black attendees of Beck's rally that [they were] "noticing that there aren't a lot of minorities here today."

And, lastly, of course the MSM penchant for selective labeling came into play as the big three networks dubbed Beck a "controversial conservative," while Al Sharpton was merely a "civil rights leader." Yeah -- nothing at all remotely controversial about Sharpton, eh?

Posted by Hube at 03:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 29, 2010

From the “Best Political Team on Television”

Good thing we have the "professionals" with their "layers and layers" of fact checkers to school us bloggers, eh? For instance, check this out:

Let's see ... isn't it "Sarah", not "Sara"? But ... isn't that Glenn Beck actually at the podium? Oh, wasn't Sarah Palin a former vice presidential candidate, not presidential?

Yeesh.

(h/t to Inside Cable News.)

Posted by Hube at 06:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I guess being a multi-millionaire filmmaker means ...

... you can be just about the biggest freakin' hypocrite on Earth.

First James Cameron wimps out of a global warming debate that he himself asked for; now, he contradicts his hypocritical self on the dangers of plastic to the environment:

[Cameron says,] "DVDs are wasteful. … It’s a consumer product like any consumer product. I think ultimately we’re going to bypass a physical medium and go directly to a download model and then it’s just bits moving in the system. And then the only impact to the environment is the power it takes to run the computers, run the devices."

But he’s the guy behind the three separate Avatar DVD releases in the first freakin’ place. There was one released on Earth Day, there’s another coming out for Christmas (in his words, “the all-singing, all-dancing, all-bells-and-whistles DVD”), and the 3D version set for release next year to give people enough time to get rid of their rinky-dink hamster-powered televisions and upgrade to an energy-sucking 3D-enabled plasma screen and the accompanying 3D Blu-Ray DVD player.

Plus those 3D glasses produced en masse for theater-goers? Yup, plastic.

And don’t forget the Avatar-themed toys and lunchboxes and Halloween costumes and sheet sets available at Wal-Mart.

But hey, c'mon -- it's his message that's important, right? Who cares if he's a ridiculous, blatant hypocrite (kinda like Al "I Just Bought A Behemoth Mansion With A Massive Carbon Footprint" Gore, right?).

Nothing, but NOTHING, gets in the way of the profit motive if you're promoting the "right" message!

Posted by Hube at 01:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Racism

Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so "unknowingly" and would work with the foundation to "rectify the financial situation."

Stay tuned for the inevitable "racism" charges.

Posted by Hube at 12:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 28, 2010

35% of Democrats share Uncle Fidel's conspiracy

35% of Democrats think George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks (61% say he knew in advance or "aren't sure"). Thus, these nimrods have one big thing in common with aging dictator Fidel Castro:

FORMER Cuban president Fidel Castro said Osama bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA and was summoned up whenever George W. Bush needed to scare the world.

"Any time Bush would stir up fear and make a big speech, bin Laden would appear threatening people with a story about what he was going to do," Castro told Sky News.

"Bush never lacked for bin Laden's support. He was a subordinate."


Posted by Hube at 08:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 27, 2010

Can we expect the MSM to lecture him on "tolerance?"

From ABC News via The Corner:

The Rev. Walter Fauntroy, the non-voting delegate who represented the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991, called on African-Americans to organize a “new coalition of conscience” to rebut the rally scheduled for Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial featuring Fox News pundit Glenn Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“We are going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism, and the scourge of poverty, that the Ku Klux — I meant to say the Tea Party,” Fauntroy told a news conference today at the National Press Club. “You all forgive me, but I — you have to use them interchangeably.”

Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

“The same people who cut the cables on the night before the march, that we paid $66,000 for a sound system, they cut it,” Fauntroy said. “Now from Fox News and elsewhere, they are seeking to turn the world back.”

Will there be constant MSM sermons on the right to [Glenn Beck's] free speech, and how Fauntroy is a "bigot" and "intolerant?" Of course not. Yet dolts like the good reverend and the other elitist boneheads will keep up this disparaging garbage all the way until November -- when they'll get their collective asses kicked by folks like those in the Tea Party who've had it up to here with their every belief somehow being labeled as "bigoted," "intolerant" and "racist."

Posted by Hube at 04:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was The Razor with Tolerating Intolerance.

First place in the non-Council category was my selection of Buckhorn Road with Hey, Union soldier! What have you done for me lately?

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 04:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 26, 2010

Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Sh**?

An instant classic:


In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Sh**?

Posted by Hube at 09:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

End of the world as we know it

In yesterday's News Journal: Delaware schools: District plan would pay parents to attend events.

Thanks to "kidney" for the tip!

Posted by Hube at 09:23 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 25, 2010

Some might think this unfair...

...but the last two Democrat Presidents have recognized the need for a Republican to be their Secretary of Defense.

Link to image source

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 09:30 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

It begins -- again

Unstable Mental State over at the LGOMB: "I hope Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are proud of what they’ve unleased. A man in NYC stabbed a cab driver after asking him if he was a Muslim."

Here we go again. Voicing opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is "violence-provoking." At these these moonbats are consistent in their insanity, right? Remember, to them a conservative merely putting up a sign that says "It's YOUR money" is "racist!" I mean, what's next? Clouds in the sky are "racist" because they're white?

But, alas, as has happened before when these mental pygmies have jumped the gun, it seems this attacker is a mosque supporter!

My suggestion is that the LGOMB change their blog's name to "Delaware Catharsis." 'Cuz they sure make it easy and laughingly fun for us all!

Posted by Hube at 07:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

* The Colossus of Rhodey – Same situation, less tolerance
* Right Truth - The Expendables Works
* Wolf Howling - Victory In Iraq
* VA Right – Republican Best Case Scenario: 53 Seats in US Senate
* The Razor – Tolerating Intolerance
* Snapped Shot – Celebrating Ramadan in Kashmir
* The Glittering Eye – Putting Humpty Together
* Rhymes With Right – The Tension Of Two Visions Of America
* Bookworm Room – Cruisin’
* Joshuapundit - Islamophobia?

And the non-Council nominations are here!

Posted by Hube at 04:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Islamophobia

Jonah Goldberg attempts to ease the hysteria (or, at least inject some common sense) whipped up by the likes of Time magazine regarding the Ground Zero mosque controversy.

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States — and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?

No, it doesn't. In fact, it sounds quite remarkable. Radical Islamists turn New York City into chaos killing almost 3,000 people -- and hate crimes against Muslims go down every year -- despite the continuing threat from them?

Goldberg notes that, consistently, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumber anti-Muslim hate crimes by a ratio of six to one. But no one talks about an "anti-Jewish backlash" in America, nor does Time ask on its cover "Is America Anti-Semitic?"

Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are “isolated” events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, Obamacare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there’s no generalization too broad or too insulting for the Left.

Amen. This is a point I've made a lot recently here and at other blogs. People like our old "pal" Perry and those at the LGOMB have absolutely NO qualms about calling those noted above the ridiculously over-utilized "racist" (among a lot of other epithets). They have absolutely no qualms about using bogus and totally unsubstantiated claims to bolster their "arguments." Just check out what frequent LGOMB commenter "a. price" said over at DE Politics yesterday:

Let’s review what the Teabags DONT consider racist….

Holding all of Islam responsible for 9/11 (btw, way to whine about your Constitutional rights for almost 2 years than INSTANTLY telling a whole group of people they should give up theirs cause it makes you sad.. hypocrites)

Who precisely is holding ALL of Islam responsible for 9/11? Are 70% of Americans "Teabags?" Does this mean that Jews held all Catholics responsible for the crimes at Auschwitz when they expressed displeasure at the nuns who occupied a building there in 1993? Does this mean that Al Sharpton and co. believe that only blacks can take inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr.? *Sigh* Just another progressive strawman.

Having police officers look at a person and decide if they should ask for proof of citizenship

Except, that, NOWHERE in that Arizona immigration law -- currently on hold -- was there such a provision. In FACT, it specifically spelled out that immigration status could ONLY be inquired about in the process of some other law enforcement matter. Another strawman.

Politicians who ignore signs like “Barack the Magic Negro”

Except that that very phrase was created by a LIBERAL writer!

A TV host who thinks that people in Harlem order food like this “HEY M F-ER! BRING ME SOME ICED TEA”

I am assuming this is in reference to Bill O'Reilly's trip to a Harlem restaurant with the Rev. Al Sharpton, and is a textbook example of lifting remarks completely out of context. If anyone with half a brain actually SAW O'Reilly's report/discussion on the matter, it is crystal clear that he was discussing how black America is not just the snippets of rap videos seen on, say, MTV, and that unfortunately many Americans may believe just that. Even NBC's Matt Lauer recognized this.

A radio host who thinks black people should “get over” the N word…. than proceeds to yell it at a black woman 11 times before telling her she shouldnt have married outside of her race.

This refers to the recent situation with now-retired radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Of ALL of "a. price's" gripes only this one has even a hint of merit. What Dr. Laura did was wrong and incredibly insensitive; however, it doesn't make her a racist. Her point in doing what she did was to state that people are too sensitive today, and that blacks themselves use the "N" word fairly gratuitously. I, and others, do not agree, but -- again -- this does not make Schlessinger a "racist."

OK, I just did what I said I wouldn't do, but at least I did it here, on my own terms (and scythes through "a. price's" illiterate taunt).

