Don't Stop Campaigning

A Washington Post editorial - Don't Stop Campaigning. Either ignorant or conservative, I don't know which. And now for my own version of Don't Stop Campaigning:

Mrs. Clinton, please don't stop campaigning. You are a well-qualified, politically savvy asshole. Yes, indeed, you are more qualified than your opponent. And your desire to remove democracy from a democracy for your own benefit in state races that have already occurred is, well, enlightening. You dazzle us with your fantastic ability to piss off your entire party, the one who used to look up to you, love you. Hug you. Kiss you... oh, wait, that was only Nancy Pelosi. But hug you, they did. And you were their leader. You were respected. So who better to run this country than you? But you really didn't think a political campaign could tire you, hurt you, age you. Thanks to Botox, the latter was true. No, the campaign only cost you the respect of your party, but who needs them anyway? Do you really need Howard Dean, or Ted Kennedy, or Chris Dodd, or John Kerry, or Russ Feingold, or Tom Daschle, or Bob Gee, or Ted Sorensen? No, you don't. You are doing a fine job slaughtering your reputation on your own, thank you very much.

You are such a wonderful person. Even if you didn't run through Bosnia under sniper fire, at least you had the nuts to make up a pretty cool camp fire story, right? And your wonderful ability to paste together words to make a ridiculously impossible story parallels that of the lovely Michael Moore.
I guess what it comes down to, Hillary, is that we over here really love you. We enjoy your biological warfare against your own that will, hopefully, make the whole country red. We love the infighting that would stop if you simply muttered the two terrible words, "I quit." We love when you make our objectively mediocre candidate look like God himself.

So Hillary Clinton, please don't stop campaigning.

Turn Out the Lights,

Another Meaningless Empty Symbolic Gesture.

SYDNEY (AFP) - Twenty-six major cities around the world are expected to turn off the lights on major landmarks, plunging millions of people into darkness to raise awareness about global warming, organisers said. Cities officially involved in 'Earth Hour' include Aalborg, Aarhus, Adelaide, Atlanta, Bangkok, Brisbane, Canberra, Chicago, Christchurch, Copenhagen, Darwin, Dublin, Hobart, Manila, Melbourne, Montreal, Odense, Ottawa, Perth, Phoenix, San Francisco, Suva, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto and Vancouver. (link)

Comment: Liberals love the meaningless empty symbolic gesture. Turn off your lights and show how much you “care.” Show your solidarity with others who “care.” This feel-good measure can make you feel like you are “doing something." The only possible reason for something like this is to raise awareness. Mr Friends, awareness has been raised! It is time to get behind policy changes that will actually do something. Showing how environmentally pious you are is useless. I will be keeping the lights on.

TJ's Anti-Contrarian Blog: It's TRUE!!!!

This is just way too funny! Gotta give a h/t to MegaBrad over at TJ's Anti-Contrarian Blog: It's TRUE!!!! . Type in the following URL into your web browser then hit the green arrow and just let it take you there!

""www.IAMSORETARDED.com""

This is just too funny!

Juicy Campus

I was watching the local news on channel 12 like every well educated person should, and I saw CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal going on about how terrible an effect this new website (here - Juicy Campus), can have on people. It's simply a no registration anonymous posting site, where people can literally post anything they want about anyone they want, and the site claims complete anonymity. Curiosity got the best of me, so I logged on to this site to see how crazy it really is. Basically, it's a hotspot for coward idiots who want to rip on people. An example...



Now, I have no idea who David Knoeckel is. I don't know if these are David Knoeckel's two best friend messing with him, or maybe it's actually David Knoeckel himself. But maybe it really is some jerks who despise David Knoeckel enough to permanently tag his name on the internet as "quite possibly the horniest guy at UNC."

I decided to throw my own little bash out there and see how easy this thing really is. I went to the website, and clicked "New Post." I came to this screen:



So I typed in my bash, even daring to throw in a little crazy Virginia Tech stuff.



I doubt you can actually read that. It says, "I hate jerks. They suck. You know what, Joe Shmoe is a jerk. In fact, I plan on murdering Joe Shmoe. Tomorrow, in his bed, with a pitchfork. Police, that's where I'll be."

So I had my sample down, and I hit 'submit' and went back to the main page. Behold...



That whole process took me all of two minutes. For a first time user, that's not bad.

Now that we've figured out how to work the thing, what are the legal ramifications here? Well, it's freedom will be it's downfall, whether in the public or private sector. I wouldn't want my name plastered all over the site like poor David Knoeckel, but I tend to doubt he'll be hurt in the least in the long run. A google search on his name returns no obvious relevant results, and somehow, I don't think an employer is going to take such a simple online toy seriously enough to block his application.

