Don't ever say I can't laugh at everybody.

I don't care who you voted for, this is funny.

About damn time.

Moderate Muslims everywhere should follow the example set for them in England, where they pushed the extremist protest against British soldiers off the street.

I still stand by my assertion that until the moderate Muslims get radically intolerant of the radically intolerant, but at least the process has begun.

Next step: ban radical fundamentalist recruitment--Christian, Muslim, or otherwise--in prisons.

I've never thought it was a good idea.

The vow of celibacy, that is. It only causes good men to ignore a call to the priesthood because they want a family, break their vows once they're there because God places their soul mate in their path, or enables a monster who wants to use the reputation of a man of God to put them beyond accusation when they rape children.

Not to mention, a priest who isn't married doesn't have the tools provided by personal experience to be a marriage counselor. It's like asking your maiden aunt about sex.

Gah.

Global warming activists can't make up their damned minds. First, they say that humans and human activities are killing Mother Gaia (funny, the only problem they seem to have with Christianity is that, in the words of one of my friends, the Jew came back [though, not the very next day]). Then, they bewail and bemoan that global warming kills 315,000 per year (mostly in France, where people leave their elderly relatives at home while they go on vacation to cooler climes).

What they don't seem to think about is what's bound to happen when the pendulum swings the other way. I somehow get the feeling that they'll stop congratulating themselves for averting catastrophically high sea levels once they realize that the cycle of climate change dictates that it's time for another ice age, and the death rate quintuples.

It's not paranoia when car dealerships' franchises are being revoked for partisan reasons.

Vilmar at Kickin' and Screamin' mentioned the possibility that Chrysler was revoking dealer franchises based on who the dealerships' owners donated money to in the last political season. The blog post I read on 22 May mentioned six or seven specific cases in which a profitable dealership was losing its manufacturer's franchise with Chrysler because the owner had donated to a Republican rather than to the curent POTUS.

Despite the ring of truth, I thought Vilmar was just being paranoid. I wanted to think that Vilmar was just being paranoid. There was more about it posted over there today. With a whole lot more documentation. Drudge picked up on it, too.

It's not paranoia when there actually is someone out to get you. In other words, Vilmar's not the only one that's noticed what's being done.

I won't speculate about who's behind the orders. I have my suspicions, but will not make accusations that I cannot back up with proof--especially since I don't have the time to go looking for that proof.

Still. I wonder how long it'll be before every new car sold in the United States is required by law to be made by Government Motors. It worked so well for the Soviets with the Lada, after all.

And yet another reason to oppose Sotamayor's nomination.

She does not favor freedom of speech when it's a high school student versus government officials, specifically her school's superintendent and other school officials.

I understand that most school administrators would rather cut off possible problems at the pass, but I do not believe that referring to the school officials as "douche bags" on an off-campus, non-school-related personally owned and written blog should be grounds for barring a senior in high school from running for student body president. Like as not, the senior in question was being honest and accurate.

In any case, it not only seems as if this judge ruled in violation of a young adult's constitutionally protected rights, but that the ruling implied that she might well apply similar politically correct (i.e., you can't offend anybody with your words) reasoning in other first amendment cases.

And that, as much as her "empathy," scares me.

Only in California.

A pastor and his wife have been ordered, in direct violations of their first amendment rights (specifically, freedoms of assembly and religion) to cease and desist holding bible study classes in their home, or else prepare to pay "escalating fines."

California's reasons for believing that they're permitted to abridge this couple's God granted first amendment rights? "[U]nlawful use of land." Inviting family and friends to THEIR OWN PRIVATE RESIDENCE for private worship is an "unlawful use of land."

Of course, they could shell out mere tens of thousands of dollars for usage fees, environmental impact studies, etc. ad naseum, to be permitted by the government of the People's Democratic Republic of California to practice rights enumerated as BEYOND GOVERNMENT REACH.