Goldberg continues, "Here’s a thought: The 70 percent of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from Ground Zero are the real victims of a climate of hate ..." Indeed, from Time magazine to the usual MSM pundits lecturing the masses, these masses are getting fed up. From the 2008 campaign where any criticism of Barack Oama was dubbed "racist," to last year's townhall meetings where constituents were called "Nazis" (and, again, "racists"), to Tea Partiers being labeled (libeled) "racists" and "extremists," to the recent mosque controversy ... the masses will exercise the ultimate power they wield over the Ruling Class nonsense: the vote.

Semi-related: Rhymes With Right points to yet another double standard on "tolerance" and "sensitivity": You can burn a flag or burn a cross … and it is called free speech – but if you plan to burn some Qurans, you need a permit which can be denied by a government official.

Posted by Hube at 04:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 24, 2010

This made my day

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had Jewish and African relatives, DNA test suggests

Working with historian Marc Vermeeren, the samples were tested and were found to contain a chromosome called Haplopgroup E1b1b (Y-DNA), which is rarely found in Western Europeans.

"It is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews," Vermeeren said in the article.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure that little nugget of information was the first thing he learned when he showed up in Hell.

I'm sure the pea brained neo-nazi set is in full Zionist media denial/panic mode.

Posted by Duffy at 05:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 23, 2010

Cowards

Filmmaker James Cameron backs out of a global warming debate that he asked for and organized.

Ann McElhinney of NotEvilJustWrong.com (one of those who was to debate Cameron) wrote about Cameron's team's antics:

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

"We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you'd like. The more the better," one of James Cameron's organizers said in an email.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate-to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds [sic] most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed [sic]

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

Why does this come as no surprise?

Posted by Hube at 07:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

G.E.D. answers

Well, the new school year is upon us, and as such it's time for a little education humor. The following was sent to me from a fellow teacher, but I make no claim as to its accuracy:

The following questions were set in last year's GED examination. These are genuine answers (from 16 year olds).

Q. Name the four seasons.
A. Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar

Q. Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink.
A. Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists

Q. How is dew formed?
A. The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire

Q. What causes the tides in the oceans?
A. The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight

Q. What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on?
A. If you are buying a house they will insist that you are well endowed

Q. In a democratic society, how important are elections?
A. Very important. Sex can only happen when a male gets an election

Q. What are steroids?
A. Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs

Q. What happens to your body as you age?
A. When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental

Q. What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty?
A. He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery

Q. Name a major disease associated with cigarettes?
A. Premature death

Q. What is artificial insemination?
A. When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow

Q. How can you delay milk turning sour?
A. Keep it in the cow

Q. How are the main 20 parts of the body categorized (e.g. The abdomen)?
A. The body is consisted into 3 parts - the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels: A, E, I, O, U

Q. What is the fibula?
A. A small lie

Q. What does 'varicose' mean?
A. Nearby

Q. What is the most common form of birth control?
A. Most people prevent contraception by wearing a condominium

Q. Give the meaning of the term 'Caesarean section'?
A. The caesarean section is a district in Rome

Q. What is a seizure?
A. A Roman Emperor.

Q. What is a terminal illness?
A. When you are sick at the airport.

Q. Give an example of a fungus. What is a characteristic feature?
A. Mushrooms. They always grow in damp places and they look like umbrellas

Q. Use the word 'judicious' in a sentence to show you understand its meaning
A. Hands that judicious can be soft as your face.

Q. What does the word 'benign' mean?
A. Benign is what you will be after you be eight

Q. What is a turbine?
A. Something an Arab or Shreik wears on his head

Posted by Hube at 07:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tales of two signs

Via The Corner comes some pics from yesterday's protests in NYC over the "Ground Zero mosque." There's two I'd like to point out.

The first:

I hate to inform this gent, but actually Feisal Abdul Rauf can build a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero if he wants, whether Saudi Arabia allows synagogues in Mecca or not (good luck with that wish, though!). Hopefully this gent is aware of this what-should-be-a basic fact of American law, and is just conveying personal sentiments to the land of Mecca.

The second:

This placard captures what I believe most of the those opposed to the GZ mosque feel. They're good people who believe in the freedom of religion and private property, but just want some common courtesy and decency displayed. They're not "racists," "bigots" or "Islamophobes;" they just want the same sensitivity that Muslims would want in a similar situation (or, civil rights leaders in a situation like this). And spare these folks the "arguments" that "there are already mosques near Ground Zero," and "What about those strip clubs nearby?" These pre-date Sept. 11, 2001. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, unfortunately, has taken the LGOMB view of the GZ mosque situation.

Posted by Hube at 05:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The worst kind of activist

Mad Men Can Be Dangerous To Your Health, Says Desperate Housewives Star

So this woman who smoked for 45 years and mysteriously got lung cancer thinks Mad Men should have a disclaimer about smoking.

She's absolutely right. I've never smoked but once I saw the show I immediately ran out and bought cigarettes, whiskey and Bryl-Cream.

Please. We've known for centuries, literally, that smoking is bad for you. The idea that there is anyone anywhere who doesn't know that is absurd. The idea that we need to put a disclaimer before the show is infuriating. I don't watch Desperate Housewives but judging by the commercials I'm pretty sure there are a whole host of unwise behaviors that are celebrated on that show. Oddly, no need for disclaimers for that show.

The irony is that Mad Men is a show about adults acting like adults and the consequences thereof. Desperate Housewives is about adults acting like spoiled children and the latter believes the former needs parenting.

Posted by Duffy at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 22, 2010

Same situation, less tolerance

If you've been paying even a scant bit of attention to the news of late, you'll notice that lefty pundits are busily lecturing us peons on the right of the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a community center/mosque near Ground Zero, and how opponents of the project are (the usual) "intolerant," "racists" and "Islamophobes."

Just check out what's in store for Washington DC on August 28th:

[Glenn] Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin among the scheduled speakers, will take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech there.

He has a right to do this, right? And, those who oppose it must be "bigots," "anti-American" and "haters," right? Let's see:

Still, several civil rights leaders and activists called Beck's comments disingenuous. They cited his record of making what they perceive to be racially insensitive comments.

Hmm. Just as people have cited the imam's record of insensitive comments.

Beck's choice of day and place for the rally "is insulting, is what it is," Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. "August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights."

Hmm. Just as the location of the Islamic center/mosque near Ground Zero is "insulting?" Like Ground Zero is "something special?" Like Ground Zero is something that "means something in American history?"

Beck's plans are "an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don't necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King."

Hmm. Like the imam's plans are "an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the American public because the imam and his public utterances don't necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the concept of actual tolerance and goodwill?"

"For Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to have a march, they have the right to do so. Many of us suspect they are using the symbolism of that day in a way that does not reflect what the day is about," [Al] Sharpton said. "At no point will we interchange. We will not desecrate the march and what King stood for."

Hmm. As many suspect that, despite the tolerance the imam preaches, the community center/mosque "does not reflect" this "tolerance?"

We want no confrontation with Glenn Beck. But we want a confrontation with the ideas he espouses. His ideas seem to be ideas of intolerance.

Hmm. Just as opponents of the GZ mosque want a "confrontation with the ideas/statements" the imam has espoused? Some of those seem to be ideas of intolerance, too.

I wonder why it is that the same lefty pundits who are preaching to us peons about "tolerance" etc. aren't doing that to Sharpton, et. al. in regards to Beck's rally. (No, I'm not really wondering; the answer is blatantly obvious to anyone with even just half a brain hemisphere.) I mean, are Glenn Beck's past statements really "worse" than the imam's?

Of course not.

It's all just another "battle" in the country's culture war. The MSM and the Ruling Class pundits lecture us underlings about what is "right" -- their notion of "right." This means that anything associated with conservatism doesn't fit that notion, despite even public opinion polls which show how out of touch these pundits are (like the 70% of Americans who oppose the GZ mosque).

Don't ask for consistency, folks. All you'll get is outright hypocrisy.

Posted by Hube at 05:36 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

The gift that keeps giving

... for laughs, that is -- and that would be Jason "Trust Fund" Scott over at the LGOMB who helps his fellow faux progressives slip further into insane moonbattery. The issue?

A local state senator, Colin Bonini, is using campaign signs that read "It's YOUR money." According to Trust Fund Scott, these signs are -- wait for it! -- racist (oh, and "un-American"):

The the line: “it’s YOUR money” is pure GOP dog whistle racism and this is how it works.

The whole republican [sic] system is about nursing grievances. It is about division and, ginning up outrage. It is a strategy that is inherently un-American because the whole the point of Democracy [sic] is to come together in goodwill and solve problems. Coming together to solve problems is something we’ve been able to accomplish for two-hundred years.

Blessed with abundant material wealth, we’ve elected governments to plan for the future, deliberate and collectively implement beneficial projects. On the local, state and national level, we have instituted systems which pool our money in order to invest it in schools, infra-structure, research, and all manner of civilization building projects large and small. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, we all chip in to have a civilized society. It is OUR money.

Republicans like Bonini are more interested in power than that are [sic] in civilization or even democracy. They have taken the cynical, divisive course of painting ALL taxes as theft. For Bonini all taxes are confiscatory. It is not OUR money. It is YOUR money, and that is where the racism comes in.

The Republican gripes and grievances theme is so baked into modern American politics that he does Bonini [sic] does not even need to make the racism explicit. The slogan “It is YOUR money” implies the grievance that all Republican politicians are playing on. It is YOUR money – don’t let THEM spend YOUR money on unworthy back [sic] and brown people. (Ronald Reagan, may you rot in hell for what you’ve wrought.)