Students can use Facebook and Myspace as freely as they use Juicy Campus. I know from experience; I have used both sites. The difference is you have at least some control over who actually sees the content, especially on Facebook, as accounts can be blocked off from the public eye. Also, statements on both social networking sites are retractable and names go along with them. Statements on Juicy Campus are completely anonymous and non-retractable.

Certainly, the site is in no way illegal, it is simply a "because I can" use of the First Amendment. No person will take the site seriously. At some level, I tend to think a solid portion of the names tagged up there were done as practical jokes. I suspect the real world knows this, too, and a site such as this is not and will not be taken seriously. So, why not let the thing live, and kill itself on its own?

ONLY IN CALIFORNIA! (Self Explanatory!)

Farmers Feeding at the Federal Trough

Amber Waves of Green

March 13, 2008; Page A18 Wall Street Journal (link)

When it comes to picking taxpayer pockets, no one -- not the trial lawyers or even AARP -- has it over the farm lobby. How's this for clout? Though last year was one of the best ever for farm incomes -- up 44% to $87.5 billion -- farmers are about to score the most lavish subsidies in American history.

The House and Senate are now ironing out differences between their bills, and it's all but certain that farmers will get about $26 billion over the next five years in subsidies. Soybean and wheat farmers are slated to receive higher price supports, though bean prices hit a 34-year high last year and wheat prices have soared to a new record.

Corn producers will get subsidies of $10.5 billion over five years, which is on top of the deal of a lifetime these farmers were handed when Congress expanded ethanol subsidies. The handouts make growing corn so profitable that last year some 15.3 million acres were converted to new corn production, according to the USDA. That has a cascading effect on other prices, as farmers convert bean acreage to more lucrative corn fields and feed prices for meat producers climb.

Commentary: Farmers Feeding at the Federal Trough

I don’t get it. Farm prices are up, but so are government price supports for farm products. A married couple farming full time can have an income of up to $2 million a year before they lose their eligibility for a taxpayer subsidy. We enrich the corporate factory farmers. Our farm policy keeps some people farming who don’t need to farm. We pay other farmers not to farm. We keep the poor of the world poor and undermine our advocacy of free trade.

We subsidize the production of corn syrup to the point that it is so cheap that it is added to things that don’t need corn syrup such as peanut butter and the crackers you put the peanut butter on. And all that corn syrup makes Americans very fat. Speaking of fat, fat cats like Ted Turner, David Letterman and David Rockefeller get farm subsidies. All the while, we are increasing the price of groceries to the American consumer. This is nuts! Speaking of nuts, they are subsidized too, especially peanuts. The farm bill needs to be vetoed. We need to stop this welfare for farmers and we need to get government out of the business of setting farm prices.

Double Life of Barack Obama

Wright is wrong for America. (link)
By Thomas Sowell

There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for president of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white. We have all seen the crowds enthralled by Barack Obama’s rhetoric and theatrical style. Many of his supporters put their money where their mouths were, so that this recently arrived senator received more millions of dollars in donations than candidates who have been far more visible on the national stage for far more years.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Barack Obama has been leading as much of a double life as Eliot Spitzer.

While talking about bringing us together and deploring “divisive” actions, Senator Obama has for 20 years been a member of a church whose minister, Jeremiah Wright, has said that “God Bless America” should be replaced by “God damn America” — among many other wild and even obscene denunciations of American society, including blanket racist attacks on whites.

Comment: I at first ignored the criticism of Obama as it related to his church affiliation. I had seen the lies that branded Obama a closet Muslim extremist and assumed the reports that he belonged to a racist Black nationalist church to be more of the same. Once I saw the evidence against his pastor, I still cut Senator Obama some slack. After all, some Republicans I admire go to Bob Jones University to campaign and BJU has a past that some might categorize as racist. Many Republicans courted the late Jerry Falwell, and they court the 700 Club's Pat Robinson. Both of these men have said some outrageous things, especially Mr. Robinson. I thought I ought to extend to Senator Obama the same leeway as I do those Republicans who associate with BJU and Pat Robinson.

However, I think that Senator Obama must be judged by his associations with the Reverend Wright. Mr. Obama has more than just a casual association. He has been a member of that church for over twenty years, and his children were baptized in that church. Mr. Obama has made large financial contributions to the church and calls Reverend Wright his mentor.

Mr. Wright has not just occasionally uttered an absurdity taken out of context but apparently has consistently preached a message of racism and hatred of America. Copies of his sermons and excepts of his preaching are available. Reverend Wright went with Louis Farrakhan to Libya and Farrakhan received an award from the church.

