Things That Pissed Me Off This Week

Random musings on a variety of topics I didn't think warranted a full blog post this week.

* * *

People in the UK are protesting Mattel’s new S&M Barbie.  Okay, so Mattel calls it the Black Canary Barbie, after the comic book, but I think S&M Barbie’s more fun.

Apparently some group called Christian Voice thinks differently.

Fine, so S&M Barbie probably isn’t appropriate for everyone, but she isn’t marketed to everyone, she’s marketed to fans of the comic book – if you don’t want your kid to have S&M Barbie, then you probably don’t let her read the comic book in the first place, in which case your kid doesn’t even want S&M Barbie.

My only real question: Will the uproar delay Mattel’s release of Naughty Boy Ken?

* * *

Pelosi and company continue to block off-shore oil drilling.  They want alternative energy sources -- fine, but why do they insist it's either/or?  New sources of energy and more oil would be a good combination.

* * *

Jesse Jackson gaffed on an open mike that he'd like to cut Obama's nuts off.

First, how does a media-savvy guy like Jackson, sitting in a television studio not realize that the mike might be hot?

Second, why just talk the talk, Jesse?  Follow your heart, man.

* * *

Columbia staged a brilliantly planned rescue of hostages held by FARC ... yay!

Now it comes out that one of the numb-nuts on the team wore an International Red Cross vest during the operation, in violation of the Geneva Convention and endangering Red Cross workers everywhere ... boo!

Great work on the rescue, guys, but one "oh, shit" wipes out a lot of "atta boys".

* * *

One in four students in California failed to graduate in the 2006-07 school year.  This is the government we should turn our health care over to?

Public schools suck because there's no competition and the teacher's unions like it that way. 

* * *

JibJab released a new bit:

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Why am I pissed?  Because it's been so long since the last one!  Come on, JibJab, it's a presidential election year and there's so much to work with this year!

* * *

The EPA wants to regulate lawnmowers for emissions:

“[E]ach application could require a different unit of measure tied to the machine’s mission or output– such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a “standard” lawn for lawnmowers and grams per kilogram-meter of load lift for forklifts.”

More rules = more people to enforce them = more bureaucracy = more power for the agency. 

* * *

A 28-year old woman in Georgia is going to be forced out of the home she shares with her husband and can't volunteer at her church because she's registered as a sex-offender.  In 1997, she had oral sex with a fifteen-year old boy ... which would make her, wait, do the math, that's right, seventeen. 

Seventeen-year old girl, fifteen-year old boy, oral sex ... sounds like a great reason to ruin the girl's life.

* * *

And finally, Tony Snow passed away  and the Daily KOS brought us things like:

"There is a certain irony in him being killed by his own rotten ass."

The Left should be ashamed, but they aren't.  In fact, the Left exhibits the same problem that the Muslims have: A few, fringe nuts stir up trouble, but the decent, common-sense membership refuses to speak out too loudly against them.

Until you can stand up to the vile, underbelly of your own party, you don't have the moral courage or standing to lead this great nation.

Vote! Zombie Reagan in 2008!

I’m very unenthusiastic about the potential candidates this election cycle:

Obama's socialist policies and generic "change" rhetoric are antipathy to me;

McCain has always seemed to think that bi-partisan means to abandon your core principles and common-sense;

Barr's refusal to give the American military a modicum of respect is offensive and the Libertarian Party has no chance anyway, because of their stupid stance on drugs (or, rather, the stupidity of the American people on the issue of drugs);

So what's a voter to do?

Enter a grassroots campaign to redraft one of our greatest Presidents, the one responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union and for starting the economic cycle that resulted in the longest period of economic growth in modern history:

Zombie Reagan for President!

(shirts available from WickedCoolStuff)

Now this may seem like an impossible dream ... there are, after all, some difficult challenges involved, but I think they can be overcome.

Constitutionally, there is no prohibition on the undead serving in political office, therefore Zombie Reagan's status as a ... well, zombie, is not a problem.

Term limits are, because the 22nd Amendment states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" and Reagan's first presidency was two terms.  However, the amendment's language is clear that no "person" may serve more than twice.  I think it could be argued, legally, that a "person" is bounded by the dates of life and death.  If Zombie Reagan is brought back to life, then, legally, he would be a new legal entity, a new "person" and therefore eligible to serve.

This leaves only the 25th Amendment as a possible impediment.  Zombie Reagan would have to be careful in the selection of his cabinet and Vice President, to ensure that they didn't use his undead-status to declare him unable to discharge his duties.  It's a risk, but probably one worth taking.

I think this has real possibilities.

Even if he doesn't win, a significant write-in showing for Zombie Reagan might send a clear enough message to Republicans that this country is demanding they return to core, conservative values and stop being Democrats in better suits.

Foreign Courts Assault on American Free Speech Rights

In a Wall Street Journal opinion-piece yesterday, Senators Arlen Specter (R) and Joseph Lieberman (I) make their case for the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008.  Contact Congress to support this bill.

What’s the issue?

Well, libel laws are different in other countries but book publication and the Internet are global, so a book published in the United States, and perfectly acceptable under American law might be considered libelous in the UK.

How is this possible?  American libel law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff, meaning that the person complaining about libel has to prove that the statements aren’t true.  In the UK and other countries, the court must presume the statements are untrue and it’s the burden of the writer to prove that they are.

Authors of books and research studies on terrorism and terrorist-funding are being sued in foreign courts, this is having a chilling effect on free speech.  Cambridge University Press, under the mere threat of such a lawsuit, destroyed all available copies of the book “Alms for Jihad”.  Letters were sent to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies of the book.

This is book-burning on a global-scale.

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 bars American courts from enforcing libel judgments obtained in foreign courts, if the speech would not be libelous under American law.  The bill also provides American authors the ability to counter-sue if the material is protected by the First Amendment and increased damages if a jury finds the original suit was “part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights”.

Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of the United States and must be protected.  Foreign courts should not be allowed to suppress the speech of American citizens in any way. 

There’s a slippery-slope here, in my opinion.  If we accept libel judgments from a UK court against an American citizen on American soil for authoring a book, won’t we have to accept the judgments of courts in, say, France?  Or Turkey?  Or North Korea?  Or Iran?  You see the progression there? 

Does it stop with books?  The Internet is global.  Can a court in Saudi Arabia find a judgment against an American citizen for writing something in a blog?

Wouldn’t the mere threat of such a lawsuit have a chilling effect on Free Speech in this country?  Will American authors have to hire attorneys and travel the globe to defend their work against these suits?  How many authors have the resources to do that?  Won’t it be safer to just not write the words?

If you agree that the Free Speech rights of American citizens should be protected from interference by foreign powers, write your Congressmen and urge them to support Senators Specter’s and Lieberman’s bill.  Using RallyCongress to contact your representatives on this issue is very easy, just a few mouse clicks and entering your name and address. 

Sample letter text:

I am writing to you to urge you to support the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, introduced by Senators Specter and Lieberman, as well as its House counter-part introduced by Representatives Pete King and Anthony Weiner.

Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of the United States and must be protected. Foreign courts have no business interfering in the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
With today’s global marketplace, books and research by American authors and publishers are available around the world, but the rights of those authors must not be given up to foreign courts with no respect for our Constitution and laws.

I urge you to support this legislation and protect the rights of Americans from infringement by foreign powers.

Musings on Racism

Looking back over my posts from the last couple weeks, I notice that the topic of racism and intolerance has come up a few times. (1)(2)(3)  That observation put the topic in my mind and prompted me to reread John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me last night.  I also pulled it off the shelf because my daughter’s thirteen and I think it's time she read it.

If you’ve never read this book, Black Like Me is a story about Griffin’s experiences as a black man traveling the Deep South in 1959.  What’s particularly compelling about his tale is that Griffin was white.  Two seemingly contradictory sentences, which are central to the appeal of Black Like Me.

Griffin was a white man who, compelled by some inner drive, chose to alter his appearance so that he would be taken for black and then traveled the South to experience racism first-hand.  Now, it’s been argued that the story of racism in America can’t be told by a white man, that a black man is more able to tell it, and I agree with that to a certain extent.  Griffin spent very little time in his guise and always knew he could stop at any time and go back to his previous life – a black man has infinitely more to draw on to tell this story and he can’t quit any time he wants.

But it’s that very fact that makes Black Like Me more compelling to me.  Each incident of racism and intolerance that Griffin encounters in his travels is new to his world-view.  Each experience cuts fresh and unexpectedly, whereas someone who’s been forced to deal with it their entire life might be somewhat inured.  That freshness of the wounds comes across to the reader as Griffin recounts each new outrage – new to him, but that blacks of the time lived with every day of their lives. 

After reading the book, I reflected on the topic and the fact that things have changed.  It occurred to me that, in my lifetime (I’m 41), I’ve never personally seen the kind of overt racism that was common and accepted in 1959.  I never went to a school that didn’t allow both black and white students, have never seen a restroom or a drinking fountain labeled “Whites Only” and have never been to a restaurant that openly denied service to blacks.

My personal experience with civil rights marches and protests is very, very different than that of the sixties.  In 1995, the Ku Klux Klan came to town to gather outside the Jewish Community Center in Maitland.  I heard about it on a local radio show and went to join the counter-protest. 

When I arrived, I discovered that my presence was a drop in the bucket.  Twelve or so Klan-members stood in a line, backs to a row of trees.  In front of them, twenty feet of open space to the police barricades and surrounding that on three sides … twelve hundred people stood in opposition.

I had expected to feel anger and hatred toward the Klan, but as I looked around and took in the whole picture, that changed.  The Klan stood there, in their robes and pointy hats – no hoods, because of laws about covered faces in public, I presume – and holding their poster-board signs, the messages are lost to me, I didn’t pay them that much attention.  The crowd shook their fists and yelled at them; the Klan yelled back. 

I doubt they’d have been so cocky without the police-presence, though.  That crowd was angry and ready to turn into a mob.  Given the opportunity, I doubt a single Klansman would have escaped alive.

I realized that’s what they wanted.  That’s what they were after.  They got off on the reaction of the crowd.  Like an annoying little brother who pokes his sister to get a reaction, the Klan had been reduced to inciting others because they had so little power left on their own.  Still evil, but impotent (in more ways than one, I'm sure).

They weren’t even worthy of anger any more, just pity and ridicule.  I often wish that I’d had a megaphone to speak to that crowd and convince them of that.  I think that if that throng had, as one, pointed at those pitiful, robed figures and, as one, quoted Nelson from the Simpson’s in a full-throated “Hah, hah!”, it would have had more impact than the shouted hatred.

What did happen, though, was probably better.

I was near the front of the crowd at the barricade when I noticed movement to my right and a Man made his way through the crowd.

I name him with a capital-M because he deserves it.

He didn’t push his way through the crowd and I didn’t see him say a single word to those around him, he just stepped forward and, as people noticed him they got out of his way.  This Man had presence.

He was a black Man, older, probably in his sixties.  Gray hair cut short and a wrinkled, weathered face.  He was big … not tall or fat, but big, solid. 

He wore a brown suit with dark pinstripes, double-breasted.  Not fancy or stylish, but something from the days when men wore suits as a matter of course.  Looking at him, I could tell that this was his suit.  Not one of a dozen in his closet, but his suit.  The suit he wore to church, to funerals, to weddings … this was the suit he wore to the big events in his life, to the important things.  A bit worn, perhaps, but still clean and pressed, shoes shined and on his head a brown fedora with a black band and tiny, red feather.

In 1995, a man in fedora would have to be considered anachronistic and maybe a bit pretentious, but on this Man it looked right.  His style of dress had been set in another time and he remained unchanged by the whims of fashion.

I wondered what he’d do, because he was old enough to have experienced the power the Klan wielded in the South first-hand.  If he was in his sixties, then he would have been a child in the thirties and forties.  He might have known someone targeted by the Klan in those days, a friend or even a family member who’d been injured or killed by them.  More than might, probably had.

He walked up to the police barricade, paused, nodded to the nearest officer and stepped through.  The officer didn’t say a word to him.

He strode slowly toward the line of Klansmen, not looking at them, and stopped less than an arm-length away.  Then he turned parallel to them … and walked.

For a very long time he walked, back and forth in front of their line.  He kept his gaze straight ahead and never said a word out loud that I saw.

Those Klansmen …

When the crowd had been yelling at them, they were having fun.  They smiled and grinned and yelled back.  Once that Man started his steady pacing in front of them, they weren’t having any fun.  Their eyes narrowed, their jaws clenched.  They hated that Man.

Without a single, spoken word, his stoic dignity sent them a message that they got loud and clear, a message that cut like a dagger in their guts and every step he took drove that message home again.  I suppose it’s open to interpretation, but the message I saw him send was:

“You’ve lost.  For all your efforts, for all your trying, you’ve lost.

“There was a time when I had reason to fear you, but that fear is gone.

“There was a time when you had power, but that time is past.

“There was a time when a crowd like this would have been here to support you, but that support is over.

“There was a time when those police would have hit me over the head and given me to you, but now they’re here because it’s you who needs protection.

“I am a proud, dignified, black Man.  I survived everything you and your kind could do to me and mine and you have lost.”

The image of that Man’s dignity and pride has stayed with me for over a decade now and I think the message I got from him is correct: they lost.  

The things he must have experienced and survived are of the past, they exist in people’s memories, but simply don’t happen any longer.

Yes, there are still incidents, but they’re aberrations, tragic for the victims’ families, but not the norm in our society.  They happen because men like those Klan-members do still exist, but the reaction of society is different.  Today the perpetrators are typically caught and convicted; in other times, the local sheriff might have been under one of the hoods.  There’s a difference.

This isn’t to say that racism no longer exists.  I think it does, but it’s more subtle – it’s not the overt, violent racism of the past.