Bottom line? California's bankrupt. Financially, politically, and morally. That means they're looking for any possible way to screw its (few remaining financially solvent) citizens out of funds to try to prop themselves up for long enough to find the next sucker.

Oh, and fuck over Christians while they're at it.

Oh. My. Lord.

Even the Vice President makes fun of the President's reliance on teleprompters.

God have mercy on us--we elected two of the biggest idiots we've ever elected.

Too late now, idiots.

Russia now fears that North Korea will start a nuclear war. Given that the whole North Korea/South Korea thing was a direct offshoot of the First Cold War, and that if not for Russian Communisim and their brothers in China, North Korea wouldn't be an issue right now, it serves them right to have to fear what they have wrought.

Especially since it's very likely that Japan will probably also go nuclear, out of self defense.

No one trusts the new POTUS, with his bowing, scraping, and ass kissing to vicious dictators the world over, and his scramble to re-label everything from terrorism to the conflict in the Middle East. Everyone believes that he'll duck and dodge, verbally bobbing and weaving, and refuse to deal with a nuclear attack.

I don't trust him not to adequately respond to a nuclear attack (i.e., declare war, with nothing but unconditional surrender and regime replacement, if not total annihilation). Not on South Korea. Not on Japan. Not on Israel. Nor even upon us.

This should have put her out of the running.

Our Dear Leader's pick for the SCOTUS has had 60% of her decisions reversed by a higher court.

This tells me a couple of things: one, that she ignores constitutional law; and two, that she is unjust in her decisions.

President Obama made much of his pick: she's Latina, she has diabetes, and most importantly, she is a woman. He said that she would rule with empathy, once confirmed to the highest court of the land.

Were I in a position to oppose her nomination, I would do it. I do not give a damn what race she is, or that she's a fellow female. I care that she's shown herself to be willing to legislate from the bench, and that she's shown herself to rule against some parties because of their race.

Put together, this woman looks like another grave threat to the rule of constitutional law.

Nooo...really??

"An elephant: a mouse built to government specifications."--Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Our Dear Leader has told us that we've run out of money.

Given that both Obama and Bush spent like drunken sailors without regard for whether or not we had it in the treasury, and given that spending on credit and living above one's means (whether as an individual or a nation) has been what's been pushed by all of the financial industry for pretty much my entire lifetime, it's absolutely not surprising.

I think, however, what the government will find surprising is that increasing taxes on individuals and small businesses will do nothing but slow the inflow of money.

Why?

Simple. If, say, I wanted to open a small business, I'd probably do my best to avoid the top tax brackets. Which means that, were I honest, I'd simply not try to be as successful as I could be, because, in my perception, success is punished by the government (unless it's the upper echelons of union management). Therefore, I wouldn't be paying the government more than I absolutely had to, and I'd be spending a good chunk on accountants to minimize that as much as possible. After all, it's my money, I earned it, and I want to manage where it goes--including which charity it goes to (in other words, as an ant, I don't want to subsidize grasshoppers' song and dance).

Were I dishonest, I'd be taking a lot of payment for my goods and/or services in cash. I'd be taking payment in kind, if cash weren't available. I'd likely keep records on about a third of the business I actually did. And I would not report more than I had records on as income. Again, my money, my charitable contribution choices.

Obama says he's going to raise taxes on the "rich." The "rich" will cut back their businesses because they can't afford to keep them going at the same rate with the same number of employees (who, incidentally, pay income taxes on their paychecks). They fire employees (who quit paying income tax and start drawing unemployment), and slow production. Their prices go up, but at the same time, their income drops because they won't be doing as much business. That means they also pay less in taxes.

That doesn't mean that government spending slows, though. It's an example of the same lack of common sense as the farmer had when he killed the goose.

In any case, that's all a moot point. Obama has openly stated that it doesn't matter that cutting taxes has shown to bring in more money, because cutting taxes for the "rich" isn't "fair."