Mr. Obama has tried to position himself as above the racial divide. It saddens me to have to face the truth about Obama. I doubt that I could have ever voted for him, despite my discontent with the Republican Party. Obama has an ADA rating of a perfect 100% and is one of the most liberal member of the U. S. Congress. His promise to immediately begin a military pull out of Iraq without regard to the consequences scares me. I am concerned about his inexperience and apparent naivete. Nevertheless, I thought Mr. Obama was a decent person, and brought more dignity to the office than his Democratic rival. I thought his success showed that America was over it's prejudice past and that skin color did not matter. Dispite not agreeing with his politics, I thought he was a breath of fresh air.

If a leading white candidate for President had set in a church for 2o years that preached racial prejudice, the church had given an award to David Duke, and yet the candidate contributed to that church and called the church pastor his mentor, we would weigh that in considering the candidates fitness for office. We should likewise consider Senator Obama's association with the Reverend Wright, in the same light.

Welcome to Failure, Johnny

Althouse talks about a new law in Madison schools:

Under the new system, students will continue to receive a traditional letter grade — A, B, C, D or U (unsatisfactory) — for every subject....

A second section of the report card, known as Academic Performance, will show how students perform compared to the state's academic standards on a scale of 4 (advanced), 3 (proficient), 2 (basic) and 1 (minimal) — the same ratings students receive on annual state tests.

Grades began in schools as a way of keeping students focused and keeping tally of how the students are doing in comparison to one another. Now, though, grades dominate the entire train of thought. In high school, at least from my experience, students feel (and the thought is endorsed almost universally by parents) motivation is solely based on the intent to go to college. As a result, students work their tails off to keep solid grades, but the actual material they were meant to learn is lost in the process.

While missing out on some high school material probably won't have a major effect on the outcome of my life, and it's most likely safe to assume I won't actually need the subjunctive superlative preterite form of the verb "huir" at any point in my life, I get the feeling that learning, especially at the college level is certainly not meant to be such a grade-based adventure. Sure, grades will remain important. I mean, you can't tell an interviewer for a job at... Bear Stearns (heh, in response to a question about your 1.7 GPA, that you thought learning wasn't supposed to be about the grades. But in college, if you walk in to class solely with the motive of coming out with an A, I think it a valid argument that you may not walk out that door with much practical knowledge.

This second grade system in Madison seems to attempt to spackle over the problem by giving out a second grade for "understanding." Maybe it will work from fall through... eh, January. After that, though, I don't think this will be much more than a subjective effort grade. I mean, what Mrs. Smith is going to fail hardworking Johnny in english via crazy new grade if he earned an A? Not many. The new grades will really find themselves correlating with the letter grade. The C kids will become C-3 kids, and the A kids will simply become A-1 students. It's just another way to make the lower level kids look dumb: "not only does Billy have a D, but he also doesn't understand they material."

I guess, "no shit sherlock" sums up the thought process.

Toward a Nuclear-Free World

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNNJanuary 15, 2008; Page A13, Wall Street Journal (link)

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

One year ago, in an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world.

Commentary: It is time for worldwide nuclear disarmament. It is time to sit in place mechanism that assure nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. Times have changed. The Soviet threat is over. It is time to make nuclear disarmament a goal and a priority.

Many, especially those on the right, will resist the effort to disarm. Unfortunately people get locked into a position and do not change their position despite changes in circumstances. During the cold war, we needed to insure that we had parity if not supremacy in the nuclear arms race. We had to be armed to keep the peace. At times, a nuclear build-up was even necessary so we could have a bargaining chip to advance further nuclear arms control. We could not afford to be weak or be in second place.

The Nuclear Freeze movement was naïve. Some of those advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament may have been disloyal and had objectives of advancing the cause of our enemies. Unilateral disarmament would have been folly and would have assured America’s destructions. Mutual arms reduction agreements without verification would have been irresponsible and foolish. However, that was then and this in now. In a war against modern terrorist, the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction does not apply.

Those who only became politically aware since the end of the cold war or who were not paying attention, may not be aware of how close we came to the horror of nuclear annihilation. While the threat is different than at the height of the cold war, the threat of nuclear war is still real. The new nuclear threat is that terrorist or rouge states can get and use nuclear weapons. While we remain the only super power, we should do all we can now to remove the threat of nuclear war.

The people who authored this call to disarm are hard-nosed realist and old cold warriors. Kissenger, Shultz and Sam Nunn are not moonbeam, starry-eyed leftist, or Hollywood airheads. You do not have to be an old hippie humming “Imagine” to see the logic of freeing the World of Nuclear weapons. When Reagan was president he called for "the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth." That day should be today.

Sex too hard to sell these days!

Apparently, Spitzer didn't have a revolving account with these folks!