I remember seeing a segment on one of the news magazine shows, probably 20/20, years ago where they used a hidden camera in retail stores.  They sent in two young men, one white and one black, dressed similarly, and recorded the level of customer service each received.  The black man received more attention from security than the retail clerks.

I was shocked and surprised, because I couldn’t imagine corporate America seeing any color other than green.  After some thought, I came to the conclusion that it's probably not a corporate policy, but the ignorant, bigoted actions of a few stupid employees -- or many of them, since there are a lot of stupid people in the world

I'd actually like to try the same experiment myself, because I know how the media can manipulate a story and how preconceived notions can influence a study.  In fact, I might do so ... I had a lot of fun with my afternoon at the rip-off gas station.  It'll take a bit more planning than the gas station, but I think I'll be finding a couple students from the university, grabbing my camera and heading for the mall, soon.  A little hidden-camera work's in order.  

Documentary Review: Karachi Kids

Note: This is not intended to be an impartial review of the film, it also contains my opinion on the subject matter and content.

As with all documentaries, the content should be taken with a grain of salt, recognizing that a filmmaker typically has a preconceived notion or agenda he is hoping to reinforce with the film.  Facts presented in documentaries, much like those received from any single provider, should be verified via multiple, independent sources before you rely on them.

At the time of this writing, I have not independently verified all of the facts presented in Karachi Kids, however those I have attempted to verify have proven to be true and accurate.  Even if I had verified all of them, it should be the assumption of the reader that I, myself, might be unreliable or lying. 

It is beholden on the viewer or reader to independently verify facts before relying on them … in other words, trust no one.

A new documentary, Karachi Kids, tells the story of a Pakistani madrasah-system, and focuses on two American children sent there from Atlanta, Georgia by their father.

You might think that this is just a religious school and it’s the parents’ right to send their children there, just like some people send their kids to Catholic school.  That’s what I thought until I watched portions of this documentary. 

There’s a difference between a religious school that teaches the religion in addition to academics and one that has no academic curriculum.  These madrasahs teach only the religion (Deobandism, the religion of the Taliban) – with a mega-dose of intolerance for Western culture and other beliefs.  In fact, the only "education" provided by these madrasahs is for students to memorize the Koran – and I thought teaching to the FCAT was bad (Florida’s standardized test).

Note: It’s important to understand that this film and my commentary on it deal only with a particular set of madrasahs in Pakistan.  The word “madrasah”, in general, means “school” and there are many types of madrasah around the world. 

Some, like those documented in Karachi Kids, are indoctrination centers for radical-Islam, while others are no different than Catholic schools, blending academics with legitimate, faith-based education.  There is no reason to believe that the “madrasah” in your town is some kind of terrorist breeding-ground and you should govern yourself accordingly and appropriately.

What’s the purpose of this “education” for the American boys?  According to the head of the madrasah covered in Karachi Kids: to return to America and convert non-Muslims and correct the ways of American Muslims.

These kids will have no real education when they return to America, only a radicalized belief system.  These are going to be some “bitter Americans clinging to their religion”, because they’re going to be unable to function in American society or succeed materially in any meaningful way – since part of the indoctrination includes Taliban beliefs, will they also be “clinging to their guns”?

According to the filmmakers, some facts about this madrasah are:

• Almost 80 US children are currently in this madrasah system;
• Osama Bin Laden personally addressed the madrasah prior to 9/11;
• A large number of “graduates” (quotes added by me, since can you really call them that?) become leaders of the Taliban;

The sad thing is that these children wind up in this environment, where the film documents their reports of beatings and other human rights abuses, after being recruited in the United States.  The leader of this place comes here to talk to the parents.  

Isn’t this the sort of thing that should be a red-flag when applying for an entry visa?

“And, sir, what is your purpose for visiting the United States today?”

“I plan to recruit young Americans, train them in radical Islam, then send them back here to convert or destroy you godless infidels.”

“Thank you, sir, good luck and enjoy your stay.”

While Western societies worry about such lofty immigration issues as the burqa, these radical fanatics enter freely and bring innocent children out of the country, denying them any sort of factual education or chance at a normal life, in order to be the foot-soldiers in an attempt to convert the infidel.

My understanding, based on the film and the Karachi Kids website, is that the filmmakers didn’t start out to tell the story of American children in these madrasahs.  Their goal was to tell the story of the madrasah itself, but then encountered two American boys during filming.

Apparently, during filming of Karachi Kids, Pakistan began cracking down on these madrasahs, imposing new visa restrictions for foreign "students" and enforcing existing Pakistani laws, resulting in eight foreign "students" being deported and blacklisted from returning to Pakistan, but leaving up to five hundred other foreign "students" in the hands of this madrasah-system.

Karachi Kids is an important film.  It delivers some stunning insights into a culture and belief-system that is actively working toward a goal of converting or destroying Western Civilization.  This isn't an exaggeration or fear-mongering, those involved openly state their goals as such.  If someone says they want to kill you, you should probably take them seriously.

At present, the film appears to be available only from the filmmaker's site, but CNN is reportedly considering an in-depth look. 

Muslim Woman Denied Immigration Because of Veil

Last week, a Muslim woman was denied citizenship because of her religious beliefs. 

The woman is married to a citizen, has been in the country since 2000, speaks the language and has three children who are natural-born citizens, yet she is being denied citizenship herself because she follows her religious beliefs.

I think this is despicable and reprehensible.  A nation that espouses a belief in religious freedom should be ashamed of this action.

But that won't happen, because it’s France.

Yes, the woman’s been in France since 2000, speaks French, is married to a French citizen and has three children who are French citizens, but France is now denying her application for citizenship because:

“She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes.”

Well, that sounds pretty bad ... she must be a terrorist or a terrorist-sympathizer.  Possibly they suspect her of making bombs or inciting violence and hatred against non-Muslims?

No, the “radical practice” she’s adopted is to wear a full burqa and live in “total submission” to her husband.  Are these really “radical practices” that warrant denying citizenship?

Now, I think the burqa's pretty silly -- though with a 13-year old daughter, I'm beginning to see its attraction -- but if that's what someone wants to wear, it's their choice.  It shouldn't be reason enough to deny citizenship.

You may not agree with the level of submission some Muslim women give to their husbands, but it's their belief and their choice.  It's laughable to consider it in an immigration case.  

Blowing shit up, now there’s a radical practice that should be considered a factor in immigration, but wearing a burqa?  Submitting to her husband?  These may be things we (non-Muslims) consider weird, they may be things we disagree with, but that’s what a free country is all about. 

France has problems with Muslim immigration, I understand that.  High unemployment and car-burning riots might be making them a bit touchy.  I can see why they might want to do something about radical Muslims spreading violence, but there’s nothing in the story to indicate that she's so much as proselytizing her beliefs, much less inciting violence.  She's not out on the street corrupting French women and trying to convince them to wear the burqa and submit to their husbands -- in fact, it specifically states:

"In the past, nationality was denied to Muslims who were known to have links with extremist circles or who had publicly advocated radicalism, which is not the case here."