You really can't stretch reality (and credibility) more than that, folks. There may not be a better example of why this cadre is called The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB). Really. I mean, c'mon -- why not just invent crap out of thin air if you're going to post insane garbage like this?

It must be just another side effect of Scott having been handed everything to him in life, so outright boredom probably plays a role. But I'm still betting some mental deficiency is the bigger factor.


Posted by Hube at 03:06 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Maybe, just maybe, he's totally fed up with all your trashing of him

... and now is resigned to saying "YOU deal with this, you high and mighty elitists."

A response to this Philly Inquirer cartoon.

Posted by Hube at 10:28 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 21, 2010

Food for Thought

While driving to a client the other day, I had a few thoughts:

Those whose worldview argues that humans are nothing more than evolved animals are the most likely to get upset when humans act like animals.

Those who deny there's anything special about Man or about the United States are most likely to believe themselves are special.

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 02:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Latest reason why Ground Zero mosque opposition is "wrong"

And that is that the World Trade Center towers were "loaded with Islamic architectural references."

Lost in the cacophonous debate over plans to build an Islamic cultural center just blocks from ground zero is a seldom-discussed aspect of the former World Trade Center itself: It was a complex loaded with Islamic architectural references.

Having worked for the Saudi royal family on projects such as the Dhahran International Airport, Minoru Yamasaki, the Japanese-American architect who designed the World Trade Center, was deeply influenced by Islamic design, experts say. In fact, Yamasaki incorporated design aspects found in the Muslim holy city of Mecca into many of his projects, including the World Trade Center.

Interesting. Yamasaki must have gotten his ideas from Mecca only via books, however, since non-Muslims aren't allowed there.

More interesting is what architect Laurie Kerr says about Osama bin Laden:

Yet, as Kerr noted, Yamasaki's updating of traditional Islamic stylistic elements in a modern guise may not have sat well with the likes of Osama bin Laden.

"Having rejected modernism and the Saudi royal family, it's not surprise that bin Laden would turn against Yamasaki's work in particular," Kerr wrote.

Who knew? I wonder if the CIA has any tapes of the über-terrorist stating that one of the reasons al Qaeda attacked the WTC was because of Yamasaki's architectural ideas!

Posted by Hube at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mike Protack steps in it -- again

From the Colossus archives of two years ago: Perennial Delaware office candidate Mike Protack is caught on video pandering to a predominately Hispanic audience -- stating that undocumented students should get in-state tuition at the University of Delaware: "If these students are in our public schools, attending our schools and want to attend the University of Delaware, absolutely."

The following day, Protack attempted to "clarify" his statement, stating "As I just said, legal residents in the state of Delaware, going to our public schools, going to a public university, paying in-state tuition." (This is the same Mike Protack, by the way, who slammed former gubernatorial rival Bill Lee for once desiring to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.)

Protack's ultimate "defense," as it were, in that whole mess two years ago was to claim that the video of him at that Latino forum "was doctored." (No, I'm not kidding.)

Why do I bring this up today? Well, because Delaware Politics' David Anderson has a post up titled "Protack Takes Case to the People." (We noted Mike's desire to [finally] seek a lesser office -- county council -- back in February.) In the comments I razzed Protack about his tuition waffling from 2008, whereupon a commenter (in my opinion, a good chance it was Protack himself ... remember, after all) copied and pasted portions of a Supreme Court case from Wikipedia (without citation, of course) which was supposed to "vindicate" 'ol Mike on the illegal/in-state tuition matter:

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district’s attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding[1]. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

There's just one big problem with citing this case: It doesn't deal with college education. The commenter/Protack forgot to copy and paste the actual relevant portion of the Wikipedia article:

Application of the Court’s findings have been limited by political controversy, which is particularly apparent in debate of illegal immigrant students in higher education, where some states deny eligibility for in-state tuition and scholarships, and other states even bar enrollment at public colleges and universities to undocumented immigrants[2][3][4]. The relation of Plyler v. Doe to post-secondary education was restricted by other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno[5] and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[6].

Remember, Protack's waffling was about in-state tuition for [undocumented] college students -- not [public] school students, for which Plyler is relevant.

Oops.

Amusingly, the commenter's/Protack's handle where he cited this case as a defense of Mike's position was "Hube Don't Know," and at the end of his comment he asks "Hey Hube, can’t you read?"

Double oops.

UPDATE: Check out how "Backtrack Protack" (or one of his totally like-minded acolytes) "debates." Racial stereotypes. Name calling. Lies. Obfuscation.

Lord help us if this cretin ever gets into office.

Posted by Hube at 08:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 20, 2010

Watcher's Council winners

First place in the Council category was The Razor with The Rage Beneath The Surface.

First place in the non-Council category was Pascal Bruckner @ City Journal with Europe’s Guilty Conscience.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The latest "progressive" talking point

Oops. 18% of Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The number among the GOP is higher. Stay tuned for the inevitable "crazy Republicans" posts from the usual suspects.

But just remember this little factoid: 61% of Democrats believe Bush either knew in advance about 9/11, or aren't sure if he knew in advance. Included in that figure are our 'ol local buddies Perry and Jason "Trust Fund" Scott. But that was over three years ago. Nevertheless, the moonbattery continues:

For what it's worth, Obama might just want to consider his approach to the misinterpretation of his supposed Muslim beliefs.

Posted by Hube at 10:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 19, 2010

Who knew?

Happiness is a psychiatric disorder?

It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system.

"Hey, how've you been?
"Great! I'm really happy!"
"Been to your shrink yet?"

Posted by Hube at 01:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

No such thing as "illegal immigration"

Remember that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services internal memo that examined methods of circumventing Congress regarding so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform? It gets better:

ICE's misleadingly-named Office of State and Local Cooperation (OSLC) has announced the next step in the Obama administration's efforts to drastically diminish the scope of immigration law enforcement. According to a draft policy document now being circulated among a limited group of stakeholders, ICE chief John Morton intends to prohibit not only his officers, but also local officers with 287(g) immigration authority, from busting illegal aliens who are discovered as a result of traffic violations.

Mark Krikorian says,

So that means we’ll go back to the situation where illegal aliens can drive illegally with impunity, like the Ft. Dix plotters, who were stopped 75 times by local police for traffic violations and never turned over to immigration.

Feel safer yet?

Oh, yes. Very much so!

Posted by Hube at 01:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More "climate change" hypocrisy

Once again, remember how global warming alarmists constantly reminded us -- rightly, mind you -- that the extreme cold and snowy weather this past winter could not be used as "proof" that global warming wasn't actually happening? In other words, "weather does not = climate"?

Of course, that message doesn't have to be utilized for very hot summer weather:

"Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way." -- the AP.

"In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming." -- NY Times.

"Think this summer is hot? Get used to it." -- USA Today.

"Climate Change Predictions Supported By Summer of Fires, Floods And Heat Waves: IPCC." -- the AP.

"It has been a scorcher of a summer. Record high temperatures all over the United States, huge chunks of glacier the size of four Manhattan islands breaking off Greenland. One-third of Pakistan is now under water. Fires burning out of control in Russia. Floods in Europe. So is this just another summer on planet Earth? Or is it the apocalypse? Or is it global warming?" -- CNN host Fareed Zakaria, Aug. 15. (Source.)

But no one really expects faux progressives to be consistent now, do they?

Posted by Hube at 11:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 18, 2010

Really? I'd give 'em ...

... a big, fat middle finger:

There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.

Author Byron York quotes libs Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson and Peter Beinart. As for the former president, he "has declined to comment on the mosque affair."

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this silence is twisted into the whole mosque affair somehow being W's fault.

Posted by Hube at 11:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

It is a warm-up game

Via Phi Beta Cons:

A sports conference that always scheduled weekday basketball doubleheaders in which women’s teams played the first game — letting the men play in the later time slot — has altered the practice, after an anonymous sex discrimination complaint charged that this made the women’s games appear to be a “warm-up” act for the men’s games.

Now, hoping to avoid possible gender equity suits, other athletic conferences are considering similar scheduling changes. (Source.)

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights strikes again!

Look, here's the deal: One, women's sporting events are just not as popular as men's events because the level of competition is not as great. Fact. Two, universities planned the double-headers the way they did to maximize fan attendance and, most importantly, profits. With women playing first, it's highly likely that some fans who had planned only watch the men's game will arrive early, and as such will catch a bit of the women's game. If women play second, I can virtually guarantee that a ton of spectators will vamoose from the arena as soon as the men's game ends.

If these "gender equitists" really believe in "equality," why not dismantle the whole premise of separate men's and women's sports altogether? It's the logical conclusion of their "philosophy," after all. See how many women make the teams, then.

Oh, wait -- then a lawsuit will be brought forth charging discrimination based on "disparate impact" ...

Posted by Hube at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate using the First Amendment

Our illustrious House Speaker on the Ground Zero mosque controversy:

There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.

So, our number one legislative official wants to investigate ... people making use of their First Amendment rights? Look, once and for all for our rather slow faux progressives:

  • The vast majority of those opposed to the Ground Zero mosque (remember, some 70% of the American population) recognize that those who want to build the mosque have the right to build it.
  • Those opposed to the mosque merely want those who plan to build it to move it to another location. (Democratic NY Governor David Paterson has offered to discuss this very idea.)
  • If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a "moderate," would progressives similarly (and readily) claim that, say, Pat Robertson is a "moderate" evangelist? Or, is the standard lower for Muslims?
  • Why cannot Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf follow the lead of Pope John Paul II, who a couple decades ago ordered Carmelite nuns out of Auschwitz, the infamous Nazi death camp, where they had moved into an abandoned building to "pray for the souls taken there."