Here's what the Madam has to say:

"The family-run Hotel Luxor, established in 1948, is being sold to an investor and will close down for good next month, madam Waltraud Mehrer said, according to the Hamburg Morgenpost and Bild newspapers.


She blamed the decline in business on easily available Internet porn, the rise of call-girl services [emphasis by me], and "noisy discos and dance clubs" on the same street as her business, the newspapers reported."

Did you catch that "family-run" part? Well..Mr. Spitzer certainly could have hired one of them German call-girls! Maybe that's why it cost $5,500! He had to pay for them to fly over on Lufthansa! Having lived in Germany for 8 years and passing through the Frankfurt Red-Light district..I can totally confirm...those women in the windows (literally) don't shave!! Nothing! They are the hairiest! I have a feeling that part of the reason..other than the aforementioned..probably has something to do with the fact that most guys don't want to feel hairy arms around them!!!

Okay..so things are ruff over there in Germany for these poor hookers! Considering this is the oldest established Whore House in Germany..I figure these girls must have been pulling in quite a bit. There's probably going to be a lot of hookers out on the streets now (pun intended)!

"Hotel Luxor today employs four prostitutes, and is only open Tuesday through Friday nights."

"Two thousand euros (US$3,080) per night - it was like that once," one of the women, who gave her name only as "Nicole," told the Morgenpost. "Now I can only dream of that. I've been here a year and only earn around euro200 (US$308) per shift."

Okay..I guess I was wrong..only 4!! 4 Hookers on the street! They were only making $300 a shift. Working only 4 days a week. Okay..so they were still pulling down $1,200 a week! Not too shabby! Do ya think they will be looking for jobs at the local Der Wienerschnitzel? What kinda "special" sauce will be on those wieners!?!?! Ewwwww.

Misha over at the Rottie has a Quiz for you!

Here's the Caption over at Yahoo News

Eliot Spitzer (R) holds a news conference in New York City with his wife Silda by his side

Now that you've seen the headline..with the picture...Now head over to The Rottweiler for the Quiz. If you don't know the answer..maybe you'll figure it out from the discussion string!

Americans Start to Curb Their Thirst For Gasoline

By ANA CAMPOY March 3, 2008; Page A1 Wall Street Journal

As crude-oil prices climb to historic highs, steep gasoline prices and the weak economy are beginning to curb Americans' gas-guzzling ways.In the past six weeks, the nation's gasoline consumption has fallen by an average 1.1% from year-earlier levels, according to weekly government data.That's the most sustained drop in demand in at least 16 years, except for the declines that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which temporarily knocked out a big chunk of the U.S. gasoline supply system. (link)

Commentary: What a concept! If something cost more people will consume less of it.

This is not rocket science. This is basic Economics 101.

The reason we have not seen an even greater reduction in consumption is because prices are not high enough for a long enough period of time. People look at high gas prices as an anomaly and think they will come back down. If gas prices reached, say, $5 a gallon and people did not expect prices to fall, is there any doubt that people would change their consumption patterns? Would that young family contemplating a housing purchase be as likely to more to the far-flung suburbs if gas was $5 a gallon as they would when it is $2.50 a gallon? When contemplating a car purchase, would MPG matter less or more if gas were $5 a gallon?

The other thing that would change if gas reached $5 a gallon and stayed there is that alternative renewable energy, technological innovation, and conservation would flourish. Automakers are already producing hybrid vehicles and developing new improved batteries. If gas cost more the alternative would be cheaper in comparison. The only thing holding back the alternatives is that they cannot compete with cheap gas.

For those who do not believe global warming is real, I can understand why they would oppose efforts to combat it. What I do not understand is why so many environmentalist who claim to care deeply about the issue of global warming are wasting their energy advocating feel-good measures and meaningless cajole and control schemes rather than getting behind a gas tax.

Some argue that sustained higher gas prices would be detrimental to the economy. If a gas tax was revenue-neutral and any increased revenue from a gas tax was off set, dollar for dollar, by an income tax reduction, a gas tax should have no detrimental effect on the economy. In fact, a reduction in the tax on income could result in greater production of income.I would much rather tax carbon, which I think is not desirable, than to tax income which I think is desirable.

So This is Kristen

So this is Kristen. This is the girl who slept with Spitzer for $4,300. Ashley Alexandra Dupre. That's her name. Here's her Myspace page. She is a musician. Not a very good one, but a musician nonetheless. You can also fund her inevitable lawyer fees here by purchasing her one song for $.98. Sweet. It's a bargain; iTunes would hit you up for $.99.

If you take a look at her Myspace page, you may notice the ridiculous number of sympathetic comments.