So instead of taking a hard-line on international terrorism or internal violence by radical-Islam, instead of going after the rioters, the car-burners, the bomb-makers, the hostage-takers or even the loud-mouths who incite violence and hatred ... they decide to go all hard-ass on a submissive mother of three who hardly leaves the house? 

Oh, yeah ... it's France.  I guess they figure they can take her.

I'd like to think that the same thing couldn't happen here in the United States.  Instead I'd like to think that our response would be to tell this woman and her family:

"Come here.  We don't believe the same things as you do, but you're welcome here, so long as you show others the same courtesy."

Some Americans feel differently.  They're concerned about diluting what makes a nation: borders, language and culture.  I'm with them on all three; that those are what make a nation.  Without borders and a common language, a nation becomes divided. 

Where I differ with them is what American culture is.  Despite the demographics at the time of America's founding, and despite what some would like, we aren't an exclusively Christian nation.  American culture isn't based on a particular set of religious beliefs, it's based on the concept of religious freedom.  For that to mean anything, it has to include all religions, even the ones we disagree with.

We should only care about one question with regard to an immigrants religious beliefs:

Do you want to force others to believe what you do or kill them if they don't?

If the answer's "No", then welcome to America. 

(but stay out of France)

What’s Causing High Gas Prices?

My attempts this last week to draw attention to the deceptive pricing tactics of a local gas station (1) (2) have put gas prices on my mind.  It occurs to me that gas prices everywhere are now higher than this station had when I first got torqued-off by it (they were charging $3.50 then, when the average here was $2.00).

I started thinking about what's actually driving prices up.  Rather than write about it now, though, I want to find out what other people think.  BuzzDash is about the coolest site I've found for completely non-scientific polling -- so I created this poll that will run here and, I hope, on the BuzzDash site:

Once the poll's over, August 1st, I'll write about what I think.

Terrorism Expert: “Flying is not a right, it is a privilege.”

I wasn’t going to do it.  I wasn’t going to write anything about that silly shock bracelet proposed (by a private company) for airline passengers, because I really thought it was a non-story.  Just a bad idea by some idiot company that got a memo written by some middle-management flunky at Homeland Security.

Then FOX had to go and interview Neil Livingstone.  Livingstone is a putz masquerading as a “terrorism expert”, and I normally pay him no attention, but now he’s decided that he’s an expert on Constitutional Law. 

I say he’s a putz, because he exaggerates the threat of terrorism to such an extreme that it makes anyone concerned about terrorism look ridiculous too.  He is the epitome of chicken-little syndrome when it comes to terrorism.  I think terrorism’s a threat, but Livingstone makes it seem like there are more terrorists in the U.S. right now than citizens. 

So Fox interviews him about these silly bracelets and he says:

“Flying is not a right, it is a privilege.”

It’s because of ignorant people like Mr. Livingstone that many of the Founding Fathers didn’t want to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.  They knew that as soon as they enumerated any rights, some schmuck like Livingstone would come along and whine:

“That’s not a right ‘cause it’s not in the Constitution.”

Or, as Alexander Hamilton put it:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Livingstone doesn’t get it.  The Constitution isn’t about government granting us rights, it’s about us giving power to government.  So, Mr. Putz-Schmuck, show me where in the Constitution the People grant government the power to stop them from exercising their right to fly.  Show me now or shut the fuck up!

The Founding Fathers were smart, they knew there’d be idiots like Livingstone one day.

James Madison proposed a new amendment to address this, and said about it:

“It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”

And the Ninth Amendment was born:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

We, the People, have the right to fly.  It doesn’t have to be enumerated anywhere, it’s ours.  We give government the power to regulate that right to a certain extent, but that doesn’t negate the right.

Mr. Schmuck-Putz-Livingstone should keep his mouth shut about what he knows nothing.

That Damn Gas Station (video of customer reactions)

You know,as time goes by, that damn gas station pisses me off more and more – I probably shouldn’t let it get to me, but it does. 

I really don’t mind that he’s charging $1.50 / gallon more than everyone else in town, it’s what has to be the deliberate deception of not having a sign that bugs me.  That and he’s taking advantage of visitors to the area, visitors that Orlando depends on for its economy.

So today, I stopped in with my video camera and asked some pumpers what they thought of the situation.  Of the people I talked to, only one was a local (he didn’t want to be taped) – everyone else was a visitor to Orlando who was returning a rental car.  So their last memory of their trip before getting to the airport is getting raped on the gas price by this station.  

Check out my original post on this guy's tactics, which includes contact information to let him know what you think of his tactics.

Music Review: One of the Boys (Katy Perry)

I make no excuses for having musical tastes that stratified sometime during the early ‘70’s folk-era.  With my tastes running to folk, classic rock, classical and showtunes, today’s music doesn’t interest me much, but the other day while driving to lunch with a co-worker, I heard Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl”.

At first, I shrugged it off as a cute song, easily forgotten, but it stuck with me.  I’ll admit it, Katy Perry’s a girl and when she sings “I Kissed a Girl and I liked it”, it titillates me a bit.  Men are pigs, what can I say?

I listened to it a few more times … because I’m a pig … and I found a bit more than titillation there.  Perry has a good vocal range and she changes things up nicely throughout the song … I started liking the singing more than the titillation, so I checked out the rest of the album.

CD	MP3

With a bit of reading on Amazon and Perry’s website, I learned that Perry writes her own songs and plays guitar – two big pluses for me, because it makes her a musician and not just a singer. 

“One of the Boys” is Perry’s debut album and at only 23, her youth shows in the lyrics, but her strong voice and the freshness of some of the tracks makes up for any immaturity in the composition.  The album is, after all, intended to be more teen- / pop-rock than anything deep and meaningful.

One thing I like about the album is that it seems, and is described on her website, as autobiographical (so she really kissed a girl?  sorry, my pigishness is showing again).  The stories that come through in the songs have a “real” feel to them, it seems like Perry’s singing from the heart, even when the tale’s humorous, and I like that.  Part of attraction is Perry’s sense of humor, which is a bit … quirky.  Her website has the following quote about that sense of humor:

“Someone told me the other day that I’m a bit like Lucille Ball. They said, ‘You look pretty put together on the outside, but inside there’s just something a bit wrong.’”

Aside from “I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it)”, which is about, well, kissing a girl and liking it, some of the other good tracks are:

“ur so gay (and you don’t even like boys)” – About an ex-boyfriend.  After listening to this album, I caution anyone thinking of dating Miss Perry: Your every neurosis is going to be exposed on the B-side.  (if you got that, you’re old)

The ballads "Lost" and "I'm Still Breathing" are more serious, but are still touched with Perry's attitude, which makes them fun and maudlin at the same time, a disturbing combo.

Perry uses her voice well in "Lost", both portraying emotion and using her voice to complement the instruments, she shows that she understands the human voice can do more than sing the melody.

Not included on the album, but playing on her website is a cover of "Your Love", retitled to "Use Your Love" and with some changes to the lyrics.  This song was included on a previously released EP of "ur so gay" and it really shows Perry's vocal potential -- very reminiscent of some of Rock's better female vocalists. 