To be perfectly honest, "fair" is a bad idea. "Fair" would be presenting each individual over the age of 18 as of January 20 with a bill for their share of the national debt, and telling them that they have a limited amount of time to pay their share.

Israel?

Syria's delusional, as always. Assad says Israel is the "greatest obstacle" to peace in the Middle East.

In all honesty, it's probable that the outside enemy that Israel provides for the various governments in the region is all that keeps the rival tribes from killing each other. In other words, had Israel not ever been reborn, or if Iran is successful in wiping it off the map, the tribes in the Muslim nations would be busy killing each other.

Seen that way, Israel's existence has preserved the lives of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Muslim terrorists.

Pity.

Well, duh.

I fully agree with the blogger/photographer at A Human Right.

Glad I'm not a literalist.

This proves that the first chapters of Genesis are metaphor.

Of course the Bible has important messages in it. Of course it contains the word of God.

However.

Since it was filtered through generations of fallible humans in an oral tradition, and filtered through more as it was written down, and still more when it was translated, we Christians cannot take it literally when we read. What we're reading for is a focus through which the present-day voice of God can make itself heard through the rebellious children sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you, God! Are you trying to talk to me? Oh, well, guess I'll do what I want, since He's not telling me I can't."

And still, most of us don't listen. And that's the gift He's given us: the choice of whether or not to listen

Absolute coolness.

I'm a huge fan of Star Trek. The original series and Deep Space Nine, mostly--The Next Generation, was a bit too idealistic and blindly optimistic about human nature and the nature of peace, and Voyager had a great premise with lousy execution. Like any fan, I've got my favorite characters and episodes.

What made it all possible was Roddenberry's imagination, and his imagination included a new type of faster-than-light travel, called warp travel. This, in the imaginary world of Star Trek, worked by taking a chunk of the space-time coninuum, and warping it to where it was in a different dimension--subspace.

Apparently, this isn't quite so far-fetched as we all thought. Scientists are now saying that making such a breakthrough--the warp engine--is merely difficult, not impossible.

I have two words for that:

Fucking.

AWESOME.

Huh. Interesting.

Astrophysicists have noted that the sun is dimmer and less active than at any time during the past hundred years. I guess that would explain the unusual weather.

Although, I wish they'd keep their agenda and predictions out of it, and just put the facts out there--they're careful to state that this won't make a difference to global warming, and that carbon dioxide, which we all exhale every time we breathe, is still increasing.

Umm. Duh. So's the earth's population. Get over it.

I mean, either the earth will get warmer, or it will get cooler. It's a normal cycle, and we can't do as much about it as we think we can.

That's not to say I think we should damn the pollution, full speed ahead on industry. Nor do I think that the "carbon offset credits" are anything other than the modern version of the Medieval Catholic Church's buyable absolution for sin (given that simply breathing seems to be a sin for some environmentalists--see what I said about carbon dioxide), or the "cap and trade" legislation is anything other than a new tax in disguise.

Shut up, guys, and let the actual weather tell us what the results of lower solar activity will be.

This is sad.

Police had to rescue a man from a rooftop in Sydney, Austrailia. They immediately arrested him, because the idiot had had to call for help while attempting to rob the factory under the roof he was trapped on.

Apparently, rainy weather and a steep angled roof is far more effective than a burglar alarm at preventing crime.

I guess the question would be "Who would you rather be screwed by?"

A rather attractive young woman is considering a run against an incumbent United States Senator from Louisiana. The kicker is that Stormy Daniels is not only no politician, but is a part of the industry that has damaged Senator David Vitter's credibility with voters.

She's a porn star.

So, since all politicians will screw you in one way or another, the question is who would you rather be screwed by? A goofy looking politician who frequents the professionals? Or a gorgeous example of one of those professionals, who could probably make sure almost anyone enjoyed it?

Just when I thought that our Senate was self-parodying...I was proved right.