• "Sorry to hear what you're going through. I don't know why they are broadcasting your stuff all over. If it wasn't you it would have been someone else."
• "DON'T WORRY LIL SIS!!EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE FINE!!JUST KEEP UR HEAD UP!!U KNOW WE GOT U!!"
• "What's good keep your head up sis you know we got your back all day you how we do and after this blows over we gona make a HOT song like we always do!!!!"
  

Uhh... am I missing something, or am I the only one realizing she's a prostitute. It's not like she was raped. She wanted to do it, and came out the other side with $4,300. In some countries, there's a 50/50 chance she would have been stoned or burned at the stake. America is the only place in the world where people are sympathetic to this girl.

I don't get it.

Spitzer is Out, Time to Talk About Black People

Spitzer resigned, and Lt. Governor David Paterson will take over on Monday. New York is now the fourth state ever to have a black governor. The others are Massachussetts, Louisiana and Virginia. Examining the numbers (a few year old), I think it's time to note the black percentages in each of these states... Massachussetts has one of the smallest percentages of blacks in the country (5%). New York is pretty heavy, with 15.9%, although Paterson wasn't exactly elected to governor, so it's not telling. Louisiana is up there (30.8%), but again, he wasn't elected. Virginia has 18.8%.

Why?

Demographics of Republican and Democrat Voters as reported by the Pew Research Center

Seriously, why? Why is it that our African-American and Hispanic American brothers and sisters typically vote Democrat? With known racists in the Democrat party such as George McGovern, David Dukes, and Robert Byrd, why do they still insist on voting Democrat? Even Black leaders are stating that “The Democratic Party is the architect of modern day racism." Even the so-called liberator and civil rights President - Lyndon B. Johnson was a segregationist:

Lyndon Johnson never believed in racial segregation. He pushed for the civil rights bill, but as a Southerner, he had to be politically careful. He could not attack segregation outright without jeopardizing his chances of being re-elected. Still, Johnson was convinced that segregation condemned the South to educational and economic backwardness. Johnson believed that, in order to join the mainstream of America, the South would have to abandon racial segregation. Most important, Lyndon Johnson wanted to be president of the United States — he realized he would never be accepted outside the South if he were perceived as just another Southern segregationist.

When we look at the differences between the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party and the conservative views of the Republican Party and then compare them to the value systems of most African-American and Hispanic-American families we find that their value systems are more closely tied to the conservative views. Conservatives are pro-life, pro-family, pro-self responsibility, and pro-self reliance. Most African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are very pro-church and consider themselves to be religious people. Again, I ask you, why do they typically vote Democrat? I just don’t get it!

I hope that one of our African-American or Hispanic-American brothers or sisters reading this will provide a very logical and coherent response to this question. How is it that the Democratic Party hi-jacked the civil rights platform of the Republican Party? After all, wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation? Wasn’t it Howard Smith (a Democrat) in 1963 who promised “to keep the Civil Rights bill bottled up indefinitely?” This is the same guy who was quoted as saying “The Southern people have never accepted the colored race as a race of people who had equal intelligence . . . as the white people of the South.” In fact, it was the Democrats who filibustered the bill..led by none other than the aforementioned Robert Byrd. The Republicans were able to muster enough votes and broke the filibuster. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2, 1964, he is quoted as having said "We have lost the South for a generation."

Why is it that up until 1935 every African-American who was ever seated in government was a Republican? I still don’t understand how the Democrats hi-jacked the civil rights platform of the Republican Party. It was the Republican Party who introduced and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was overturned 8 years later by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. It was the heart and soul of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was passed as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Again, there were more Republicans than Democrats that voted to institute the CRA of 1964. For our Hispanic brothers and sisters…were you told that the very first Hispanic Senator elected was…yup..a Republican. He was from New Mexico and elected in 1928.

Two of the co-founders of the NAACP, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, were African-American Republican women! The Republican Party is RICH with a history of supporting equal rights for all Americans and is the party of civil rights. Conversely, the Democrat Party is the original supporters of the KKK! (this link is from The University of Indiana).

“By the time the six Klan founders met in December, 1865, the opening phase of Reconstruction was nearly complete. All eleven of the former rebel states had been rebuilt on astonishingly lenient terms which allowed many of the ex-Confederate leaders to return to positions of power. Southern state legislatures began enacting laws that made it clear that the aristocrats who ran them intended to yield none of their pre-war power over poor whites and especially over blacks. These laws became known as the Black Codes and in some cases they amounted to a virtual re-enslavement of blacks.

In Louisiana the Democratic convention resolved that "we hold this to be a Government of White People, made and to be perpetuated for the exclusive benefit of the White Race, and....that the people of African descent cannot be considered as citizens of the United States." Mississippi and Florida in particular enacted vicious black codes, other southern states (except North Carolina) passed somewhat less severe versions, and President Andrew Johnson did nothing to prevent them from being enforced.