Make no mistake, "One of the Boys" is exactly what it is, bubblegum pop, but it has some unique and endearing features.  It's a promising debut for an artist I'll be watching.

The Constitution - Amendment I -- Part I

This is the first in a series of articles I plan on the Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights (in whatever order strikes my fancy and with likely digressions into other Articles and Amendments).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are several clauses in the First Amendment, so I'll deal with each in individual articles, starting with Religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Read it carefully and tell me, where does it say "separation"?

The purpose of this clause is to limit the powers of government and protect the religious freedoms of individuals.  What the concept of "separation" has morphed into over time, though, is something quite different -- something that prohibits the free exercise of religion by individuals in the name of the First Amendment.  I find that reprehensible.

There is no "separation" clause in the First Amendment and the concept of "Separation of Church and State" is not part of our Constitution.  In fact, the phrase didn't first appear until 1802 in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

The full text of Jefferson's use of the term makes it clear that even as he coined the term, the intent of his wall was to imprison the acts of government not the individual.

But the reality today is that the rights of the individual are regularly trampled in the name of "separation".  Disturbingly, political figures who profess religious beliefs are denigrated by the Left and accused of violating this "separation". 

Curiously, the Left has no problem with liberal candidates who attend church but profess that this does not influence their opinion.  Apparently it's okay to be a shallow, casual attender of church, without holding any strong moral convictions, but to actually live your life by the precepts of your faith is somehow wrong.

It's clear that this was not the intent of the country's founders.  When Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and James Madison championed it, they made this intent clear:

"... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

People of faith were not intended to be excluded from public service, but that seems to be an issue today.

Personally, I look for a candidate who isn't a hypocrite.  If he goes to church, he should exhibit signs of actually believing and following his faith; conversely, if he behaves with an entirely secular attitude he'd better not attend church.  Either combination shows me a certain amount of character and conviction, which I look for in a political candidate.

George W. Bush has an honest, sincere religious faith and he's paid for it politically.  He's said things out of that faith that have driven the Left absolutely nutters, such as God speaking to him or through him.  Boy, the Left has gone apoplectic over some of those comments.

But to me, it simply shows the ignorance of the secular  to the concept of religious belief -- and their intolerance and bigotry.  When someone with a sincere religious faith says that God spoke to them or told them something, it doesn't mean that they heard a literal voice echoing in an otherwise empty room.  It's a metaphor.

The concept is that, through prayer or meditation, guidance will come.  People of faith believe that guidance comes from their god -- those of us without that faith call it conscience or reason.  Ultimately, it's simply that they decided what the right thing to do is.

Both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee faced similar discrimination because of their religious beliefs.  And discrimination is exactly what it was for those who objected to the candidates simply because they were men of faith, without regard for their professed positions on the issues.

Most disturbing to me is what we're doing to our children in this country.  In the name of "separation of Church and State", we're trampling the individual liberties of children all across America.  School after school seems to be instituting a zero-tolerance policy; not for guns or knives or drugs, but zero-tolerance for Bibles, religious symbols and prayer.

Think about it.  Our children, in their most formative years, get this message from the government school:

"Class, you live in America, the freest country in the world.  Founded on the principles of liberty, equality and religious freedom ... wait, Sally, is that a bible in your personal backpack?  Detention! Detention! Go to detention! Be punished for attempting to freely exercise your religion! How dare you!"

That isn't what the First Amendment is about and it isn't what we should be teaching our children.

Supporting Bloggers

Note: If you got here from one of my other blogs and just want to know how to support bloggers without wading through the opinionated-pile below, this will take you there.

Taxes

AdSense

Donations

Affiliate Programs

Paid Posts

Normally I have to discuss religion or politics to get hate mail and make people’s heads explode, but today I think I can do it with a seemingly banal topic:

Monetizing Blogs

“Monetizing” refers to the process of earning or generating revenue from your blog.  “Revenue” is synonymous with money.

Let’s face it, money makes the world go ‘round.  Much as the Communists and Socialists and Utopian Theorists out there hate to admit it, commerce and money are strong motivators for most people.  And the average blogger is no exception. 

Commerce has existed since the day caveman-Ug offered to stay behind and keep the fire going while caveman-Ug (limited vocal capabilities in those days, there were a lot of repeated names) went hunting.  Ug came home to a warm cave and something to cook his catch over and Ug got a share of the meal.  I won't speculate on whether either Ug got anything further out of the deal later that night.  Caveman-sex, ugh.

Even in the Socialist-Utopia of the Soviet Union, they had money (it was worth less than the toilet paper, but they had it) and where money was short, they had barter.  Some Leftists I know like to point to barter as being different than Capitalism … sorry, guys, it is Capitalism.  Product for product, service for service, it’s all about commerce – just because you trade me a chicken for a ham doesn’t make it less so, money just makes it easier.

What does all this have to do with blogs?  Well, blogs are content on the Internet and there’s a large number of people who believe the Internet and all its content should be free.  By free, they mostly mean that they can take what they want without paying for it … music and movies, mostly, regardless of the work, effort and expense that goes into producing such things.  But by “free”, they also mean sans advertisement.

This segment of the population hates advertisements.  They hate them because advertising is inherently Capitalistic.  Communism: no companies, ergo no advertising.  Socialism: State-run, ergo no advertising.  Advertising, by its very nature, implies competition, which is Capitalism.

As a capital-B, Believer in Capitalism, I like advertising.  Advertising gets me radio I don’t have to pay for, television I don’t have to pay for, Internet-content I don’t have to pay for and tons of free-stuff and samples … hell, advertising got us Google.  Occasionally, advertising even lets me know about a product I’m interested in … rare, but it happens.

So, in what ways can one monetize a blog and what does it cost the reader?  Here are some:

Taxes

AdSense

Donations

Affiliate Programs

Paid Posts

Note: I’m not an expert on monetizing blogs, these are just the ways I’ve found so far.

Supporting Bloggers

Taxes

What do taxes have to do with supporting bloggers?  Well, here’s the thing, if I monetize my blog, then it’s a business and business expenses are tax deductible.  The income from the blog is taxable of course, but only a fool wouldn’t be able to come up with enough expenses to offset that.

I have three blogs, each with a different focus: kayaking, software development and opinion (stop looking for the link, you’re already here).  Virtually anything I spend on those three things, so long as I write about it, is tax-deductible.  The gas to get where I kayak, software development tools, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, even the books I read and review here – all of it offsets any income from the blogs.

By writing this silly blog, I earn money, buy things I want anyway and pay no taxes on that income.  Does that seem fair to you?

There are bloggers earning four- and five-figures a month (I’m not one of them) – these are the A-List bloggers and I bet everything they do is a business expense that offsets a huge amount of income – they could probably fart and find a way to write off $100.  Again, does that seem fair to you?

Well, as I tell my children, you need to track down the son of a bitch who told you life was going to be fair and kick his ass, because he lied to you.