Futility of acting on a miscalculation

Recently, the GOP leadership realized just how bad of a mess they're in. They've realized that the people they're supposed to represent are becoming angrier and angrier that they aren't doing the job they were hired to do. They're "launching an outreach initiative" to try to hide the chasm they've dug between themselves and their voters.

They'll fail. They'll fail because they're operating under a whole host of wrong assumptions.

The Democrats are, if anything, worse, depending on the issue. In my opinion, what they've done with and to their voters--i.e., removing the option of choosing schools from families that cannot afford private school tuition, encouraging dependency upon government programs, and telling one of the key blocs of their voters (the blacks) that they cannot get ahead without government assistance because of racism--is far worse, because the majority of their voters don't even see the chasm.

Frankly, I'm unhappy with both sets of congresscritters. I don't appreciate half of the elected Republicans assuming that the nation is swinging left on all issues. I don't appreciate the other half of the elected Republicans (and many Democrats) assuming that the majority of the nation are narrow-minded bigots.

I think many Americans think the way I do: that smaller government is the way to go.

The Republican party assumes that the majority of Americans are socially conservative. If, by that, they mean that most Americans believe in family, and believe in parents loving and teaching their children, they're right. Honestly, I don't think there's a politician out there that doesn't understand that family, however each voter defines it, drives voting. Where I think the Republicans get it wrong is the values they think Americans ascribe to.

Most American voters don't give as much of a damn about the social issues as the Republicans think they do. We aren't so much against civil unions as we are against loud, obnoxious activists that want not equality but special treatment, and as we are against judges usurping the powers of the legislature with their rulings.

The thing is, no one can tell you that you're not married if you feel you are, and no piece of paper can make you feel that way if you don't in the first place. Hence, the rates of infidelity and divorce amongst straight couples.

All that piece of paper does is get your name change filed in records, and permit you to claim certain privileges. Privileges, not rights. A right is something you're born with, and gays have exactly the same rights as straight people do. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have the rights the government is forbidden to mess with by the first ten amendments. They have the right to be offended, or to choose not to be offended, by small-minded creeps--just the same as I have, or as my husband has.

They don't have some government granted privileges, true. And I have no objection to them being granted the same privileges I have, as a married woman. (God knows if they're allowed the government recognition the rest of us have, the marriage penalty in filing taxes would never be an issue again, no matter who's in charge at the federal level.) And I don't think that most Americans feel that differently. It's the word "marriage" that seems to get so many up in arms--on both sides--yet no one realizes that the government doesn't do "marriage," and hasn't since the advent of the easy divorce on a whim laws.

So, no, going farther right into bigotry or farther left into wishy-washy isn't going to fill the chasm. America doesn't care as much about the social issues as the Republicans think it does.

What most of us care about is our individual rights, about fiscal policy (specifically, our taxes and the way the money's spent, about the national debt and ginormous budget deficit) and about foreign policy. Most of us who feel as if we have no representation in Congress believe that the Federal government has taken too much power from both the state and especially from the individual with the laws passed criminalizing everything from driving without a seatbelt to smoking in your own car with the windows cracked if your kids happen to be with you.

I think that what the Republican party forgets is that we hired them to work for us, to represent us in the composition of new laws and the imposition of new taxes. The Republican party forgets that most of us that vote for them are voting for them to prevent the levying of new taxes, or the increase of taxes we already pay (the huge cigarette tax hike is a good example of where they failed to represent us). They forget that we hired them to make sure the federal government doesn't trample our rights as stated in the first ten amendments any further than it already has.

And they all, Republican and Democrat alike in their zeal to increase the size of government through programs the government was never authorized by the United States Constitution to create, forget that we hired them to prevent the federal government from spending us into international debtors' prison.

The Republican party is killing themselves through not understanding that most of us are closer to classic Liberalism than to either Liberal Progressivism or Social Conservatism.

I'll be writing on classic Liberalism next week, just for clarification of what I mean by that.