These laws and the violence that erupted against blacks and union supporters in the South outraged Northerners who just a few months before had celebrated victory not only over the Confederacy, but its system of slavery as well. In protest of the defiant Black Codes, Congress refused to seat the new Southern senators and representatives when it reconvened in December 1865 after a long recess. Thus at the moment the fledgling Klan was born in Pulaski, the stage was set for a showdown between Northerners determined not to be cheated out of the fruits of their victory and die-hard Southerners who refused to give up their supremacy over blacks.

Ironically, the increasingly violent activities of the Klan throughout 1866 tended to help prove the argument of Radical Republicans in the North, who wanted harsher measures taken against Southern governments as part of their program to force equal treatment for blacks. Partly as a result of news reports of Klan violence in the South, the Radicals won overwhelming victories in the Congressional elections of 1866. “

So..with all of this overwhelming evidence, why is it that our African-American and Hispanic-American brothers and sisters continue to support the Democratic Party and vote for the liberal agenda..an agenda that is so completely the opposite of their own values and belief systems? How is it that Black Leaders such as Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and other religious activitists like themselves continue to push their brothers and sisters towards a party that only serves to oppress them? How is it that Hispanic activists such as Dolores Huerta and Hector Flores continue to push their brothers and sisters towards a party that only panders to them for their votes?

I guess, the main question should be how did the Republican Party allow the Democratic Party to hi-jack the greatest civil rights accomplishments and make them theirs? After that, I gotta ask our African-American and Hispanic-American friends....Why? Why the Democrats?

Grab Your Pitchforks! American Pizza Parlor Accepts Pesos!

DALLAS - A pizza chain has been hit with death threats and hate mail after offering to accept Mexican pesos, becoming another flashpoint in the nation’s debate over immigrants.

“This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico,” one e-mail read. “Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans,” demanded another.

Dallas-based Pizza Patron said it was not trying to inject itself into a larger political debate about illegal immigration when it posted signs this week saying “Aceptamos pesos” — or “We accept pesos” — at its 59 stores across Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California.Pizza Patron spokesman Andy Gamm said the company was just trying to sell more pizza to its customers, 60 percent of whom are Hispanic.Wal-Mart, H-E-B supermarkets and other American businesses in towns along the Mexican border accept pesos. And some businesses in New York and Minnesota communities along the northern border accept Canadian dollars. (link)

My Comment: Lighten up People! Money is only a medium of exchange. If someone can buy a pizza with Mexican Pesos it does not undermine American sovereignty. By the way, is not Pizza an Italian food? Maybe we should feel threatened that all of that Pizza is being sold in America. Real Americans eat hamburgers. Right?

What is the big deal? Why would one feel threatened that a Pizza parlor accepts pesos? The world is getting smaller. People travel more than ever. We do not live in isolation from the rest of the world. You may encounter people who don't speak English and who also happen to have another currency in their wallet. What is the difference between the foreigner exchanging his pesos for dollars and then purchasing a pizza, than a pizza parlor accepting the pesos and then exchanging them for dollars?

I had an occasion to visit a Caribbean island last year, and US dollars were accepted everywhere. I have been to Mexico on several occasions and on a recent trip I did not even bother to get local currency. On those rare occasions that I could not use my Visa card I used US dollars. Some people need to get out more; maybe, visit a foreign country. Of course, real Americans don't visit foreign countries, do they?

New York Gov. Spitzer Caught in Sex Scandal

NEW YORK
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the one-time "Sheriff" of Wall Street who campaigned on a promise to clean up state politics, was embroiled in a sex scandal on Monday that threatened to force his resignation.

A New York Times report linked him to a $1,000-an-hour prostitute, saying he was caught on a federal wiretap at least six times on February 12 and 13 arranging to meet with her at a Washington hotel last month.

The Times said he was the man described in court papers as Client 9 who patronized the Emperors Club, which federal investigators allege was a prostitution ring whose most expensive professionals charged more than $5,500 an hour.

Spitzer, a married 48-year-old Democrat who investigated prostitution as New York's attorney general, apologized for what he described as "private matter" but said nothing about resigning. State Republicans called for him to step down. (link)

For the Emperors Club web site and picture gallery click here.

Comment: I have only one question: How could ANY pussy be worth $5500 an Hour??

Billy Madison Now Writes for the NYT

New York Times busts out another excellent editorial. This time, it's Harvard sociology master Orlando Patterson butchering Clinton's "Three A.M." ad. I'll just throw down a brief excerpt:

"I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino."