Of course it’s not fair!  It’s part of the American Income Tax System, are you surprised it’s screwed up?

What would be fair is if I had to pay taxes on what I spent without being able to write it off as a “business expense”, but that’s not the case.  I’m going to continue to be able to write off every dime of the whopping $10.77 these blogs bring in each month all because you haven’t written your congressmen and told them you want the Fair Tax.

What are you waiting for?  Write them now and tell them you want the Fair Tax passed so all those evil, capitalist bloggers have to pay their fair share.

AdSense

The easiest way a blogger can earn money and the one that costs the reader the least is Google Adsense.  These are the context-sensitive ad blocks you see around sites labeled “Ads by Google”.  The blogger puts a snippet or two of HTML on the site and Google handles the rest, indexing the posts and presenting context-sensitive ads. 

When a reader clicks on an Adsense ad, the blogger gets paid – that’s right, no purchase necessary.  Payment isn’t a lot, typically, but it can add up.  So if you’re browsing a site and see a Google ad you might be interested in, go ahead and click-through to check it out.  You might find something good and the blogger will make a few pennies.

Donations

Donations do cost the reader something, but they can typically be small.  Many blogs have PayPal or Amazon Honor Systems donation links.  If you’ve just browsed to a blog and read an article or two, don’t make a donation … you, as the reader, probably haven’t received enough value to justify it.  If, on the other hand, you read a blog daily and get a lot of enjoyment out of it, throw a couple bucks the blogger’s way once in a while -- or not, there's no obligation and you shouldn't feel bad about being a cheap basta ... about being frugal with your hard-earned money. 

Affiliate Programs (product links)

Links to recommended products and books can be done through Affiliate Programs.  When a blogger reviews or recommends a book and provide a link to purchase it on Amazon, a small portion of the sales price goes to the blogger.  This costs the reader more, since they’ve bought a product, but if you’re going to buy the book anyway, why not do it through someone’s link and let them get paid a bit?

Affiliate Programs (links)

All those banner ads eatin’ up valuable bandwidth.  The blogger gets paid if you go sign-up or buy something from the advertiser, but the advantage you get is exposure to new things. 

I found out about the two greatest cat litter-boxes in the world through affiliate links (Litter Robot and Cat Genie).  With seven cats in the house, I need these products.  And I’m glad someone had an ad about them.

Pay Per Post Programs

This is the one.  This is what separates people into camps faster than “great-taste/less-filling”.  Advertisers paying bloggers to write about products or services.

One company I found that does this is Izea, which runs the Pay Per Post and Social Spark sites.  The basic premise of both sites is that advertisers post opportunities and the bloggers sign up for the ones they're interested in writing about.  Both sites have similar ethics and disclosure policies that require bloggers to disclose that the post has been paid for.

This whole concept has created controversy and no little condemnation from people like Duncan Riley at TechCrunch.  Riley calls this shilling, but I think this opinion makes Riley an illiterate boob, since the definition of a shill is someone who hides their association from the consumer.  Since the posts require disclosure, it can't be shilling.  Possibly Riley should take his next AdSense check and buy a dictionary.  If he reads this and follows that link to do so, I'll make a quarter ... cool. 

The bottom line to me is that paid posts in a blog are much the same as paid endorsements on a radio talk show.  When a commercial comes on in the hosts voice, most everyone with any sense recognizes it's a commercial and treats it as such.

What I like about it is that it's a way for the blogger to get paid without costing the reader anything. 

As the reader, if you're not interested in the title of the post, you won't read it.  If you're interest isn't held by the content of the post, you'll stop reading it.  If you read the entirety of a paid post, but you were entertained or found a product you didn't know about, what's the difference if the blogger was paid or not?

So what's your opinion on the whole paid post thing?

It's Time to Talk About Bringing the Troops Home

I've been a supporter of America's liberation of Iraq since day one.  I thought the ouster of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, both morally and for national security.  Now I think it's time to talk about bringing our troops home.  Why?

Simple, the Iraqi government has asked us to and has met fifteen of the eighteen benchmarks set by Congress to show their progress. 

Where our Congress gets the unmitigated gall to set benchmarks for a sovereign nation, I don't know -- I wonder if Congress' approval rating amongst the Iraqi government is even lower than the miserable 9% they rate this week here at home.

So, let's look at the facts, the United States:

• Toppled a vicious, tyrannical dictator;
• Freed 27,000,000 people and introduced them to democratic processes;
• Oversaw elections where voter turnout was up to 89%, despite the risk of death to those voting;
• Provided security and support to build a new government and rebuild the country;
• And instituted a troop surge which quelled the violence of primarily foreign nationals seeking to disrupt the rebuilding and undermine the elected Iraqi government;

All of which has led up to a strong, confident, democratically-elected Iraqi government feeling comfortable with the idea of going it on their own and telling us so.  What does that sound like?  Wait, there's a term for it ... on the tip of my tongue ...

Sounds very much like success. 

Depending on where you read the story about the Iraqi government's position, the reporter will throw some spin on it.  Pravda, for instance, likes to dwell on ... wait, that link goes to MSNBC ... oh, well, same difference.  Anyway, they like to dwell on Prime Minister al-Maliki wanting a timetable, "an idea opposed by President Bush".  They're playing up the conflict ... makes for good copy.

The reality is that this is a complex process: extricating ourselves from Iraq while ensuring that the Iraqi systems are in place and stable as we leave.  The further reality is that the discussions about the best way to do it are ongoing right now.  

There's going to be conflict between the U.S. and Iraq in those discussions.  There's going to be disagreement and argument and maybe even some flaring tempers.  The guys doing the talking are professionals, they'll work it out.  They'll work it out because both sides want the same thing, it's just that the devil's in the details.

The media's going to spend the next several months gleefully reporting on those devils.  They'll exaggerate every disagreement because that's what they do, it makes good copy.

Things could still go badly, but from my perspective, right now, the end's in sight and we did a good thing.

Astronomers Are Racist

First picky eaters, now astronomers.  We’re finding racism in some amazing places this week.

This story out of Dallas tells of a meeting of the Dallas County Commission.  Apparently, one of the commissioners referred to their central collections office as becoming “a black hole” due to the volume of lost paperwork.

A black hole.  You see where this is going, right?

This prompted two other commissioners to speak up, with one demanding an apology and the other correcting the term to “white hole”.

Now, a “black hole” is a pretty well settled astronomy term for a collapsed star that creates a gravity field so dense that nothing, not even light, can escape from it … hence the name.  Big thing in the middle of space … no light can escape … space is black … black hole.  Get it?

A “white hole”, on the other hand, is the theoretical opposite, a reversal of a black hole, which would spew things out instead of sucking them in. 

Since the analogy was about an agency that loses paperwork, the original “black hole” reference was correct.  If the agency had randomly taken their files and thrown them out the front door at passers-by, then the “white hole”-correcting commissioner might have a point.

As it stands, I doubt either commissioner who objected to the term has a basic understanding of astronomy.  No, they’re just reactionary idiots who, upon hearing something they were ignorant of, jumped to take offense because that’s all they’re good at.