As William McGurn notes,

Without doubt Pope John Paul II did not share the more malevolent interpretations attached to the presence of the Carmelites at Auschwitz. By asking the nuns to withdraw, he didn't concede them either. What he did was recognize that having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Precisely. Many proponents of the mosque argue that the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque is a "moderate" (debatable) and that the Islam he practices shares nothing with that of the al Qaeda radicals who brought down the World Trade Center towers. But similarly, the Jews at Auschwitz weren't butchered in the name of Catholicism, and many Catholics were also killed at the camp.

It's merely a question of common decency and sensitivity: Auschwitz stands as a symbol of the genocidal dreams of the Third Reich -- genocidal meaning the annihilation of all Jews. Ground Zero stands as a symbol of the murderous intent and aspirations of radical Islam.

"Progressives" are perpetually dictating to us peons the need to be "tolerant" and "sensitive" about virtually anything and everything. Why, then, is this mantra omitted now with regards to this mosque/community center?

UPDATE: Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) summarizes the situation:

If the [developers and mosque leaders] don’t budge, there is little we can do legally. As a conservative, I think that it is dangerous to have the government condemn property, saying what can or can’t be built. What we need to have is a public debate — public opinion, rallying — and hopefully bring enough pressure on the imam to change his mind.

UPDATE 2: Jonah Goldberg:

In any decent society, tolerance must work both ways. If the majority is expected to show respect for a minority, the minority must also show some tolerance for the values of the majority. I’m no strict majoritarian – one with right on his side is the majority as far as I’m concerned. But this isn’t a clear-cut issue of right and wrong. It’s more complicated than that. It’s about deference and decency and common sense. And one of the things common sense should tell us is that it is not only unfair but terribly ill-advised to portray 7 out of 10 Americans as bigots when they are anything but.
Posted by Hube at 10:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

It's still Bush's fault

Via Rhymes With Right:

Afghanistan was dubbed ‘Obama’s War’ last night after it was revealed that as many American soldiers have died in the conflict during his presidency as during George Bush’s entire time in office.

According to the latest death tally, 575 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the 20 months since Barack Obama took office in January last year.

That is the same number of fatalities the U.S. military suffered under Mr Bush, who launched the Afghan invasion nine years ago in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

With his White House honeymoon well and truly over, Mr Obama is no longer able to blame his country’s travails on the previous administration. (Source.)

As RWR notes, "this statistic is neither an indictment nor an endorsement of Obama's policies in Afghanistan or Iraq." It's a statement about pathetically biased our MSM is.

Posted by Hube at 09:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2010

No wonder I like the guy

(With apologies to Jonah Goldberg): Seth Rogen is a Marvel true believer.

Seth Rogen grew up loving Marvel Comics -- especially the high body-count exploits of Punisher and Deadpool -- and the years haven't softened his disdain for that other company. "I like Marvel," the actor and writer says. "I've kind of given up on DC at this point."

Rogen wears a mask in his next film, "The Green Hornet," due in theaters in January, and on a recent afternoon he said that, unlike many actors in today's busy superhero sector, he is no disinterested tourist. He's an avid fan of comics although he was quick to point out that he's not a bags-and-boards kind of collector. (Link.)

A comic guy after my own heart. I detested DC back in the day (although admittedly it has gotten a lot better in the last decade or two) -- it just couldn't compare to the awesome Marvel yarns of the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s (need I say more?). And I've never been a hardcore collector -- that is, one who immediately bagged and boxed all my comics, and catalogued them meticulously. I actually bought the comics to read them -- and read them many times. I'd leave 'em in piles, laying around on the floor, until the desire to put 'em back in the long box grabbed me. The most valuable issues I still possess are here.

Rogen's flicks, by the way, are pretty hilarious (and heartfelt!) -- notably "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and "Knocked Up."

Posted by Hube at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2010

My second favorite superhero is coming back

That would be Marvel's Vision, and he'll be back in November:

As a result of Chaos War, The Vision, Captain Mar-Vell, Yellowjacket, Swordsman, Deathcry and Dr. Druid find themselves not only back to life, but also the best line of defense against one of the Chaos King’s allies — who happens to be a rather formidable Avengers villain.

Bravo. Vizh has always been one of Marvel's coolest characters -- essentially Marvel's version of Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (although Vizh came first by 20 years) -- an android in search of his humanity. His best years were from his debut (1968) through the late 70s, and then again when boffo writer Kurt Busiek took the reins of The Avengers in 1998.

Hey, even if you don't dig robotic superheroes, 'ya gotta hand it to him for having bagged one of the hottest chicks in the Marvel Universe -- the Scarlet Witch.


Vision's debut, in Avengers #57 (1968).

Posted by Hube at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Philly Inquirer continues to astound

... with idiocies in its editorials. Check out this paragraph from today's bit, regarding the GOP and illegal immigration:

Whether these efforts are serious or just mining for votes, they are a xenophobic assault on a well-settled principle of how we define our country. The Republican Party ironically pushed for adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868 to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children.

How is it "ironic?" The GOP's efforts in 1868 were to secure the citizenship rights of those brought to the United States against their will and those of their kin. How is that in any way relevant to the present-day, 140 years later, where millions have come our country freely and willingly -- yet illegally??

Oh, it's "xenophobic." Uh huh. Count the Inquirer among the putzes who think the process of amending the Constitution -- wisely provided for by the Founders to deal with changing societal circumstances -- is somehow "un-American."

Posted by Hube at 06:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Great Video from Republican Study Committee

Link for those whom the embedding doesn't work for

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 04:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Please read this article ...

... about Social Security by Kevin Williamson. Now.

Posted by Hube at 12:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2010

Memorable sci-fi film planets

MSNBC.com has an article about "7 sci-fi worlds that have enraptured moviegoers." Interestingly, the column is under their "science and technology" section even though there's actually not much of either (plausible, that is) evident in the seven choices ... with the exception of "Avatar's" Pandora, and LV-426 (called "Acheron" in the Dark Horse comics) from "Alien" and "Aliens."

What are some other "memorable planets" from film that didn't make this (short) list? Here's a few of my faves:

  • Hades from "Pitch Black." Put aside the ravenous, carnivorous monsters that come out only once every 22 years when the astronomical bodies align just right. The scene where the sun is eclipsed by this alignment is absolutely incredible. One of the most awe-inspiring in all science fiction.

  • Klendathu and Planet P from "Starship Troopers." I've said myriad times that this movie has VERY little in common with the spectacular scifi novel by Robert Heinlein; however, the CGI effects that presented to us the "Bugs" that the human Terran Federation is battling for galactic dominance, are top-notch. As are the dreary landscapes of the planets on which we fight them.

  • Ceti Alpha V from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." Because this is the best of all the Trek films, who can forget how Ricardo Montalban's classic character made it back into Trek lore? "THIS IS CETI ALPHA V!!" he screams at Chekov after the latter realizes (too late) what the derelict Botany Bay was. And then the poor Russian soon learned about the planet's "only indigenous life form" (ouch). (But y'know, one thing I never got: How is it that the Federation's astronomers never learned that Ceti Alpha VI had exploded -- thus drastically altering the climate of its habitable neighbor?)

  • Zyra from "When Worlds Collide." This classic from the early 1950s still holds up well today, unbelievably. And I'll never forget watching it during UHF Saturday afternoon science fiction theatre as a young boy -- and being thrilled at the approach of the new planet, the savior of human life.

  • Vulcan from various "Star Trek" flicks. Worthy as it's the birthplace of one of the iconic individuals in scifi -- Mr. Spock. We only got glimpses of it in the original Trek movies (III and IV), but now we'll never see it again -- it was consumed by a black hole in the "Star Trek" reboot film of last year. *Sniff!*

Other worthy mentions:

Posted by Hube at 06:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New Delaware political blog

The latest and greatest is here -- the Delaware Republican Record. Looks like Wanda from DE Tomorrow is off and running on her own, deciphering the insanity that is the O'Donnell for Senate campaign!

Posted by Hube at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 14, 2010

How else could this headline have been written?

Check out the ridiculously biased headline used for the accompanying AP article by our own illustrious News Journal: "Obama backs free exercise of religion." Yep, this is in regards to the Ground Zero mosque. It's even noted on the online news "front page":

So, with this headline, the News Journal insults not only the sensibilities of 70% of Americans, but their intelligence as well. After all, if Obama (and the News Journal) says the Ground Zero mosque is merely a matter of "free exercise of religion," then obviously the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque must not be in favor of said free exercise, right?

That's how MSM media bias works, folks.

Let's see -- how else could this headline have been written?

  • "Obama offends huge majority of American public."
  • "President a hypocrite by referring to Ground Zero as 'hallowed ground?'"
  • "70% of Americans wrong, says Obama."
  • "Vast majority of public against freedom of religion, says Obama."
  • "Obama: No comment on possible gay bar near Ground Zero mosque."

But you can sure that if any of these were suggested over at the News Journal, they would have been met with gasps and sneers.

Posted by Hube at 01:04 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

All too easy to predict

Recall back on the 10th Greg Gutfield's idea of building a gay bar near to the Ground Zero mosque? Gutfield said,

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

Now, check out what the official Twitter account of the Park51 Lower Manhattan community-center project -- the Ground Zero Mosque -- has said in response:

You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.