Mr. Patterson, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this is now dumber for having done so. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Buckle Up, I'm Thinking

Recently, I began to stray from direct support of any candidate, primarily because I wasn't sure... I wasn't really sure about anything... who to support, how to support them, and moral blocks I had... but I have come to a conclusion, and it's one I think I knew I would arrive at all along.

The thought that McCain may be another Bush has held me from enthusiastically jumping in with two feet behind him. But this rationalization no longer suffices me any more. McCain has been one who, like it or not, always heard out his opposition. He absorbs ideas from both parties, and arrives at conclusions based on his own inner compass. He has learned to trust that compass, whether it tilts right or left (it happens to lean right approximately 86% of the time, for any of you who care to call me out).

Interviewing Christopher Shays last month opened my eyes a little. I understand, and have more fully understood since the interview, that McCain is a man of true character. See, I always knew this, but I recently realized character is actually more than I thought. It involves actually thinking issue to issue, case to case. Character isn't black or white, it's a shade of gray (a weird, maroon-like shade of grade, but gray nonetheless).

So as this is my first serious and lengthy post in quite some time, I may actually be putting you to sleep by now. My fault, just godda knock the rust off those wheels... but no, I'm not done.

On to the ability to unite. I have recently decided that this is, by far and away, the most important quality in a candidate. A divisive leader will be a lame duck in the modern era; a president who can unite and pass bills will be the one who gets some wind in the sails of this motorless boat that is Congress. I'm not talking about divisiveness within a party (I hope you know I understand it would be impossible to support McCain in such a circumstance), but divisiveness within a nation. In the recent era of 51-49 elections and a red/blue divide that rattles patriotism to no end, a strong, charismatic, war-torn Rough Riders president is really what we need. This country hasn't seen patriotism since Michael Moore went to the big screen, and that's really something that needs to come back to some degree. Patriotism can no longer be synonymous with naivety. So, just running through the candidates, I'll throw parties to the wind and base my judgment solely on divisiveness

Quite obviously, love or hate Hillary, unity is clearly something she cannot provide. So cross her of the list.

Obama. That's an interesting thought. With the raging Obamarama syndrome right now, many have been caught up in the minority, come-from nothing fairy-tale Mulatto Stallion (sorry, Rocky reference), thinking he has unity in the bag. I know, I used to agree... strongly. But take a deeper look, and realize his unity is a brand that applies to only a small minority of the population. The right will be cynical from the start, and the former Hillary supporters will take shots at his (nonexistent) political experience. Not to mention, many conservatives (including myself) will find it difficult to get past his extreme liberalism no matter what he does. So, let's regretfully cross out Obama.

And then there's McCain. McCain is conservative. He always has been. He was one of the first who wanted to go to Iraq, he was one of the few who still wants to be there (which, admittedly, will rarely be swallowed by anything to the left of Coulter). But the man knows how to negotiate. He is one of the few conservative out there who can really get stuff done. This comes from his incredibly rare ability to reason with the liberal mind. Just ask Rush Limbaugh; the guy gets along with nutjobs. On top of this, he is one of the most honorable and respectable man in our military. Watch this video. Yes, it's propaganda, but it's true. No lie.

That's all there is to say. If you don't like McCain now, I doubt you speak English. I am exhausted, good night.

Bring back the "N" word!

There was a time when the “N” word was used all the time! Despite what anyone has to say, times were good when we used the “N” word. There was a sense of community, camaraderie, and well being when we used the “N” word. We looked out for each other’s “N” word. There was a time in this country when we would say, “How’s your “N” word? Is he okay? We haven’t seen him in a while.” or “I heard your “N” word was doing well! I hear he’s making some serious money!” or “I hear that “N” word of yours is having another baby!” or “Did you hear we have another “N” word in our community?”

I would say the downfall of the use of the “N” word came around the 1960’s. The U.S. seemed to be in turmoil. Civil rights really tore up a lot of communities. People who were once friends started hating each other because of their stance regarding civil rights. People moved out of their communities and kept to themselves. The “N” word was used less frequently after that. We stopped asking each other how we were doing. We also stopped caring about the “N” word. Those who did, and still do, use the “N” word do it out of ignorance. These are generally individuals from our older generation who really understood the “N” word and its importance to our society and country. They don’t get the way things are today. The generations following them generally only look out for themselves. Today’s kids want instant gratification. If you hear a kid call another kid their “N” word, there is no meaning behind it. There is no concern over the ‘N” word. The “N” word is used so little today that it is very shocking when you hear someone actually use it! There are people today that would ban the ‘N” word if they could. They feel if we use the ‘N” word regularly again it would destroy their liberal agenda.