There are lots of terms that have the word “black” in them for very good reasons, without having anything to do with race at all.

“Blackout”, for instance, because without electricity, there are no electric lights.  Lights go off, night is dark … blackout, get it?

“Whiteout” wouldn’t work for that, but it does for severe snow conditions where the ground and sky appear to merge into a single wall of snow.  Snow is what color?  Right, white. 

See?  Not a damn thing to do with race.

It's stupid and moronic to object to terms like these or take offense.  People should have more care to understand the real meaning of something before jumping to take offense.  These two commissioners didn't.  They were, one might even say, most niggardly with their effort to understand.

<whispers> "Did you see that?  He used the n-word! Oh ... my ... god ..."

No, didn't.  Because "niggardly" is a perfectly good word of Old Norse derivation that has nothing to do with race, meaning "to withhold for the sake of meanness" or "miserly".  To say these two idiot commissioners were miserly in their effort to understand what the term "black hole" meant would be accurate -- they withheld their effort for the sake of meanness.

They'd probably be more offended by the word "niggardly" than "black hole", others have been; mostly ignorant others who don't take the time to find out what a word or phrase means before taking offense.  They hear a sound and take offense, because it sounds like something they think they should be offended by.

How about being offended by real racism, instead of objecting to words and phrases that have nothing to do with race?

Book Review: Kushiel’s Mercy (Kushiel's Legacy Series)

It’s not all politics and news here … there has to be some recreation.

I’ve just finished reading Kushiel’s Mercy, the sixth novel in Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel’s Legacy series, which is really a set of two trilogies: Kushiel’s Dart, Kushiel’s Chosen and Kushiel's Avatar are the first trilogy, followed by Kushiel's Scion, Justice and Mercy:

Each book in the series is very dependent on what comes before, so it's necessary to start at the beginning.  Not a hardship, since Carey is a gifted writer, with a talent for complex, intricate plots and a narrative skill that will keep you up long past your bedtime.

The series is set in a fictional world whose geography is that of Europe and the Mediterranean, but with mostly fictional countries.  I say "mostly", because the countries share a hint of flavor with their real-life counterparts.  Terre d'Ange, Alba and Aragonia, for instance, hint at France, England and Spain, respectively.  Because of the similarities, the series is sometimes labeled as alternate history, but I think that's a stretch.

Religion also has its parallels in this land, where the primary faith in Terre d'Ange is the worship of Blessed Elua, who was conceived through the blood of Yeshua ben Yosef, the son of the One God, where a spear from a soldier of Tiberium pierced his side, and the tears of the Magdalene, in the womb of Mother Earth herself.  You see the parallel, I trust?

Elua was joined on Earth by eight of God's own angels: Azza, Anael, Camael, Cassiel, Eisheth, Kushiel, Naamah and Shemhazai.  These angels became Elua's Companions and form the core of the religion of Terre d'Ange.  They each also have a parallel in Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The faith of Blessed Elua is based on his singular precept: Love as Thou Wilt.  All of this very rich and detailed mythology is ancient history by the time depicted in the Kushiel's Legacy novels, but helps to paint a full and believable picture of the world -- and is central to the plots of the six books. 

Each of the eight Companions embodies and represents some aspect of Love, ranging from the aesthete to the blatantly sexual.  Sexual themes, including homosexuality and BDSM, run strong in this series, so if you're offended by that sort of thing, you probably won't like the books.  There's a lot of sex in there, but all of it, even the edgy kind, is depicted tastefully.

The series is very fast-moving, with a number of characters and intricate plotting.  In addition, Carey writes long books, running to six- or seven-hundred pages, so she has time and space to develop characters, plot and the world to a very satisfying extent.  This is a welcome change from some of my other favorite authors like Mercedes Lackeyand Laurel K. Hamilton, whose books seem to be getting shorter and shorter as time goes by.

Medieval fantasy with a touch of magic, but not overpowering, some battle and swordplay, but mostly adventures won through by dint of sharp wits and planning.

The Gun is Always Loaded

In this tragic story, a man accidentally shot and killed his pregnant wife last night.  Reportedly, he was cleaning his gun when it discharged, the bullet hitting him in the hand before killing his wife.

I’m sure that this incident is going to give rise to calls for gun-control here in Central Florida, with those opposed to individual ownership of firearms using it as an example of the, to them, unacceptably high cost of that freedom.  What they fail to recognize is that this was not a case of too much freedom (as though there could be such a thing), but was instead a case of too little responsibility.

When I was very young, five- or six-years old, my grandfather got his gun and took me out in back of the house.  He lived in a rural area with fields and forest all around.  He took me back to the garden, loaded the gun, put it in my hand and guided me to aim at a pumpkin he’d placed on a stump.  I looked through the sites as he helped me gently apply pressure to the trigger and suddenly the gun jumped in my hand and the pumpkin fairly disintegrated.  Grandpa had loaded the gun with hollow-points and parts of that pumpkin rained down what seemed like twenty feet away from the stump.

I’m sure the picture in my memory, seen through the eyes of a child, is far more vivid and impressive than I’d find it today (or than it actually was), but it made a significant impression on me at an early age.

My grandfather then, very quietly and matter-of-factly, said, “It’ll do the same thing to a person.”

That event and his words made a lasting impression on me and I remember it every time I pick up a gun. 

I like guns and I enjoy shooting.  One of the first things I did when I moved out of my parents’ home and got my own place was to buy a gun.  I went to the range and shot it, if not frequently, then at least often.

But I’ve always treated firearms with the care, caution and respect that my grandfather impressed on me was necessary that autumn morning in Minnesota.  A few, simple rules, but important when dealing with a potentially deadly tool:

• Never point the gun at something you don’t want to shoot;
• Never put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to shoot;

And, most importantly:

• Always assume the gun is loaded;

Not everyone has a grandfather like mine to do that for them, though, which is why I support a licensing system for firearms purchases.  Not registration of the guns, but licensing of the individual to purchase and keep them, without the government having knowledge of the number, type or location.

What happened here in Central Florida last night was, indeed, tragic, with a wife and child dead and a husband, I’m sure, devastated and guilt-ridden.  What’s even more tragic is that it was a completely avoidable event if proper care had been taken.

Picky Eaters are Racist

In a story today out of London, UPI is reporting that  a British-government sponsored organization has determined that toddlers who say ‘yuck’ are racist.

That’s right, toddlers who say ‘yuck’ when confronted with flavorful foreign food are exhibiting racist tendencies.  Also, the study warns that babies must be watched closely for racism because they have the ability to "recognize different people in their lives."

Has it really come to this?

I can remember when anti-racism ads consisted of a little black boy and a little white boy playing happily together under the caption “Nobody’s Born a Racist”.

Apparently, they were wrong and we need to crack down on those damned, hate-filled infants and toddlers.  Next thing you know, little Billy’s going to be sporting a Swastika at daycare.

And the British government paid money for this study?  They’re more screwed up than we are.