Why exquisite hypocrisy! What better example of the hilarious two-facedness that is political correctness! Sensibilities of almost 70% of Americans regarding the mosque? No big deal. (Included: Lectures on "religious freedom," "the need for tolerance" and "open discussions.")

Sensibilities of Muslims regarding homosexuality? A "dialogue killer."

I wonder if The Messiah is aware of this ridiculous double standard? Of course he is! He's a living, breathing example of political correctness. Meaning, some things are "worthy" of people's feelings, while others are not.

Posted by Hube at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Heh

Via The Corner: And people thought (think) George W. Bush is stupid. Here's The Messiah discussing reading and David Axelrod:

I got talking to him about what he reads and was telling me about these different policy tomes. And I said, ‘Well, yeah, but come on. I’m out here on the campaign trail with you, you’re up even earlier than I am, and I’ve been carrying around this Philip Roth book with me for two months and I’m yet to even crack it.’ He actually laughed at that point, and said, ‘Yeah, you have very little chance to really read. I basically floss my teeth and watch Sports Center.’

Hopefully he's not referring to this Philip Roth novel -- it might give him "some ideas."

Posted by Hube at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 13, 2010

Don't dare discuss the birthright citizenship clause!

Mark Krikorian notes how crazy the Left is getting over the mere discussion of ending (or revising) the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. Here's Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum: “It puts the United States of America on the brink of legalizing apartheid.”

Except that, South Africa doesn't allow birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, which makes it part of the very large majority 84% of the planet's nations that doesn't allow such! So ... S.A. is still practicing apartheid? Tell that to Nelson Mandela.

Next is Subhash Kateel, "a community organizer with the Florida Immigrant Coalition in Miami”: “The discussion of taking away citizenship is unconstitutional, un-American and flat-out racist.”

First, ex post facto laws are what's unconstitutional, so any amendment that modifies the 14th Amendment couldn't "take away" anyone's current citizenship. Second, the latter part of the statement is as asinine as that which the LGOMB's Delaware Dunce said back on August 3rd -- that those who wish to change the birthright provision are "anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives." How can changing a provision in an amendment -- via another amendment -- be "unconstitutional"?? I mean, hello??

As for the "racist" complaint -- YAAAAWWN.

UPDATE: Hey look! Harry Reid himself once supported modifying the birthright provision -- back in 1993!

Posted by Hube at 11:52 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was JoshuaPundit with A Mosque At Ground Zero.

First place in the non-Council category was Iowahawk with Undocumented Imam’s Refusal to Perform Interracial Gay Handicapped Wedding Leads to Charges of Racism.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 12, 2010

What's missing ...

... from this MSNBC.com "First Read" article on the death of former congressman Dan Rostenkowski?

Posted by Hube at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Every August, there's always a few ... "know-it-alls" who come out of the woodwork to "educate" us peons that there was no reason to drop the [newly developed] atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of World War II. This year, one of those is Michael M. Burns, an adjunct lecturer in history at Saint Joseph's University:

The anticipated invasions, only necessary if Japan did not surrender, would likely have incurred casualties of 20,000 to 40,000 men, not between a quarter of a million to a million. Not a number to sneer at, but still far fewer than the 200,000 civilians, the majority women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Y'know, I was just watching a show on one of the History Channel cable offshoots that utterly and directly refutes this ... notion, and this is not to mention the irrefutable on-the-ground platoon-grunt facts. To say that US casualties in an invasion of Honshu (the main Japanese island), let alone the southernmost main island of Kyushu, would "only" cost 20K-40K men is simply laughable. The battle of nearby Okinawa -- a tiny "rock" in comparison -- cost the US "over 62,000 casualties of whom over 12,000 were killed or missing." And civilian casualties? Okinawa's were

estimated to be between 42,000 and 150,000 dead (more than 100,000 according to Okinawa Prefecture). The U.S. Army figures for the campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those who were killed by artillery fire, air attacks and pressed into service by the Japanese Imperial Army.

It is just inconceivable that, given the utter, no-surrender tenacity of the Japanese on Okinawa (not to mention on Iwo Jima -- a mere eight square mile island which cost the Americans almost 7,000 dead and over 19,000 wounded) an invasion of the main Japanese islands would "only" cost the US between 20,000-40,000 men.

Burns further states (in response to a previous pro-atomic bombing article) that "[such] comments run counter to the best research of recent decades." Is that so? Maybe he ought to check out what D. M. Giangreco, editor for the US Army's professional journal, Military Review, had to say about researchers like Burns:

Now, this is particularly interesting because, in recent years, some historians have promoted the idea that Marshall's staff believed an invasion of Japan would have been essentially a walk-over. To bolster their argument, they point to highly qualified- and limited- casualty projections in a variety of documents produced in May and June 1945, roughly half a year before the first invasion operation, Olympic, was to commence. Unfortunately, the numbers in these documents- usually 30-day estimates- have been grossly misrepresented by individuals with little understanding of how the estimates were made, exactly what they represent, and how the various documents are connected. In effect, it is as if someone during World War II came across casualty estimates for the invasion of Sicily, and then declared that the numbers would represent casualties from the entire Italian campaign. Then, having gone this far, announced with complete confidence that the numbers actually represented likely casualties for the balance of the war with Germany. Of course, back then, such a notion would be dismissed as being laughably absurd, and the flow of battle would speedily move beyond the single event the original estimates- be they good or bad- were for. That, however, was fifty-plus years ago. Today, historians doing much the same thing, win the plaudits of their peers, receive copious grants, and affect the decisions of major institutions.

Be sure to check out Giangreco's assessment of what officials thought real casualty figures would be in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

As for Burns' concern over the civilians killed in the atomic bombings, I suggest he consider the number of civilians killed by the "conventional" bombing of Tokyo in early 1945 -- which killed more people than the immediate effects of either of the atomic bombs. This isn't to say that targeting [primarily] civilian areas was a ... "good thing;" however, WWII was total war, and such targeting of civilians was applied by the Axis powers to a hugely devastating effect (see, ahem, China and the Holocaust, to name but two).

Posted by Hube at 10:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

I blame racism

Via the Washington Examiner:

The number of Americans who have a positive opinion of First Lady Michelle Obama has fallen in the last 16 months, according to the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. In April, 2009, 64 percent of those surveyed by the Journal/NBC said they had a positive impression of Mrs. Obama; today, the number is 50 percent. That 50 percent personal approval is just slightly above President Obama’s personal approval figure, which stands at 46 percent in the new poll.

Speaking of racism, the inimitable John Rosenberg has more on Harry's Reid's racism towards Hispanics.

Posted by Hube at 09:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 11, 2010

What the judge in the Prop. 8 case forgot

By way of Rhymes With Right, an interesting little tidbit about U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision regarding Proposition 8 in California:

This was a strange ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1971 that an identical challenge to the traditional definition of marriage was meritless. Nor has the Supreme Court ever suggested that its 1971 decision was wrong. Wednesday's ruling relied primarily on a constitutional doctrine that forbids laws having no conceivable rational purpose or no purpose except to oppress a politically unpopular minority group. After a lengthy trial, the judge found that the people of California must have adopted the traditional definition of marriage because of moral or religious contempt for homosexuals and their relationships. (Link.) (RWR notes that the case, Baker v. Nelson. 409 U.S. 810, actually was decided in 1972.)

A federal judge -- ignoring Supreme Court precedent? How can that be? As RWR says,

What did the Supreme Court do in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson? It dismissed a mandatory appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court regarding the gay marriage and the Fourteenth Amendment "for want of a substantial federal question."

And this doesn't necessary "overrule" the case I made here that not affording gay couples the same state benefits that are given to straight couples is an equal protection violation -- since this separate from the argument over the use of the term "marriage." Again, unlike past laws that irrationally separated the races, gender IS a biological (and procreational) fact -- hence the term "marriage" has a unique definition. And that is for a union between a man and a woman.

Posted by Hube at 07:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

* The Colossus of Rhodey - “OK, But …”
* Wolf Howling - Perry v. Schwarzenegger: A Modern Roe v. Wade
* The Glittering Eye - The Breakdown: the Wrap
* Virginia Right! - Obama Retaliates Against Virginia
* The Razor - Riders On The Storm
* Right Truth - The First Muslim College In America
* Bookworm Room - A history lesson about your Social Security card and benefits *UPDATED*
* Snapped Shot – Memo to Fayaz Kabli and Dar Yasin
* Rhymes with Right - We Are The Revolution People
* Mere Rhetoric – State Department: Hey, You Don’t Think Lebanon Used American Weapons To Attack Israel, Do You?
* JoshuaPundit - A Mosque At Ground Zero

And scope out the non-Council nominations here!

Posted by Hube at 01:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ron Williams and the Verizon vs. Comcast debate

Which is better in your experience (that is, of course, if you have one or the other)?

I used to have Verizon DSL (not FiOS) that had myriad connection problems which were finally resolved a couple years later. At my new place, I've had Comcast (Internet and TV) for almost a year, and I've been happy as a clam. Internet hasn't had a single problem (knock wood), and when I had a hassle with the signal to my new [free] converter during the digital turnover, the [human] customer service rep I got on the phone resolved it quickly and courteously. With Comcast, about the only hassle I've had was not getting a very clear explanation of precisely what would be included in my "introductory" package (Internet and TV) when I signed up. I was under the impression that I'd get more channels than I did, and that the prices were set for a year. (I had to pay a bit extra for the channels I thought I was to get, and the rental charge for my modem was raised from $3/mo. to $5/mo. after only two months into the deal. Apparently, modem rates were exempt from set price offers.)