I say, it’s time to bring back the “N” word! Let’s use it liberally again and when we use it, let’s really mean it. Communities were built around the “N” word. We sat on our porches and talked about all the “N” words in our communities. We found ways to make things better. We organized to improve the communities. We welcomed newcomers into our communities when the “N” word was commonplace. I say, it’s time to bring back the “N” word.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use the ‘N” word all time. But, when we use the “N” word to organize, we’re racists because we disagree with them because we want to organize differently than they. There seems to be a double-standard in the use of the “N” word. In “da hood” they can all use and be the ‘N” word because they have a common bond. But, when we use the “N” word to improve our common bonds, we’re called hate-mongers because we want things to be better also, just differently than they. I say it’s time to bring back the ‘N” word for all to use!

In the Christian Bible, James 2:8 states “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” It’s time we brought back the “N” word…Neighbor. We stopped loving our Neighbors, and therefore ourselves. If this nation is to become one again and heal, we need to think of our Neighbors regardless of age, sex, and race. It’s time to love our Neighbors once again! Neighbors and neighborhoods need to be able to organize around their communities again. The strength of our nation depends on our communities. The strength of our communities depends on the individuals living in those communities. Individuals need to become Neighbors again..not just someone living next door to you. When we are all Neighbors, we look out for one another, feel for one another, and want what is best for one another. There is less fighting when we really get to know our Neighbors and who they are. We aren't liberal or conservative; democrat or republican; we become friends.

Drugs in Our Water

A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

This reminds me of the discovery of cocaine on 4 of 5 dollar bills in 1997 (can't find the article, sorry). I personally don't think this is any major breakthrough, I just realize that this means that if drugs can get through industrial water filters, so can anything... flushed drugs, poo, dead goldfish, dog slobber, and so on. I'd much rather find myself ingesting a mood stabilizer (that I may actually need) than human feces. Oh well, I'm not dead... yet.

Read it.

Evil Empire Named 25 Years Ago

Twenty-five years ago today Ronald Reagan first used the term "Evil Empire" in a speech he gave to the National Association of Evangelicals at their annual convention in Orlando, Florida. In that speech Reagan told his audience:

So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware
the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above
it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and
the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

Regan had previously referred to the 'evil of totalitarianism" in a speech before the British House of Commons in 1982 but the phrase "evil empire" was first used at that March 8, 1983 convention. Later that same month, after the Soviets shot down Korean Air Lines flight 007, the phrase "evil empire" was used several more times by Reagan and became know around the world.While the term stuck a reponsive chord among many thoughout the world, many American liberals went ballistic at Regan's terming the Soviets "evil". The Hollywood left, academia, media elites, and intellectuals thought it rude to refer to Communism as "evil" and they denounced Reagan as dangerous and unsophisticated. Liberals feared Reagan would antagonize the Soviets and exasperate tensions.
Now that Communism has been relegated to the "ash heap of history" it is easy to assume that we were united in our desire to defeat Communism. We were not. Many American liberals had a soft spot in their heart for Communism. Perhaps because they shared a vision of an egalitarian society, many liberals could overlook the atrocities committed by Communist and the human rights record of Communist regimes.
Unlike the liberal elites, the conservatives had no sympathy for Communism, but most dared not dream of actually defeating communism. Until Reagan, the policy of America was containment, peaceful coexistent and détente. Reagan’s policy was a break with the past. Reagan sought liberation of communist nations, roll back and defeat of Communism.
Regan defined the cold war as a war between good and evil, right and wrong. By use of the term ˜evil empire", Reagan sought to emphasize the moral divide of the cold war, while many on the left sought to define the cold war in terms of moral equivalency. Reagan also used the term to embarrass and shame the Soviet leaders for their suppression of human right in the Soviet Union and the captive counties.
Before we could win the cold war we had to believe it was a war worth winning. Reagan made America believe it was. As long as we refused to see the war against communism as a war between good and evil, America would continue to retreat and contain, and retreat and contain. If not for Reagan's daring to define Communism as an evil worth defeating, no doubt we would still be fighting the cold war and watching the decline of the west and the spread of Communism.

Info/Updates

First of all, I am proud to announce that Rod Williams of A Disgruntled Republican and Bob O (aka Bobo) of The Bobo Files have both joined the team. Great to have them!

I'm currently speaking with a few other bloggers, so look for more additions over the coming days. Also, begin to look for regular posts from the team starting on Sunday/Monday. (Tomorrow if things go really well, but I tend to doubt it.)

UPDATE: Something is wrong with our timestamps, I actually posted this at around 5:30 PM. I'll get on that.

Hello to All!

This site is just lifting off the ground. It's intended to be a news and political team blog. We are currently assembling the team. If you are interested in joining, email me at regardingliberty@yahoo.com or leave a comment here, and I'll look at your site.

Big Boom Bloggers

Site is in progress. Tell me if you are interested in joining.