Folks, kids say “yuck” because they don’t like the way something tastes.  Kids get set in their eating habits and don’t want to try new things, regardless of what “culture” the food came from … the kid doesn’t give a shit about cultures, he cares that it looks and smells different … he cares that it’s not freakin’ peanut butter and jelly like he wanted!

When I was a kid I hated onions … does that mean that I was bigoted against those damn onion-eating … what is the cultural-home of the onion, anyway?  Doesn’t matter, apparently as a kid I hated those bastards.  I like onions now … did my racism go away?

Hated the Norwegians, too, because I wouldn’t even try Lutefisk … but I did love lefse and krumkake, so I guess I was conflicted in my racism?  Oh, wait, I’m a quarter Norwegian … racist, self-hating bastard that I must have been.

To the authors of the study, I say:

Gentlemen and ladies, kids who are picky eaters are not racist, kids who are picky eaters are a pain in the ass!

Possibly, you should have studied how to get the little shits to eat what the parents put on their plates, rather than projecting your own own racist beliefs onto them.

That’s right, I said their own racist beliefs.  Just like ardent gay-bashers who secretly yearn to try the act, I think that those who see racism in every act, every look, every nuance of voice that they encounter … those people harbor their own racism.  Deep in their soul, or not so deep, they’re racist, which is why it’s at the forefront of their minds so much. 

There is real racism in the world, real hatred of others because of who they are or where they’re from and that evil must be confronted, but you won’t find it in a toddler pushing his plate away … you won’t find it in anything that a baby does. 

Have some haggis, there … no?  You fucking racist.

Barack Obama’s Plane Makes Unscheduled Landing Due to Mechanical Difficulties

(full story)

My opinion:

The blogosphere will now quickly fill with right-wing blogs lamenting the fact that the plane didn’t crash.  The left-wing will pick up on this, lamenting the fact that right-winger’s are so hateful, ignoring their own wishes for President Bush to crash somewhere over the last eight years.

Politics is politics, but wishing ill on a political candidate or political figure is, in general, a vile, disgusting act.  I’ve seen and heard this things for years, with people wishing harm to come to President Clinton or President Bush – or rejoicing at Senator Kennedy’s brain tumor and Senator Helms’ death.  It disgusts me and should disgust you – and both sides of the political spectrum should repudiate this attitude.

I don’t like Barack Obama – I don’t like his policies and I don’t like his attitude – but I wish him no ill-will.

If you’ve ever wished harm on someone because of their politics or rejoiced when such harm occurred, please rethink your position. 

It’s probably unworthy of you and certainly unworthy of America.

Is Obama Actually Dan Quayle in Black-Face?

You remember Dan Quayle, right?  As forty-fourth Vice President of the United States, from 1989 to 1993, Dan Quayle provided the Nation and the World with hours of entertainment through his gaffes, misstatements and blunders. 

In fact, it could be argued that V.P. Quayle provided Americans with more laughs during his Vice-Presidency than the entire cast of Saturday Night Live during the same timeframe.  In their defense, it should be noted that Quayle labored only under the burden of having no formal, comedic training, while the SNL cast of the time had to deal with a dearth of comedic talent.

Who could ever forget such Quayle-gems as:

“We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward.”

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

“I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix.”

And, my personal favorite, in a speech to the United Negro College Fund, whose slogan is “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste”, where Mr. Quayle assailed the audience with:

“You take the United Negro College Fund model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”

Quayle’s personal-best came in response to a question regarding sending men to Mars.  At the time, Quayle was serving as chairman of the National Space Council:

“Mars is essentially in the same orbit ....Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe”

His most famous routine … sorry, misstep, came in 1992 when Quayle was asked to read the words for an elementary school spelling bee.  The word was “potato” … which the student spelled correctly.  At which point, Quayle corrected him for having missed the “e”.  Potatoe.  In Quayle’s defense, that’s how it was written on the card and he’d had a long week.

A decade and a half later, enter Barack Obama. 

Despite the media’s cooing over his intelligence and eloquence, Obama seems to suffer from the same disease as Dan Quayle.  A reasonably gifted orator when working from a set speech, he seems to be even more gifted as a contortionist – managing to make his way through the day while never letting a foot get too far from his mouth.

In just the few short months that he’s been running for President …

Okay, so he’s actually been running since kindergarten, but, unlike Hillary Clinton, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  I actually think it’s okay for little boys and girls to aspire to one day be President of the United States.

Regardless, in just the few short months that he’s acknowledged being in the running for President, Barack Obama’s managed to score an impressive number of gaffes of his own:

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” – actual number of dead people: 12

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” – actual number of States in the United States: 50

Regarding trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky pre-primary polls: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” – actual state closer to Kentucky: Illinois (where Obama’s from)

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” – actual year of Barack Obama’s birth: 1961; actual year of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, AL: 1965

Regarding the lack of translators for the military in Afghanistan: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan” – actual languages spoken in Iraq: Arabic or Kurdish; actual languages spoken in Afghanistan: Pashto or Farsi

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” – actual number of dead people in the audience: 0 (okay, so maybe only Obama can see the dead people – which would explain the extra 9,988 dead people he saw after the Kansas tornadoes)

“Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region. … No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.” – actual year Hugo Chavez took power in Venezuela: 1998; actual President of the United States at that time: Bill Clinton

Regarding the anti-Clinton YouTube ad modeled after Apple’s 1984 Macintosh ad: “We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that.” – actual high-tech gear necessary: computer (preferably a Mac)

The list goes on, and the media does report these gaffes, but in a good-natured way, and, at the same time, still praising Obama as an intellectual giant qualified to be President of the United States.  These same sorts of misstatements caused the media to portray Dan Quayle as being such an idiot as to make President George H. W. Bush “impeachment-proof”.

Now it’s reported that Dan Quayle respects Obama … could a possible endorsement be in the offing?

More importantly, could there be a Master Plan afoot? 

Dan Quayle is not an idiot, despite his media portrayal.  He’s actually quite intelligent, but with an inability to speak off-the-cuff with any degree of sanity.  Having served one term as Vice President and never having gotten the chance to run for the Big One on his own merits, could Mr. Quayle have come up with a diabolical plot?

Think about it: Obama was virtually unheard of on the national scene until a few years ago.  A State Senator, quickly elected to the United States Senate, and after serving only four years in the Senate is now the Democratic Party Nominee for President of the United States.  An unlikely turn of events, but …

What if a seasoned, political mastermind like Dan Quayle, recognizing the impossibility of overcoming his reputation forged in the ‘90s, created for himself an alter-ego.  An alter-ego so diametrically opposed politically from his known positions that no one would ever suspect a connection.  An alter-ego not only of a different political party, but of an entirely different race. 

And yet, an alter-ego possessed of the same fatal flaw that so doomed his original career. 

Think of it.  Is it possible?  Picture it:

January 20, 2009 – Inauguration Day.  The forty-fourth President of the United States is sworn in, raises a towel to his brow and strips away the make up to reveal …

President Quayle