Williams' column about his distaste for Verizon is here.

Posted by Hube at 12:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Local "progressive" empathy on display

Regarding the death of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

Here's perpetual local hatemonger dimwitty:

anyone know whose plane he was riding in? I think it was a corporate jet for someone. How fitting I guess (Link)

I saw someone at another site say he wouldn’t have died if he had been in jail…sorta true. But he also wouldn’t have died if he hadn’t sold his soul to corporate interests and thought that he deserved to live like a king. I’ll be the first to say it…I could care less about him and could care less that he’s gone. He died riding a corporate jet…irony at it’s best. (Link)

we all mourn in different ways I guess. Me…I mourn for those I feel are worthy of it. The rest, especially the ones that helped wreck my country…not so much (Link)

Then there's delacrat:

If you want to mourn, be “a bit respectful” or acknowledge your “condolences to the family” of a right-wing republican crook, there are crooked, right-wing republican websites that are more appropriate for such sentiments. (Link)

And do you really think his family gives a f___ about your condolences? (Link)

And finally, anonone:

I’ll care as much about Stevens as he did about all the families and children he killed in the needless and stupid wars that he supported. May he rest in anguish. (Link)

Kudos to those over there (like MJ, notably) who called out these putzes on their comments.

Posted by Hube at 11:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Today's instance of "Imagine if a Republican said it"

Our esteemed Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid:


Posted by Hube at 11:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2010

I'll now once again be watching NBC's Sunday Night Football

NBC Takes Olbermann Off Sunday NFL Broadcasts.

Posted by Hube at 06:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

This is brilliant

Gay Bar Near Mosque Near Ground Zero:

Greg Gutfeld claims to be working to build a gay bar next door to the controversial Cordoba House Muslim cultural center a few blocks from Ground Zero.
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

Let's see if anyone -- who was in favor of building the mosque where it will go up -- comes out against this proposed gay bar. I mean, it's all about TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING, after all!

By the way, best proposed name for the new bar: "Al Gayda."

UPDATE: Another great name: "Ground Queero."

UPDATE 2: A reader of Instapundit offers the following demands for landmarks ... "in the spirit of Imam Faisal ... in order to build bridges across cultural divides":

St Abrahamy’s Orthodox Church in Riyadh
The Charles Martel École Militaire in Dubai
The Lost Treasures of Tibet in Beijing
The Comfort Women Memorial in Tokyo
The Jewish Holocaust Museum of Gaza
The Daniel Pearl School of Journalism in Islamabad
The Eternal Flame of Waco at the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library
The Sanātana Dharma Temple in Medina
St. Judes Cathedral in Mecca

Perfect!

Posted by Hube at 05:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Culture of cluelessness

Well, after my buddy's and my annual Fellas Weekend, my girlfriend and I hit Cape Henlopen beach yesterday. Two incidents during that time with her, in addition to a few more earlier today, REALLY are causing me to question why I am always such a nice, polite guy in public. Seriously.

When my girlfriend and I arrived at the Cape, it was pretty early. Thus, we got a prime parking spot near the beach's entrance. We left around 2:30, and as we were entering the parking lot, I noticed a van, full with family, circling around looking for a parking spot. I waved my hand around and indicated to the driver where we were parked and that we were leaving. I even pulled my car out of the spot before we packed up our gear so as to hasten the van's parking.

Now, did anyone from the van even utter a simple "thank you"? Nope. Did the driver physically indicate such when I gestured to her? Nope. She and her family merely poured out of the van, got their stuff, and hit the beach. My incredulous girlfriend and I just packed our stuff -- in the fire lane, mind you -- and simply chuckled. It's all we could do.

A couple hours later, the girlfriend and I hit a local eatery near her house. We were seated next to a mom and a few of her kids, including an infant. The infant had no toys in his high-chair, nor did mom give him anything to eat. Thus, the little guy was crying quite a bit. Mom's reaction? Cursing at him the entire time, including the F word. All within easy earshot of us, too, natch. Unbelievable.

Then, earllier this afternoon, I hit the local supermarket to pick up some needed items. And what do I encounter? Clueless old ladies with their carts in the middle of the aisle not heeding my polite "excuse me's." Clueless moms on their cell phones making sure the entire aisle can hear what the other person on the line wants from the store (all the while also keeping their carts dead center in the aisle). Clueless moms paying no attention to their kids who're running amok through the aisle (and store).

*Sigh*

And school begins in about three weeks. Connect the dots.

UPDATE: The unfortunate ultimate result of folks like the above.

Posted by Hube at 04:08 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

August 09, 2010

Stopping prison rape

Instapundit has a post about prison rape and HIV/AIDS rates. Clearly it's a problem that nobody likes talking about. I think I have a solution. Why not give Rape-aXe to the prisoners who are most likely to be victims? There are practical problems to this approach but frankly doing nothing is not working.

Posted by Duffy at 09:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 06, 2010

Top Ten Signs of Doom (for Democrats)

Via Moe Lane:

1. The response of every Democrat to every Republican question or comment becomes, semantically speaking, “George W. Bush.” Up to and including “What are the visiting hours for the art gallery?”
2. The Democrats start talking up “scandals” involving Republicans that wouldn’t even get you a verbal reprimand at your job if you did them.
3. A Democratic legislator snaps and attempts to strangle someone. On camera.
4. The usual suspects start talking about how important it is to keep the Republicans from being able to overturn vetoes.
5. All talk of the filibuster dies the True Death.
6. The DSCC starts funding the New York races.
7. The DCCC starts funding urban House races.
8. We see a week of “Will the Republicans try to impeach the President?” stories in the media. Or a month of them.
9. A convoluted theory appears that tortuously ‘proves’ that the Democrats are actually going to gain seats, really. It will involve three random trends whose relationship with each other is not immediately obvious. It will have a buzzword. Every site on the Left will talk it up for two weeks. It will then disappear without a trace.
10. “Of course we’re going to keep Congress. GOTV will save us.”

Number one is my favorite, of course.

Posted by Hube at 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

So why then does he work to make our laws?

Charlie Rangel, pulling out the inevitable race card as we all knew he would:

The Harlem Democrat yesterday likened himself to a defendant being asked to confess to crimes he didn't commit and dismissed talk of a plea bargain as "English, Anglo-Saxon" procedure for criminal cases.

OK, I'll play -- what then, pray tell, would be a "sub-Saharan African" alternative?

Posted by Hube at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was Mere Rhetoric with After Lebanon Border Ambush, Reuters First Out Of The Gate With Demonstrably False Anti-Israel Propaganda.

First place in the non-Council category was Winds of Change with Why We’re Just Flatly Screwed in Afghanistan.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 05, 2010

But just don't dare ask them to see any ID!

Pass a law to check someone's residency status in the commission of a crime or some other violation of the law? The feds sue you.

Pass a law to become a sanctuary city? No worries! And now we see this:

Independence Investigates has obtained internal emails from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) showing that a software control intended to prevent the payment of unemployment insurance to unqualified citizens as well as to illegal aliens was shut off in early 2009.

The emails dictate that former CDLE unemployment insurance director Mike Cullen demanded “Work Order 51662” be given top priority within the department. Completion of the work order would mean various questions asked of someone filing for unemployment regarding citizenship would effectively be ignored by a computer system.

The documents also show that several individuals within the department immediately raised the issue that the work order might be circumventing the law, specifically House Bill 06-1023. HB 1023 was passed in a special session of the legislature in 2006, and mandated that certain government benefits, such as unemployment insurance, be denied to illegal aliens.

Word has it that Mr. Cullen is in line for a national humanitarian award because of his "sensitivity" and "caring attitude" towards unregistered/undocumented/not-entirely-lawful residents.

Posted by Hube at 03:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wow

Recent surgery has prevented me from playing golf this year ... until now. I just got back from the driving range (first time swinging clubs all year) and all seemed swell.

Back in February, I won a spankin' new Nike Sumo driver at a CHOP benefit. I had been wondering how I'd hit it all year. Now I know.

WOW. Super long, and super forgiving. Tomorrow's first golf game of the year might not be as dreadful as I thought!

Posted by Hube at 02:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 04, 2010

It's official: Hugo Chávez really is a lunatic

From exhuming the body of the revolutionary Simón Bolívar, to doubting Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, to claiming the American moon landing was a hoax -- this is the cretin who is decimating the country of some of the nicest and most personable people on Earth.

(h/t to Colossus reader Soapfiction!)

Posted by Hube at 06:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

OK, but ...

Actual quote from the judge's ruling today overturning California's Proposition 8: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

I've repeatedly opined here and elsewhere that if gay couples (in civil unions or "marriage") aren't allowed to get the same state benefits as straight couples, it seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. But that's not what Judge Walker has said. He said the above. (The full text of the ruling is here.) But ...

... if that's the case, what is to prevent some judge from claiming "The number involved in a relationship no longer forms an essential part of marriage"? Or some other manifestation thereof?

I know that gay "marriage" advocates tend to automatically (and viscerally) attack those who ask questions like the above ("Oh YEAH? What's next -- are 'ya gonna scream that next people will be able to marry their DOG?"), but it doesn't matter. The question remains completely valid. If gender is no longer an essential part of marriage, then what else isn't essential?

In California, a domestic partnership "affords the couple most but not all of 'the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law...' as married spouses." And that's key. "Most -- but not all." That is not equal protection under the law. In my view, Judge Walker would have done well enough to leave a thousands of years old biological tradition alone and concentrate on the equal rights question. And, as I've also said before, gay Americans would be much better served demanding basic equal rights instead of demanding a redefinition of a millenia-old institution that's still going strong today.

If [gay] civil unions -- with all the requisite rights of heterosexual married couples -- and marriage are somehow "separate but equal" (another gay "marriage" advocate argument), then why not take this logic to its natural conclusion? And that would be simply that men and women themselves are not different. There should be no more separate men's tennis tournaments and women's tennis tournaments. No more separate events at the Olympics (good luck, women track and field competitors). Indeed, gender shouldn't be a defining characteristic of anything anymore. (Hell, some scholars have been saying just this for years.)

The fact of the matter is that men and women are different. I know. My girlfriend is definitely different from me. I'm not "socially constructing" her difference, either. Really. If gender "no longer forms an essential part of marriage," then what's the big hang-up on reserving the term "marriage" for men and women, and just using "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" for gay couples? If that's such a big deal to gay "marriage" advocates, then not only should gender not be a big deal in marriage, but, again, number or any other [adult human-based] combination thereof shouldn't be a big deal either.

It's not slippery slope argument. It's the logical outcome of Judge Walker's decision.

Posted by Hube at 06:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Top Ten Worst Movie Clichés

Via my buddy Brent:

Number 1 is hilarious, and reminds me of a buddy back in high school lambasting the 1960s "Batman" TV show. He said,

Now c'mon -- Mr. Freeze has Batman and Robin all tied up and dead to rights. But does he shoot 'em? HELL NO. He puts 'em in a big Slurpee where they slowly descend into the ice. Then he LEAVES so that 'ol Bats can conveniently figure out a way to escape with nobody around!

Conspicuously missing from the list: People entering a dark house or room ... and never bothering to turn on the f'ing lights!

Posted by Hube at 04:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Justice Dept. -- voter intimidation no big deal; universities using Kindle a big problem

We've already seen how the Obama Justice Dept. could care less about obvious cases of voter intimidation. But have no fear! The DOJ is on the case on behalf of the sight-impaired when it comes to universities using the Kindle reader instead of textbooks:

Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.

It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

From its introduction in 2007, the Kindle has drawn criticism from the National Federation of the Blind and other activist groups. While the Kindle's text-to-speech feature could read a book aloud, its menu functions required sight to operate. "If you could get a sighted person to fire up the device and start reading the book to you, that's fine," says Chris Danielsen, a spokesman for the federation. "But other than that, there was really no way to use it."

Perez recently said "We must remain vigilant to ensure that as new devices are introduced, people with disabilities are not left behind."

Indeed. Wish some of that vigilance would seep into the Voting Rights Section!

Nevertheless, Amazon had already informed the National Federation of the Blind that it would shortly offer "text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week they did just that. But Perez apparently is not satisfied. He "was sending a letter to educators warning them they must use technology 'in a manner that is permissible under federal law.'"

Whatever that means.

Some of the comments at the article's website ask some pertinent questions and make some good points:

  • I suppose they will have to outlaw automobiles as well, since blind people can't drive.
  • What about Universities that publish lectures on iTunes U? Deaf people can't hear them, so shouldn't that mean that nobody gets to use iTunes U, either? Gotta keep the playing field level, right? And people in wheelchairs can't run on an outdoor track. Gotta remove outdoor tracks from all colleges and universities, too. Because that's not fair.
  • Elections have consequences. By this idiotic reasoning, sighted students should not have access to any printed material which is not also accessible to the blind. The inmates have taken over the asylum.
  • How on earth is anyone discriminated against by a visual device's being visual? Is he going to prohibit the use of books because they are not visible to the blind? How about lighting? The use of colored lights for traffic signals? Isn't the automobile a violation of the civil rights of the blind?
  • Perhaps the public schools will be forced to stop distributing condoms, since only the boys can use them.

(Via Insty.)

Posted by Hube at 03:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

No data vs. ... no data

Conservative César Conda is against any meddling with the 14th Amendment's "birthright provision," discussed here yesterday. He says,

In terms of why not amend the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment rejected the idea that someone could be a person but less than a person legally, as well as the idea that citizenship can be made dependent on race. It is of enormous symbolic importance. There is no data supporting the claim that significant numbers of women deliberately cross the border to give birth in the United States in order to take advantage of this provision.

OK, but then he offers a "no data" argument for why the provision's repeal should be anathema to [social] conservatives:

But wearing my other hat as the co-chair of the Susan B. Anthony List’s executive committee (though speaking strictly for myself), my biggest fear is that Graham’s proposal, if enacted by constitutional amendment or by statute, will lead to more abortions: Undocumented immigrants with unplanned pregnancies might choose to have abortions instead of risking apprehension by the police or government immigration agents (not to mention possible deportation down the line) at the hospital maternity ward.

I see. So, we should accept his supposedly logical assumption that illegal immigrants will have more abortions (by being denied the opportunity to have their children become US citizens by giving birth within our borders); yet, at the same time we should discount the logical assumption that automatic birthright citizenship is a "draw" for pregnant (or planning-to-get-pregnant) women (who desire to live in the US).

Sorry. To quote Bruce Dickinson (yes, THE Bruce Dickinson), "Y'know it ... it doesn't work for me."

Posted by Hube at 12:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

I thought this was The Onion at first

To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets

Some key quotes:

Mr. Raye says he's grateful for the work, even though he's not sure why he's doing it. "I could care less," he says. "I am being paid to march around and sound off."

That actually makes him indistinguishable from an actual union member. Now all he needs are an expansive health plan, immunity from termination and guaranteed wage increases every year.

The union's Mr. Garcia sees no conflict in a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor.

Of course not.

Posted by Duffy at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Obama "doesn't want to meddle in local affairs"

... according to spokesmouth Robert Gibbs.

Meanwhile, Arizonans just guffawed a big "YEAH, RIGHT."

Posted by Hube at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, one way to save your hide!

From ABC News:

A struggling family facing foreclosure has stumbled upon what is considered to be the Holy Grail of comic books in their basement – a fortuitous find that could fetch upwards of a quarter million dollars at auction.

A copy of Action Comics No. 1, the first in which Superman ever appeared, was discovered as they went about the painful task of packing up a home that had been in the family since at least the 1950s. The couple, who live in the South with their children, asked to remain anonymous.

"The bank was about ready to foreclose," said Vincent Zurzolo, co-owner of ComicConnect.com and Metropolis Comics and Collectibles in New York. "Literally, this family was in tears. The family home was going to be lost and they're devastated. They can't figure out a way out of this. They start packing things up. They go into the basement and start sifting through boxes – trying to find packing boxes – and they stumble on eight or nine comic books."

The book got an official rating of 5.0 by the CGC (Comics Guaranty Company), which is "very good" to comics laymen (like me). This means it should fetch upwards of $250,000 at auction.

In contrast, currently my most valuable book is worth around $200-$250. Heh.

Posted by Hube at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2010

Still more predictable local idiocy from the wisher of death upon Republicans

That "guy" who has wished that all Republicans be rounded up and shot now treats us all to his legal skills (hard to believe this doofus is an attorney) with the post Constitutional Conservatives. After spending numerous paragraphs falsely claiming that the GOP wants to "repeal the 14th Amendment," Delaware Dunce finally gets down to business: the issue of potentially changing the birthright provision to the Constitution which is located in the 14th Amendment. Oh, and of course, DD throws around the word "bigotry" a lot, too. *Sigh*

Let's dissect this nonsense, shall we?

You are anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives. Which ever works for you. Got that?

This non-sensical quote comes towards the end of DD's post. Now remember, this "guy's" a lawyer, and he is claiming that investigating an amendment to the Constitution -- clearly provided for IN the Constitution -- is "anti-constitutional!" You can't make this stuff up. This sort of logic means that granting the franchise to blacks and women is "anti-constitutional," not to mention eradicating the poll tax and implementing an income tax. You follow my point? And I don't mean the point on DD's head.

This clause was historically important in Constitutional history, as it explicitly overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, a case that conservatives use as a dog whistle code word, most memorably George W. Bush in the 2000 debates, concerning abortion. That decision had ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. How that relates to abortion I cannot fathom, but anti-choicers love to equate abortion and slavery.

You can't fathom it because, simply, you're an idiot.

Dred Scott ruled that slaves were property -- therefore not legally human beings -- and THAT is what George Bush (and other pro-lifers) argue when they bring up that "dog whistle code word" with regards to abortion. So, what is your view, DD -- are black people "property" or "human beings?" And then, is a 29-week old fetus "property" ... or a "human being?" Careful now ... do you want to make yourself out to be a preposterous moral relativist?

Now we really get silly:

While we are at it, can we strike redheads from being citizens? How about short people? How about people who disagree with our political views? How about a racial minority? Indeed, since this very important first sentence overturned Dredd [sic] Scott, repealing the Amendment to strike this first sentence automatically means Dredd Scott is now good law, which of course means that blacks are no longer citizens of the United States.

This debate over who is a citizen is absurd. Indeed, for certain conservatives, it is contradictory, for they were all hot and bothered just a short while ago about President Obama being BORN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!! And now, all of a sudden, being born in this country is of no importance?

1) No one -- again -- is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. Delaware Dunce is merely practicing what his fellow rabid moonbat "progressives" do ad nauseum, and that is repeat a falsehood again, and again, and again until people begin accepting it as fact. (See: racial epithets hurled by Tea Partiers to members of the Congressional Black Caucus; that the Tea Party is incorrigibly racist; that Fox News is responsible for Shirley Sherrod being fired from her job; Etc.)

2) Since the federal government continually refuses to its job in terms of illegal immigration, why is examining a possible repeal of the birthright provision -- a significant factor in illegal immigration -- a bad thing? After all, the United States is only one country out of a "whopping" 16% on the entire planet that allows birthright citizenship! And not a single European country -- y'know, those nations that "progressives" admire so much -- is one of that 16%.

And just ignore Dunce's ridiculous "But can short people be citizens?" crap. That's just pure stupidity attempting to masquerade as "thought." The most obvious answer to a possible amendment to change the 14th would be to allow birthright citizenship only to citizens and legal residents. And it would most assuredly take an amendment to make this change, not, as some conservatives argue, that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision of the 14th allows Congress to merely pass a law changing the birthright clause. That, because as an intelligent attorney notes,

... is basically the conservative equivalent of liberals arguing that “well-regulated militia” means “kindly ignore the following clause in its entirety” and “freedom of the press” means “let’s prohibit all corporations that don’t own newspapers from expressing political views at any time when voters are in any danger of acting on those views.”

And the inimitable Xrlq then adds to my own argument:

Not all bad ideas are unconstitutional, and not all good ideas are constitutional. A ban on anchor babies is a good idea, but it’s unconstitutional. So let’s amend the Constitution to fix that ...

How 'bout that? A lawyer that makes perfect sense -- one that recognizes the inanity of a fellow lawyer claiming that amending the Constitution is "anti-Constitutional." After all, the proof is right here for all to see.

Posted by Hube at 11:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 02, 2010

The conclusion is: "Common Sense"

Just in case you were wondering why the Obama went ahead and sued the state of Arizona for its [now half-injunctioned] immigration law, we now have an inkling: A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services internal memo that examines methods of circumventing Congress regarding so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. Some of the highlights:

  • “This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”
  • “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
  • “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.”

Honestly, I have difficulty fathoming just why in the world Obama and Co. would consider such a measure that is profoundly against the will of the American public. Politically, it is a complete loser -- at least in the short run. A lone judge shooting down major parts of the Arizona law only serves to motivate an already anti-Obama/Democrat electorate ... and now this? Ah, but ...

... just consider how many new Democrat voters will enter voting booths if upwards of 12 million illegal immigrants are granted some type of amnesty -- and a "fast track" to citizenship?

We've already seen over many years how it is Democrats who are loathe to impose any sort of impediment to voting. If it were up to them, anyone could simply walk into a voting booth and vote. If you're a Democrat, the more you do it, the better. After all:

  • Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell vetoed a bill that would have mandated voters show ID when voting in the state.
  • The Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the NAACP and the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition (typical Democrat constituencies) objected when the state of Florida elections officials began requiring IDs in order to vote.
  • The Indiana Democratic Party challenged a state law there requiring photo ID to vote.
  • A Texas Democrat was against requiring a photo ID to vote -- but wanted IDs shown in order to attend his townhall meetings!
  • Speaking of Texas, Democrats there blocked a bill that would have required photo ID to vote.
  • Democrats in South Carolina were against a photo ID measure there.
  • Democratic Governor Roy Barnes of Georgia brought suit against a state law that required photo ID to vote, saying that such a law would "suppress the votes of poor, elderly and minority voters."
  • Reliable Democratic backer the National Education Association came out against requiring a photo ID to vote ... but amazingly requires one to vote in their own elections!
  • Democrats came out against photo ID voting requirements in Minnesota, citing what Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes did above.
  • Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas vetoed a photo ID requirement when she was in office.

And the list could go on and on and on ...

But why? 82% of Americans in a poll back in May said they think requiring a photo ID to vote is a good idea. Kind of similar to the around-70% of the public that approved of Arizona's ilegal immigration law, right? The usual argument against a photo ID that we hear (as seen above in some of the bullet points), is that such would "disenfranchise" minorities, the elderly, and just about any other "oppressed" group one can think of. But do they really?

The Center for Data Analysis researched a Rutger's University study and concluded:

  • White survey respondents in photo identifica­tion states are 0.002 percent less likely to report voting than white respondents from states that only required voters to state their name.
  • African-American respondents in non-photo identification states are 0.012 percent less likely to report voting than African-American respon­dents from states that only required voters to state their name.

In other studies, white, black and Hispanics were found to be "just as likely to report voting compared to respondents from states that only required voters to state their name."

Perhaps most convincingly, almost 100 countries require a photo ID to vote.

This is why Democrats and progressives, in particular, never win the public opinion battle in matters such as voter ID and [illegal] immigration. Their stances are so contrary to sentiments of basic common sense and responsibility as to be utterly bewildering to the average American.

But so what -- if ultimately you can garner a lot more voters and hence more ... power? Voting rights and immigration are just two facets of the political issue spectrum. Though at odds with most of the public on these, Democrats can obviously concentrate on their political strengths, all the while exclaiming to their perpetually "nurtured" constituencies "Look what we've done for you!"

And all this is not to mention that such tactics exemplify the risible "bigotry of low expectations." Minorities "can't be expected to have a photo ID." Illegal immigrants "can't be expected to follow the law" like other immigrants who have filled out all the necessary forms and waited (sometimes) for years. We've seen such sentiments by "progressives" in education for decades -- to disastrous effect.

Posted by Hube at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 01, 2010

What "Dude, Where's My Car?" Can Teach Us About Economics

One of the most memorable scenes in Dude, Where's My Car? is Ashton Kutcher's face-off with the speaker of a Chinese drive-through:

(In case it doesn't show up for you, here's a direct link.)

You might not think it, but this scene can teach us a very important economic lesson.

One of the seminal works in popular economics, and one I wish every political leader would read, is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. (Available here for free!) The point of this work is that most economic proposals fail to consider any effects beyond the intended. The lesson Hazlitt asks us to learn is that we need to consider additional effects that proposed actions will have.

A simple example is the minimum wage increases so frequently proposed by politicians seeking to prove they care. When asked what effect these increases will have, these politicians will speak about how those currently earning the minimum wage will see pay increases and be able to take better care of their families. (This in itself misrepresents the typical minimum wage earner, who is most likely to be single and under the age of 23.)

Unfortunately, among proponents of such an increase, the thought process usually stops there. When opponents of an increase point out that an increase in the minimum wage will then lead to increased unemployment among the lowest income workers, proponents of it react much like Ashton Kutcher screaming "NO AND THEN! NO AND THEN!!!" Those seeking to increase the wage overlook the fact that the true minimum wage is $0, which will be earned by those who get fired or never get hired to begin with. This is why unemployment is disproportionately hitting the young, the black and especially the young and black, those with the fewest skills. Unfortunately, this "caring" action will haunt these people for the rest of their lives, as they not only lose jobs now, but also lose experience that will help them gain better-paying jobs in the future.

Raising the minimum wage exacerbated the effects of the bad economy on those most line to feel its effects. Seeming to care became more important than actually helping. And unfortunately, those pushing for the increase reacted much like Ashton Kutcher when some asked "And then?"

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 06:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I thought he was a lawyer

President Obama, that is. Recently he said,

We should all make more of an effort to discuss with one another, in a truthful and mature and responsible way, the divides that still exist — the discrimination that’s still out there, the prejudices that still hold us back — a discussion that needs to take place not on cable TV, not just through a bunch of academic symposia or fancy commissions or panels, not through political posturing, but around kitchen tables, and water coolers, and church basements, and in our schools, and with our kids all across the country.

Eugene Volokh reminds us (at the link above) that discussing race around water coolers would NOT be a very good idea. That is, if you valued your continued employment. Why? Potential charges of "harassment" and "hostile work environment" among other tidbits. And in our schools? Yeah, right.

As I've said many times, "progressives" like Obama do want frank discussions on race -- as long as everyone agrees with their viewpoint. Otherwise, "RACIST!!!"

Posted by Hube at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Britain's N.H.S. -- can't pay for cancer drugs, can pay for renewed virginity

Via Common Sense Political Thought:

Three months ago, Bill Phelps became a widower — he watched, helpless, as his cancer-stricken young wife Nikki’s life slowly ebbed away.

Nikki, 37, a former teacher and mother of two-year-old twins, was denied the drug that might have saved her life, as it was deemed too costly by her NHS Primary Care Trust.

I wonder, then, how Mr Phelps feels after reading yesterday’s report that the NHS is happy to foot the bill for young women to have ‘virginity repairs’?

Nikki Phelps, pictured with husband Bill and her twins Harry and Jack, died after the NHS deemed treatment which could have saved her too costly How can it be right that the mother of his two little boys was condemned to death by an NHS that put women’s desire to appear ‘untouched’ before the right of a mother to live as long as she can to raise her children?

Latest figures show that there has been a 25 per cent rise in hymen replacement operations carried out on the NHS over the past four years. (Link.)

Is it a wonder that cancer survival rates are worst in Western Europe?

It sure is a "good" thing that we have Donald Berwick coming in to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, eh? He loves the British NHS.

Posted by Hube at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack