Oh goody, most people still prefer capitalism

Dear Lord! I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm happy about this, but really? "Adults under 30?" Is there such a thing? Really?

OK, I know I'm beting an ageist, but let's get real shall we? How old do you think the people are who pay most of the taxes in this country? Who create most of the jobs? Who do most of the investing and financing of the twenty-something's "dreams" of future glory?

Yeah, it's us old-fart capitalists, that's who! So is it really any wonder that we prefer capitalism and they are skewed slightly higher on the "socialism's kewl dude" scale?

Also, what age group came through school having a greater immersion in the multi-cultural utopian one-world bullshit view that socialism is a "moral imperative" or some such? I know it wasn't MINE, and I still had to endure my far share of crappy teaching by profs who had no clue about the real world.

I'll be interested to see how these same poll subjects feel once Obama's brand of socalism really gets going and they begin to realize how smart their parents and grandparents were after all.

The world has turned upside down

If you read nothing else today, please read the following editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by Danny Pearl's father.

If it doesn't infuriate, frustrate and depress you to the depths of your soul, then you'll excuse me if I say there's something seriously wrong with that soul (eg., it's MISSING).

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

By JUDEA PEARL

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence." In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.

There are easier ways to get on Oprah lady!

Write a fictional account of your life for fun and profit...Or here's an idea, DO something with your life that's worth knowing about.

But no, this headcase goes and has 14 kids, eight of them at one time, to start a TV CAREER??? She honestly believed having multiple kids makes you a "parenting expert?" Is she serious? It makes you an expert at changing diapers and being sleep-deprived, but "parenting" takes more than a cavernous WOMB lady!

Now I know I wrote a whole diatribe the other day about abortion and the "ethics" of so-called "selective reduction," and I stand by what I said--those babies are BLAMELESS here, innocents in every way, and their being alive is not the issue. Their mother been a selfish twat IS the issue, and I'm sorry but abortion is not the remedy for that. A baseball bat upside the head, maybe, but not abortion.

I don't know what should be done about this situation now, I mean it sickens me on so many fronts:

That the press were so daft it took them almost a week to find this real story and stop making it all about abortion or the ethics of IVF or just how COOL it is that 8 were born at once, ALIVE! (rolls eyes). In fact, they got most of the facts of the story WRONG from the git go. In one iteration there was a father, and in another there was even a NANNY--leading one to believe she had means enough to cope.

That this single unemployed mother was allowed to get IVF in the first place--never mind get so many embryos! I know people who have to mortgage their house a second time just to afford the treatment, please--PLEASE do not tell me the taxpayers of CA paid for this travesty (but why do I bet they did?)

That these 14 babies are being used in this horrible way by their own mother. I know a little bit about being used by ones mother, and it SUCKS. I'm not usually one for thinking foster care would be better, but you know....They ought to at least keep a sharp eye on this woman. If she could think babies would make her money, what might she think when that doesn't pan out? Is she gonna just go ahead and SELL them outright? You never know.

All I know is, this entire story is a sign of our times, and it isn't a good one. Here's the narrative, and it applies to sooo many in our society right now:

Lazy good-for-nothing no-talent perpetual "student" sponges off indulgent parents until they've got nothing left to give, seeks to sell body and soul to get "famous" and make money the quick and easy way and taps her responsible hard-working tax-paying neighbors to pay for it.

Coming soon to a new report near you? "Woman on death row sues state to get IVF on the people's dime."

Seriously, it would not surprise me one little bit.

Ethical abortion: an Oxymoron

The more I read from these "experts" about the recent birth of the octuplets, the more nauseated I become. It's like they don't even realize that words have meaning and that the way we talk about babies in the womb can--and does--impact what "choices" are made about their lives.

Check out this guy who's on Obama's council of bioethics, it's like he doesn't even realize what he's saying, which is as disturbing as the content of his words. He's talking about the ethics of "extreme multiples."

[Note: I do not disagree with him that implanting more than three embryos at a time is malpractice, but let's not forget that embryos can split--we call that "identical twins"--so the possibility of sextuplets even from a responsible implantation still exists. Keep that in mind when you read what he says about so-called "selective reduction" *puke*]

George said that, based on the information available, his personal ethical decision would probably support the woman's choice to carry all the babies to term.

"PROBABLY??" His personal ethics would PROBABLY have supported her decision to carry to term? What happened to a woman's "choice" eh? When should it EVER be up to a man, never mind a strange man, never mind a strange man who works for the GOVERNMENT, to say otherwise?

But he said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.

You knew there had to be a "but" right? Selective reduction is "not the same?" No, I suppose it's not, kinda like a Granny Smith is not a Macintosh, but they are both APPLES! The procedure might be different, and the outcome of this thing called the "pregnancy" (as if the word has meaning without the babies within the womb to define it as such) might be different, but in both cases, babies are killed.

Yes, that's right sir, KILLED, as in murdered, as in life terminated by another human who is sworn by oath to "do no harm."

Then get a load of this total contradiction:

"The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault," George said. "There does seem to be a serious ethical question about killing one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health."

OH REALLY? So.....Tell me sir, how do you feel about other abortions? Is it safe to say the babies in those situations are, in fact, BABIES and not "fetuses," and that they are no more to blame for their whereabouts than the ones in this multiple pregnancy?? Why would there not be "a serious ethical question about" (wait for it, here it comes, he said it not me) "KILLING one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health."

And how do you like the way he differentiates between "traditional abortion" (wow, so now it's "traditional?" Sounds almost ritualistic does it not?) and "selective reduction" using the health of the "birth" as if the process of birth has more humanity than the babies who will lose their lives.

Gee, I wonder how he would choose which ones to sacrifice to the health of the "birth?" (And what do you bet this same man would justify elective c-section as perfectly "ethical" on the basis that it enhances the "health of the birth."

Is anyone over at Planned Parenthood taking notes? What about the Obama administration itself? Think anyone cares about the meaning of what this man just ACCIDENTALLY said?

To my reading, he said "babies," he said "killing," and yet he argues that it's not the same as abortion (Which is what exactly? MORE than killing something MORE than a human baby?? If so, how can he stomach those either?) because the "health of the birth" might benefit? So "birth" is more important than "babies?" How do you figure?

Now for those sitting out there reading this who want to say "No Deb, you're missing the point, he's saying the OTHER babies will be better off if some of their siblings are "killed" to improve their chances."

OK, well, I got news for you, the woman who lives in the "hood" on welfare who has 3 kids probably would struggle less if she had only one, should she "kill" the other two to improve the life-long health and cognitive chances of that one? I bet the kids growing up with a severely handicapped sibling would have better chances of a better life if their parents weren't burdened by the cost and stress of raising that child, should we euthenize that one? And now we're talking about a child we know in advance has problems. How does this ethicist propose we should determine--in utero--which babies should be robbed of a chance at life? Should we seek to find the one who's not perfect, the one who's already smaller or has a weak heart or something?

Tell me, what's the difference between that "baby" and "killing" it and a baby on the outside born with a disability to a mom who already has 6 kids and "killing" it?

I see NONE, and I think the fact that people like this guy exist and have some modicum of power in this national conversation scares me. We already live in a country in which over 90% of Downs babies are aborted.

Chew on that for a minute.......

People say there's no such thing as a slippery slope, but aren't we already seeing it? We've gone from a country in which people knew what they were doing was wrong enough that they had to disguise it with words like "fetus" and "terminate" to one in which a man to whom the President turns for bioethics advice can use the word "babies" and "killing" and STILL think it's OK to do.

God help us.

Thinking of jumping off a cliff?

Well, you just might be after you read THIS.

BE SURE TO READ THOSE PARTS IN BOLD, then call your doctor for a prescription of Valium (or Prozac, whichever you prefer), or just go slug a bottle of Tequila, have a second one for me cuz I can't, I'm nursing the third child of mine who will inherit a bankrupt country and a world of pain.

Oh, and then you go have yerself a nice day, y'hear?

Election Winner May Welcome Early Exit in 2013: Caroline Baum

Commentary by Caroline Baum

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The 2008 presidential campaign has been notable for many things: its interminable length, its lack of substance and its sheer nastiness, to name just three.

What has been notably absent is a serious discussion of the challenges facing the country -- those that pre-date the credit crisis and will be with us long after it abates -- and the candidates' ideas for addressing them.

Did you hear anything pithy about the future of Social Security and Medicare? Neither did I. The moderators of the three presidential debates clearly didn't think the U.S.'s entitlement programs, which are on automatic pilot and have the potential to bankrupt the country in the 21st century, were worthy of discussion.

The candidates touted green fuels -- wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol -- until they were blue in the face. They talked about better, more affordable health care that achieves cost savings and belongs to the fuzzy-math school of budgeting. (In the candidates' defense, my guess is that every health-care initiative has exceeded cost estimates by a long shot.) And they enumerated plans for lots of job-creating new spending while glossing over the issue of how to pay for it.

In short, the 2008 presidential campaign has been short on substance and long on slogans. Call it, Change meets the Mavericks.

Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain have made noises about fiscal responsibility that don't pass the most basic smell test.

Wrong Rock

Obama has pledged to go through the federal budget ``line by line, page by page,'' cutting programs that don't work and making necessary ones work better.

John McCain has promised to balance the budget by the end of his first term and is targeting earmarks, or pork-barrel spending, toward that end.

Both candidates are looking under the wrong rocks. Excluding defense, discretionary spending (those expenditures that go through an annual appropriation process) amounted to 17.5 percent of all federal spending in fiscal 2008, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Even if Obama used a thick, charcoal pencil, it would be hard to find enough savings in non-defense discretionary spending to change the long-term outlook.

As for John McCain's jihad on earmarks, ``Congress stuffed 11,610 projects into the 12 appropriations bills worth $17.2 billion'' in 2008, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington non-profit organization committed to eliminating inefficiency in federal government. That represents a 337 percent increase from fiscal 2007. It also represents about 0.6 percent of the 2008 budget.

Going Broke

The ticking time bomb for the federal government is entitlement spending: Medicare and Social Security. Social Security's costs will exceed tax income in 2017, according to the 2008 annual report from the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. By 2041, the ``trust funds'' -- there are no assets compounding in the trust fund -- will be exhausted and unable to pay full benefits.

Medicare's financial status is even worse, according to the Trustees. The Hospital Insurance Fund is already paying out more than it's taking in on an annual basis. The HI fund will be kaput in 2019.

The 2008 Medicare Report triggered a ``funding warning'' for the second consecutive year as required by law when Medicare outlays are projected to be 45 percent greater than revenue from payroll taxes and premiums.

Congrats and Regrets

Outside of entitlements, budget trends are nothing to write home about. The federal budget deficit hit a record $455 billion, or 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2008. The $250 billion the Treasury will use to buy preferred stock in U.S. banks will be scored as an expenditure in the 2009 budget, according to the White House budget office.

Now that cyclical forces (a recession) are compounding deteriorating secular trends -- fewer workers to support a greater number of retirees -- one wonders how either candidate is going to be able to do anything more than keep spending, which rose 9.1 percent this year, to single-digit gains.

I feel sorry for whoever wins the presidential election on Nov. 4. He faces a colossal mess. The housing bubble is still deflating, with no end in sight. The unemployment rate is rising, making consumer loans of all descriptions -- mortgage, auto, credit card -- vulnerable to rising delinquencies.

U.S. banks have already reported writedowns and credit losses of $411 billion ($662 billion worldwide), a financial hole that is certain to grow as more loan categories are affected by recession.

Playing Defense

Neither candidate has offered much of a vision for addressing the credit crunch sinking an economy that was already taking on water.

McCain wants the government to buy $300 billion of home mortgages to help homeowners facing foreclosure, which sounds like an incentive for homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments to find a way to qualify for relief.

Obama wants to give a tax cut to some people who don't pay any taxes, which sounds like government spending by any other name.

For the next 11 days, the two candidates will regale us with their vision for the future. They will promise, if elected, to work hard each and every day for the American people. They will inspire us with their rhetoric and scare us with distortions about the other guy.

Whether they know it or not, they won't be fulfilling many of those promises come Jan. 20. The next president of the U.S. will be handcuffed by events and constrained by deficits. He'll be playing defense. And he won't have a deep bench to work with.

The only bright spot is the prospect of escape in four years if things get worse before they get better.

Dontcha just love how I don't post jack squat on here for weeks, then I pop in and drop this little grenade on your day? Well, if you read this blog (well, make that "read" past tense, back when it was a blog and not more like a monthly...) you're probably already pretty savvy about such things and this will come as no shock to you. Heck, you're probably reading this from a bar as it is!

The world turned upside-down

I can hardly breathe, I am so frustrated and outraged, and nauseated. The emotional roller-coaster I've been on for the last couple of days, waiting, hoping for Bush or at least Bloomberg, to show some sense and ban Ahmadinejad from U.S. soil beyond the boundaries of the UN, might as well have been the real thing, complete with a 500 foot vertical drop.

How else could I feel after reading this:

During his two-day sojourn in New York, the Iranian president, who will be accompanied by a group of high-ranking officials, is also scheduled to attend bilateral talks with several of his counterparts and meet Iranians residing in the US.

Ahmadinejad is also set to use a speech at a leading US university to challenge George W Bush at a time of high tensions with Washington over his country's pursuit of nuclear technology.

The invitation by New York's Columbia University to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is attracting growing criticism from the US hawks ahead of his arrival on Sunday.

Meetings with the survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident, journalists and critics of the Bush administration are also included in Ahmadinejad's itinerary.

Who are these people, these "survivors and bereaved families?" Who ARE they? Have they gone completely insane in their grief? Or are they just proof that victimhood does not imbue one with intelligence or character if they were not there to begin with. Are they evidence that glorifying individual victims of an attack on our NATION enables crap like this?

I'm gonna go with YES, on all counts.

Where have all the darkies gone?

Help me out with this one:

African-Americans are abandoning this famously progressive city at a rate that has alarmed San Francisco officials, who vow to stop the exodus and develop a strategy to win blacks back to the city. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed a task force to study how to reverse decades of policies--and neglect--that black leaders say have fueled the flight.

Black flight can alter a city's character. "It's important for a city's future that it be a diverse place, and San Francisco is drifting toward being an upper-middle-class city," says Ed Blakely, director of Katrina recovery for New Orleans.

Here's a question...What kind of blacks do they want to come to San Francisco? Are they saying the actively want lower-middle class or lower class blacks? I mean, sounds like it to me! They are bemoaning the fact that the city is getting too rich as well as too white, so isn't that the same as saying they want to bring the city DOWN a notch by bringing back some blacks?

Am I reading it wrong?

And help me understand why--even if that's not the case, even if they just want blacks b/c they are the chocolate chips in an otherwise vanilla city (i.e., there for "flavor" or "diversity")--how is this special task force not the most racist waste of taxpayer money you've ever heard of?

For years people were like "It's so unfair that blacks are shut out of the suburbs by the high cost of living and racism!" Now when they are fleeing all the same problems of urban living that whites have fled for decades, people are upset about THAT? Ummmm....Is it me, or is that a little weird? Shouldn't this be a good thing? I mean, if some of the reasons given are hat blacks are fleeing sub-standard housing and lousy schools, shouldn't we all rejoice that they--or anyone--care enough to seek better ones elsewhere? Or should they keep living in filth and keep their kids in crappy schools just so Gavin Newsom can keep his street cred as a "liberal?" Pretty hard to do if your "liberal" city is full of rich white people right?

/eyeroll

Can you imagine a task force in Detroit to find out why all the white people are leaving?

Yeah, neither can I.

At least he didn't slash the Koran

The other day, I read this story about a Pace U. student now charged with two counts of felony hate crimes for flushing the Koran. [For more on why he might have done this, read more about the motive no one at Pace wants to talk about. ]

Contrast the draconian treatment he is getting with the punishment facing this guy.

So if he'd been slashing 42 tires belonging to the members of Pace University's Muslim student organization, then it would be a hate crime?

I guess, if you don't consider the members of our military people belonging to a group targeted solely because of their membership in that group. Or, in this guy's case, if you just don't consider them people at all, just mindless killing machines.

But no, seriously folks, what is the real difference between these two cases? Let's say it out loud shall we?
We're not afraid of offending the military. Just ask Christopher Hitchens, who obviously isn't afraid to tell it like it is. [Hat-tip LGF]

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

Oh yeah, wait till they OWN anything

Surprise surprise, "young Americans" lean to the left.

And tomorrow the sun will rise in the East, so what?

Ask people who don't own much more than fits in the back of their Toyota Scion who they favor for President and what do you think they're gonna say?

Now ask them a specific question like:
- Which candidate will do the best job of keeping the economy strong?
- Which candidate best understands our enemies and will do the best job of protecting us from them?
- While we're on the subject, which candidate knows who those enemies ARE?
- Which candidate will ask you to pay the most of your income in taxes?
- Which candidate do you trust to protect your right to choose healthcare options OTHER than abortion?

You getting the picture?

Asking people in their late teens and twenties who they like best for President at this point is like asking them who they like best on American Idol. They look at the pictures, hear the names and think "Yeah, they look cool, whatever."

Let's just hope they're too busy reordering their play lists to remember where their polling place is.

The Price is Wrong

As if it weren'tt bad enough that Bob Barker (who, until today I liked) retired, the Price is Right is now entertaining the insane notion of hiring Rosie O'Donnell to replace him?

What's that about? A game show you tune into for shock value? The apocalypse is nigh when we as Americans (Americans who would tune into game shows at all anymore) need to be enticed to do so by potential for controversy. What happened to you win, you lose, take your prizes and go home?

How exactly will Rosie manage to inject politics into the show? I mean, wasn't it her opinions and the fights she got into with Elizabeth the ratings draw? What's she gonna do, have on-air verbal smack-downs with guests wearing crosses? What about the Barker Babes, will they keep them? I'm trying to envision that....Basically I'm trying to envision the entire thing as anything other than a car wreck.

But then again, we Americans can't seem to tear ourselves away from staring at those, we're even willing to slow down to a crawl and let the rest of our lives wait while we do, so maybe Bob and CBS are onto something. Game show as gaper-delay?

Welcome to the handbasket. Enjoy the ride.

The world only needs so much maple syrup guys!

But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

This from a state that literally DEPENDS upon people speeding through their state for REVENUE! Fine for going 5 mph over the speed limit? $150.

Nuff said.

Some women are more equal than others

In yet another chapter from the Animal Farm that is the United Nations, we have this:

The U.N.'s lead agency responsible for the promotion and protection of women's rights the world over, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), ended its 51 session on March 9, 2007, by criticizing only one state--Israel.

You simply have to read the whole thing, and then you have to wonder why we contribute dime-one to that farce of an organization (never mind the prime real estate on which it sits).

History stretched-to-fit

I thought the left-wing moonbat brigade had gone about as far as they could go. I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was lunacy, I thought the 9/11 conspiracy theorists were certifiable, but NOTHING compares with what the LA Times had to say about 9/11 today:

Was 9/11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
By David A. Bell
January 28, 2007

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

So now the benchmark of suffering or tragedy is the Soviet-friggin'-Union during WWII? Unless we lose tens of millions of people, we're "overreacting" to a threat? Wow. The Democrats will be thrilled. This provides all the justification they'll need for gutting the new anti-terror laws if and when they take the White House. Closing GITMO? A no brainer following this logic. Allowing Imams free-reign to recruit in our prisons and universities? Why not? I mean, until the Muslims have slaughtered the ENTIRE populations of Manhattan and DC, we really have no reason to fear, we're just being drama queens going off half-cocked, using an uzzi to kill a mosquito, or something like that.

I find this fascinating coming from the same paper--and same group of people--who would have you believe that my ability to own a handgun would mean the beginning of the end of civilized society as we know it! If I can own a gun, why, gun violence will make the streets run red with the blood of little children! And if I can own an assault weapon? Oh.My.God, the end of the world is nigh!

(coughing sarcastically)

I'd like to believe the LA Times is engaging in some wishful thinking, some theraputic denial, aimed soley at quashing their own demons, for the purpose of enabling *them* to stop wetting their pants in fear, but I'm smarter than that. I know full well this is just part of the larger concerted effort to lay down a nice soft eider-down for Democratic Presidential hopefuls to land in (face first of course) when confronted by questions from those of us who *do* see reality for what it is, those of us who do not wish to underestimate the "capacity" of such a determined and intractable enemy, or who at least see that we choose to do so at our peril.

You see, what they hope the rest of us have forgotten (or more likely, hope we never learned, since after all, they designed the dreck that passes for a history curriculum in our nations schools and universities) is that history ALSO teaches us that those 20 million souls who perished in the Soviet Union did so at the hands of a man who inspired only laughter until he became dictator. Throughout his rise to power, there were naysayers scoffing at the notion that this little man with the funny moustache would or could ever pose a threat to our way of life.

Mr. Bell acts as though it's hubris of sorts, or simplemindedness, or just reactionary provincial fear-mongering to take the islamomaniacs at their word. We're not supposed to consider their words, apparently, and should instead look only to their conventional military "capabilities," at least those (I suppose) that we know about.

He also discounts completely the nature of terrorism as a tactic, as well as the nature of people who would employ such a tactic. They count on attitudes such as his. They rely on there being the constant erosive friction between those who fear them, and those who refuse to fear them. They know that such polarization helps them because it divides us against ourselves. When we read articles such as these and are swayed by them, the terrorists win, just as much as if the terrorists blew up a bus in LA. Whether we fear them or not, as long as we're working hard to blame ourselves for every problem we face, we aren't putting energy towards blaming THEM, and that's really all they care about.

That's why I don't like the term "War on Terror." It's a misnomer, and a big one. We're not at "war," in the traditional sense, and surely we're not at war with a tactic or an emotion. What we are is engaged in an epic struggle between the forces of civilization and those of barbarism. The struggle takes many forms, not just those of "battle." Sometimes (often lately) it takes the form of intimidation litigation in our courts--lawsuits designed to use our freedoms to impose restrictions on our behavior towards our enemy, restrictions that will ultimately weaken our ability to fight that same enemy. Other times it takes the form of propaganda such as the many anti-war, anti-America, anti-GITMO protests that are--at least in part--funded by those who would very much like to see our enemy improve its chances, especially from within our borders.

During WWII the Nazis didn't have quite so much success sneaking into our country, setting up shop in houses of worship, preaching their hateful message in the open and calling it "protected speech," or using our courts to advance their efforts. They didn't spend millions secretly funding protest efforts, editorials, websites and other "information" sources to discredit our efforts to fight them (or to downplay the threat they posed), and they didn't hide their hatred behind a cloak of "faith" in any God.

Most importantly, the few Americans they had unwittingly supporting their cause were (justifiably) ridiculed and marginalized once we were actually at war. Today, our enemy has useful idiots in every corner of our world, in every aspect of our civil and cultural life. They use words like "tolerance" and insist that Islam is a "religion of peace," which is merely a way to prevent us from calling our enemy by their proper name: Holy Warriors, or Jihadis, specifically of the Islamic persuasion. Whatever Islam's potential for peace, it is not being used to advance "peace" at this moment in history, that's for certain.

Now add to all of this the fact that the Nazis at least had the decency to wear uniforms, fly marked planes, drive marked tanks, etc...making theirs, at the very least, a visible, quantifiable COMPREHENSIBLE threat. But their declaration of war was the same--made out loud, and in writing, just as the Jihadis have done and continue to do, while Mr. Bell is apparently asleep or just choosing not to listen.

I am by no means trying to minimize the threat to the world posed by the Third Reich or Tojo's Japan. I am merely asking that "historians" such as Mr. Bell not minimize the Islamist threat by drawing a bogus analogy between it and the ones we faced in WWII. It doesn't fit, no matter how far he stretches it, no matter how hard he tries to ignore another truth history teaches us--most importantly that those who declare war on you will not cease to be your enemy simply because you refuse to acknowledge the threat they pose, or worse, because you refuse to fight when called upon to do so, until it's too late. Just ask Ghengis Khan how THAT kind of hubris worked out for HIM!

Just THINK what that $5Bil could buy!

When are we going to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY!"?

How much longer are we going to continue to fund those who are gleefully planning our own demise (or standing idly by applauding the planners)? At what point are we going to wake up and realize that the "world's" good opinion of us doesn't matter a hill of beans if it costs us our security, sovereignty, values and yes, MORALITY!

Someone please tell me what the hell is so "noble" about an organization that views despotism and democracy as equally worthy of air time? How can we respect a Secretary General who could shake hands with the Hitler of the 21st Century? What on earth is the UN for at all if it allows people like Ahmadinejad and Chavez to be members, never mind applauded speakers!

The General Assembly APPLAUDED Chavez! Repeatedly, and for prolonged periods of time! His reception was warmer than the one our own President got, and yet WE are the ones constantly asked for aid and comfort whenever some other country needs it. WE are the ones hosting the organization that hosts such people. Do you think Chavez would tolerate Bush showing up in Caracas and calling him a devil in front of his entire population and the rest of the world?

When is enough ENOUGH for us? We are masochists. We are fools. You know what we are? We're that nerdy sweet kid in school who invites all the popular (but nasty, irresponsible and stupid) kids to his house for a party, hoping to be liked and included, only to discover his house trashed, his dignity pulverized and his parents really really pissed off!

Not sure who the parents are in this analogy (ought to be "we the people" thought dotcha think?), but the rest works. We are smart and we are good and we TRY to consider how the rest of the world feels about our policies--domestic as well as foreign by the way (a fact I never understood, on either count)--but the "rest of the world" couldn't give a rat's ASS what we think of them, what we think of their policies, their leaders, their rhetoric.

We say "Islamic fascists?" They scream "STOP IT AND APOLOGIZE! (or else...)." We support Israel and the fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we're called "occupiers" and genocidal killers? And the UN--the august body that is supposed to actually give a shit about freedom, the group that is supposed to be making the world "safe" enough for freedom to stand a chance, doesn't see a difference--moral or otherwise--between the way we conduct our affairs and the way men like Chavez and Ahmadinejad do? EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME?!

I've had it. I'm totally fed up. I don't want us to pay another fucking red cent towards that group of Useless Ninnies. I want the land seized, the diplomats spies thrown out of the country (but not without being forced to pay their parking tickets first), and the entire space bulldozed into a parking lot for New Yorkers. If those "peaked in the 7th Century" types want to have another blowout party at which we are the butt of the jokes, let them do it in their own home, and let us RSVP "ON A COLD DAY IN HELL MUTHERFUCKERS!"

When is my country going to wake up? Does the left really think these monsters are going to suddenly morph into cute cuddly little puppies and kittens as soon as Hillary is President? Did they act so very differently when Clinton was in office? Last time I checked, Iran was seeking nuclear technology and violating IAEA regs. back then (same with N. Korea). And it wasn't like Billary and Hugo were "tight" either. Has the irrational hatred for Bush in this country driven people literally stark raving mad?

After today's non-reaction in the American MSM (hehe, I'm being kind! People like Brian Williams and Katie Couric could barely contain their glee, and prominent Dhimmicraps simply used the entire thing as evidence that Bush has ruined our credibility with "our allies" abroad.

ALLIES??? Iran and Venezuela??? Since when?? In what alternate universe (since 1979) were they our "allies?" Would Ahmadinejad be embracing freedom and tolerance and NOT salivating at the notion that armageddon will happen in his lifetime (brought about by him to bring back the 12 Imam) if Gore (or Kerrique) and not Bush were in office? So what did his holier-than-thouness, Jimmah Carter do to piss off the Iranians enough to cause them to seize the embassy and hold our hostages? Does anyone (besides me) remember? He allowed the Shah to come here for cancer treatment. His "niceness" got our asses handed to us, and if that's not irony, I don't know what is!

My point is, you don't have to be some neo-con "warmonger" (as Bush is accused of being), some "inarticulate" Republican, you just have to be the leader of the FREE WORLD to get the UN-FREE WORLD to hate you!

Shit like this almost makes me want their sorry asses to win in November and in '08. Let them deal with these crazies and NOT be able to blame it on Bush or the GOP (although trust me, they'll try at first, but that will grow stale very quickly). Let them and their Kossaks and other kooks try to explain away the tyranny and the slaughter as being "all our fault" when THEY are in charge! I DARE THEM!

Like I said, I "ALMOST" want that scenario to play itself out. If it really did, the humor and irony in it for me would quickly give way to terror and even more sleepless nights (if that's possible).

Make no mistake kids, we're in for a rough ride this Century. Let's just hope we still have what it takes to make it to the other side intact as a nation, never mind ALIVE!

Narcissistic Yellow Traitors

That would be the New York Times by their proper name.

Too bad Treasury Secretary Snow couldn't just come right out and call them that, although he came damn close. [Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for the link]

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary

U.S. Department of the Treasury

[Emphasis mine]

I have to highlight that one part of Snow's letter because it calls attention to one of the funniest parts of this whole story, the one that ought to blow the Times' argument right out of the water. They're arguing the "terrorists already know" about this program?

OK, so let me get this straight...The terrorists who want to kill us know more about what our government is doing to protect us than we do? I mean, that's what Keller is saying, right? If it were not so, then we'd already know too, and if that were true, then WHY PUBLISH THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

(On the front page above the fold no less).

I so wish just one MSM talking head would be smart enough to ask Keller or his defenders that question--"If it's not news to them, why is it news to us?" But of course they aren't. If they were, they'd know that the bigger story then would be "Why are the American people less well-informed than the terrorist?"

Oh, but that wouldn't do either because if that were true, then I guess we'd still have a reason to blame papers like the New York Times!

C'mon people, isn't it patently obvious that the Times was on a mission to make us more afraid of the Bush administration than of the terrorists? Many people who get this think it's because the Times hates Bush, but I'm not so sure. Michelle Malkin points out that the Times, they Aren't a Changin'!

My syndicated column today (now on Yahoo! News) offers a reminder that the blabbermouths at the New York Times have been implicated in terror tip-offs about our financial investigations before:

I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents." Times reporter Philip Shenon was accused of blowing the cover on a Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation.

"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

Finally, if the Times really cared about the public's "right to know," they'd be doing a story (a multi-part series perhaps) on the leaks within our own intelligence community. What could be more important for a journalist to investigate? What could be more in "service" to the public interest?

I'm waaaaaaaaiting for my answer to that one Mr. Keller!

Mad Dogs and Englishmen

Pop quiz:
Where would you feel safer:
A. Touring England
B. Incarcerated in the General Population of the average English prison

From the sound of things over there, I'll take the prison any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.

Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.

Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief.

Make no mistake kiddos, if we keep allowing people in power in this country to refer to illegal aliens as "migrants," and to the Minutemen patrolling the border with guns as the bad guys, we'll catch up to our cousins on the other side of the pond in no time!

I'm not kidding either. This week alone, my local TV news and paper have given tons of air time and layout space to stories about the "Perilous summer journey" of illegal aliens through the desert to cross our borders. They've shown photos of tiny babies at risk of death from dehydration and heat stroke, and they've heard from illegals who say no matter what we do to secure the border--fence, wall, national guard, you name it-- they'll keep trying to get in, even if it kills them. These stories are delivered in hushed voices literally dripping with pity for the illegals and loathing for our own country's attempt to maintain its sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the real story goes unreported, namely why do these people feel they have "no choice" but to leave Mexico? What is going on in Mexico that these people feel "forced" to break the law and risk life and limb doing so? What's in it for the powers that be on both sides? These are the stories no reporter wants to tackle.

And if you think the analogy is flawed, that illegal immigration and our attitude towards it has nothing to do with what's going on in England, you're missing what's wrong in Englandn entirely. It's not the way criminals are being protected, or the way law-abiding citizens are being villainized. It's the attitude that makes it all possible.

The minute we as a nation start making excuses for, or going out of our way to protect those who "break into" our country, we open the doors of our own homes to be broken into next. It is simply not possible for a society to allow such blatant disregard for the property rights and sovereighty of others en masse, and then turn around and protect the same for individuals.

Serve your country: Have a baby (or three)

Think overpopulation is the biggest threat to our nation (or the world)?

Guess again.

Now I want to hear the pro-"choice," pro-socialism/welfare-statists out there tell me again how my fear of entitlements and loathing of abortion-on-demand is more irrational than their fear of global warming!

Asshats.

Don't do this in Boston

It's a good thing this happened in Atlanta.

ATLANTA A group of robbers in Atlanta picked the wrong victim.

Police say former Marine Thomas Autry fought off four attackers last night with a pocket knife. They say he killed one and seriously wounded another.

Detective Danny Stephens says Autry was walking home from his waiter job when attackers armed with a shotgun and a pistol chased him. The detective says Autry pulled the knife out of his backpack when the group caught him.

Stephens says the 36-year-old's "training kicked in and he knew what to do." He kicked the shotgun out of one attacker's hands and stabbed a 17-year-old girl who jumped on him, as well as a man who also attacked.

The suspects fled, but police say they found them at a hospital, where the girl was pronounced dead.
Stephens says they face robbery and aggravated assault charges and are suspected in other robberies over the past week. Autry will not be charged.

In Boston, or anywhere in Massachusetts for that matter, this Marine would not only be charged, he'd be accused of some kind of hate crime I'm sure. Meanwhile, the thugs who attacked him would be defended, candlelight vigils would be held in their honor, and there would be strident cries for better "Knife control" to prevent anyone else from surviving such an attack wantonly killing misguided youths ever again.

All I can say about this Marine myself is "HOO-RAH!"
[Thanks to Lee for the link.]

Jacques Chirac in American Drag

Quick:
What do GM, France and Albany have in common?

Answer:
UNIONS ARE RUINING THEM.

At first glance, they seem to have little in common. But the riots in France over labor reform, the slow-motion suicide of General Motors, and the continuing decline of the New York economy all share one defining trait: entrenched and unchangeable union power.

These columns have always favored the right to collectively bargain, and any private company that allows a union to organize its workers deserves what it gets. But that doesn't mean we should fail to appreciate the consequences when unions become entrenched inside any organization. On the evidence throughout business and politics today, unions do not provide individual job or income security. On the contrary, they undermine security by contributing to broader business and economic decline.

In other words: United we fall.

The current French protests are in response to a modest change that would allow employers to fire people under age 26 more easily. So entrenched has the politics of union entitlement become in France that even at the onset of their careers these young protesters are demanding security over opportunity. In the global economy, this means they will end up with less of both.

Is it me, or is it a tad arrogant for kids practically fresh out of diapers to be demanding lifetime job security? How dense do you have to be not to realize that your job won't be secure if your employer ceases to exist because your demands have run him into the ground?

Speaking of being run into the ground by unions:

Here in the U.S., the same burden is slowly crippling New York, once a bulwark of American industry. Power in the state capital of Albany is shared by Republicans and Democrats. But both parties bow before the public-sector unions, especially the teachers, and the health-care workers led by perhaps the most powerful man in the state, Dennis Rivera.

Thanks to his political clout, New York's Medicaid costs are higher than those of Texas and Florida combined; a health-care insurance premium for a young family of four is roughly six times what it is across the border in Connecticut; and high-deductible health-savings accounts that can help the self-employed afford insurance can't even be offered in the state. New York is also a rare state that actually taxes private health insurance, to the tune of about $2.4 billion a year.

Another union-driven business cost is workers' compensation, and in New York the average cost per claim is second highest in the nation (after Louisiana) and 72% higher than the national average. Governor George Pataki has proposed a reform that would lower costs while actually raising the average payout for the truly disabled, but he's run up against a French-like union roadblock in the legislature.

I think if I had to pay taxes on our health insurance, it would be reason enough to move to a different state. There's a neat trick. Tax people twice: Once to pay for people with no private insurance, and once to pay for the private insurance you do have. What's next? Public flogging for having a job that isn't in a union shop? New York voters put up with this shit?

And what about GM? How do they fit into all this?

In retrospect, GM management should have provoked a union showdown. Yet only a very brave CEO would have been willing to risk a potentially catastrophic strike on his watch for the sake of making the company more competitive after he retired. In any case, would the United Auto Workers really have budged? In 1998, young executive and future CEO Rick Wagoner endured a 54-day UAW wildcat strike at two plants in Flint, Michigan, after GM had tried to change some production rules. The strike shut down most GM production in North America and cost the company some $2 billion. In the end GM caved and the UAW escaped, having made virtually no concessions.

Even now at auto-parts maker Delphi -- which is already in Chapter 11 -- the UAW is declaring it will take a strike that could destroy both Delphi and GM rather than agree to Delphi's proposed job cuts and work changes. As in France and New York, these union leaders would rather sink the company than make concessions that would reduce their own power

We recount all this because, even amid GM's decline and France's economic turmoil, most of America's liberal elites refuse to draw the right lesson. They cling to the belief that if only the Democrats can retake Congress, or the union movement can once again organize more of the American labor force, the old economy of union-backed job security and egalité will return. Or, worse, they propose seceding from global competition via protectionism. It is all a delusion. Down that road lies France -- a nice place to vacation, but you wouldn't want to work there.

Amen to that!

What angers me most is that the unions are still able to pass themselves off as representing "the little guy," the otherwise disenfranchised worker against "the man" or the "management."

I worked in a union shop--in a restaurant in NYC--and I have to tell you, I never felt so powerless in all my working life. I'd never do it again. I am not livestock, I am not a moron. I can speak for myself thank you very much, with my feet if necessary. These days, the way they are currently organized and run, unions are nothing more than a legalized mafia. Perhaps unions once had a place when the federal government did its job stayed out of labor affairs altogether. But now that we have OSHA and all kinds of other laws and regulations on the books about how employers may contract with and treat their workers, unions seem largely obsolete. But try saying that out loud in public, especially if you're in politics, and you're liable to end up dead. I would personally vote to have them outlawed, for the good of the nation if not for their members.

Illegals in Wonderland, how do YOU get to Wonderland?

Ever read "Through the Looking Glass?"

Check this post found over at Grouchy Old Cripple:

If you are ready for the adventure of a lifetime, TRY THIS:

Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.

Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.

Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.

Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc. Procreate abundantly.

Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural U.S.A. thing. You would not understand, pal."

Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.

Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.

Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico

Drive around with no liability insurance and ignore local traffic laws.

Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck! You'll be demanding for the rest of time or soon dead. Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world except right here in the United States, land of the naive and stupid, idiotic politically correct politicians.

Now, back to me. To you idiotic Mexicans waving the Mexican flag in your demonstrations last week, if you're so fucking proud of Mexico, why the fuck are you here in the United States? You want California back? Fine. You can have it. Let's see how long it will take you fuckers to turn it into a Third World hell hole like Mexico. Maybe if we give California to Mexico the asshats in Hollywood would finally be happy. They could leave the United States without moving.

Hey Babs! How's your Spanish?

[Thanks Pete for getting me hooked on Denny's blog--as we used to say when we lived in Teddy-the-Hutt's territory, "He's a pissah!"]

Liars and Theives and Bitches, OH MY!

Shit. I don't know what part of the real story behind the Abramoff investigation is most disgusting:

• People like Abramoff, lying, theiving scumbags who peddle influence at the highest levels of power in this country


• People like Scanlon and Rudy, cheating, amoral assholes who call themselves "Republicans" and thus give the entire party a foul name (and by the way, now that I know he was behind the impeach Clinton movement and why I'm even more convinced that it was--and is--a bigger reason the 2000 election that Democrats are out to get Bush at all costs--what an asshole that guy is! Yes, Clinton lied under oath, but actively working to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a futile caes purely for spite? That kind of Karma will come back and bite you in the ass bigtime)


• People like Miller who is the definiton of a whore. I don't care what supposedly high-class circles she runs in, the woman is a trollop. What else could you call someone who would literally "sell" her integrity to the highest bidder--in this case, the guy offering the 4 carat ring and multi-million-dollar beach house complete with monogrammed towels?

  And to anyone who wants to cut her slack because she notified the ex-wife of Scanlon's newfound stolen wealth, remember that if he'd kept his promise to marry her, I'm sure she'd have been perfectly happy to keep the ex-wife in the dark about it all until the end of time (self-serving little bitch).



• People like DeLay who--aside from being blissfully unaware of the soap-opera-esque drama going on under his nose and ostensibly on his behalf--FORGAVE this bitch her abhorrent behavior. Either he was being a Southern Gentleman to her face, but secretly called her by her proper name behind her back (hint: starts with a "C" and ends with an "unt"), or his moral compass has been thoroughly demagnetized too.

  How painfully ironic that liberals are afraid that Republicans like DeLay are spying on little ol' you and me using the NSA warrantless wiretapping program? Puhleeze! This guy can't spot the spies in his own office, you really think he's capable of minding our business?



• "Aides" and "Lobbyists" in general--I assume on both sides of the aisle--who lie for a LIVING and think it's not only normal, it's perfectly justifyable.


• The rest of us, who allow it all to go on. Who was it who said "In a Democracy the people get the government they deserve"? Yeah, what he said. The very fact that we can sit around in our living rooms talking about lobbyists as though there are any who are not corrupt is pathetic. Think about what these people do: They take requests from someone with enough money to pay their obscenely high fees ($45M was what Abramoff charged the Indian tribes) and--regardless of their own personal beliefs--go about the business of persuading bribing politicians with fancy gifts and trips and other material rewards, or spreading lies or misinformation about someone (who has not paid a fee) so as to achieve the payee's goal.

  What's worse, that they do all this or that they do it all without any personal investment in the outcome or the issue at stake? I'm hard pressed to answer that one!

  Combine bribery, the protection rackets, high-stakes gambling and blackmail and you have LOBBYING. That it's legal at all is amazing to me. That we continue to allow it to be legal when we know full well what is going on, who is really shaping our future (hint: it's not our elected officials) is even more astounding. We are pathetic aren't we?

This is one thing I'll credit Clinton with actually--making the "lie" relative and benign. Relative to what you ask? Relative to who's hearing it and whether you got away with it or not. Benign how? Well, benign if you had a good reason for not wanting to get caught, even if that reason was completely self-serving, has nothing to do with protecting someone, sparing someone's feelings or any other "white lie" kind of thing.

Lying today--whether it's in politics or sports (witness Barry Bonds) is only wrong if you get caught. There's no reward for those who admit to a lie before being caught in it, and if there were, how would we know? No one does that. Instead, people add lie upon lie, deny that they lied in the first place until faced with a mountain of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and then they simply shrug, look contrite and say they're sorry and we're all supposed to give them a virtual hug and accept their apology.

Disgusting, truly disgusting.

Annoying shit people say defending illegal immigration

Anyone else out there sick of all the tired, overused arguments against illegal immigration reform? Had enough of euphemisms like "undocumented workers," or of having people simply drop the word "illegal" from the conversation altogether to make you sound anti-ALL-immigration?

ME TOO.

Here are some of the most annoying arguments and statements I've heard this week, and here are my snappy (or snippy as the case may be) comebacks to them. Please note that there are different comebacks for the same arguments, depending upon who's making the argument in the first place.

If you find that any of them will save you from pulling one more chunk of hair from your head, or from losing it entirely and putting your foot through your TV (or up someone's ass), your fist through a wall (or in someone's face) or your gun in your mouth (or someone else's), feel free to use them, as often as necessary.

• "Undocumented workers are willing to do work no American will do!"

  To the agribusiness/construction/sanitation or other mass employer:
  "I don't go to work and pay taxes to subsidize your business. If you can't afford American workers, maybe you shouldn't be in business."

  To the politician:
  "I don't work and pay taxes to subsidize your campaign" (see above)

  AND

  "I don't go to work and pay taxes to buy you votes."
  



• "People who want to tighten border security are racist!"

  To the (most likely) illegal immigrant or his/her children:
  "If wanting to keep out lawbreakers and their spawn makes me racist, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Funny though, I didn't realize there was an entire race of people known as "lawbreakers."

  To the politician, limosine liberal or other bleeding heart/ass-kissing type:
  "So I'm racist for wanting to welcome only immigrants who come here legally, but you who agree that we 'need' to exploit illegal workers to prop up our economy, you're not? Tell me, do you pay your gardener/nanny/housekeeper minimum wage and cover their insurance costs and taxes yourself? I rest my case."
  



• "These people just want to pursue the American dream...Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande...They're just hardworking decent people."

  To all:
  "Then tell them to carry the American flag to their next protest rally, not the MEXICAN one!"

  Or:
  "If they have such a great work ethic, why did they cheat to get in to the country in the first place?"

  AND...
  "Tell it to Janice who was robbed and threatened for almost two years by illegal aliens. Tell it to the countless vitims of rape, murder, robbery, narcotic trafficking, gangs violence and vandalism--people who, in addition to being victimized in these ways were often racially targeted because they looked 'anglo.'"
  

I am so damn fed up with the bullshit being fed to us by the politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle). It's time to stand up and answer these bogus arguments with some TRUTH for a change. Romanticizing this situation by equating the illegals of today with the Ellis Islanders of yesterday is not only factually inaccurate, it is dangerous. In fact, if even one politician suggested setting up an Ellis Island-type process again--complete with physical, mandatory existence of an employer or sponsor prior to arrival, possession of enough money to go back if found to be unsuitable for entry, etc... I'd be all for it. But allowing these people to just stream accross our boders willy nilly, with no way of keeping track of who they are, what diseases they are bringing in (can you say "bird flu?") or what their real motive for coming is, is just plain suicidal. The only question that remains is which part of our nation will we kill first--our national identity, our national security, our culture, our economy, or our physical well-being.

If you ask me, they are all in critical condition at the moment, and it's time to stop the bleeding before critical becomes terminal.

I AM worried, very worried

I'm no scientist, and I don't know what the heck we can do about this, but global warming DOES scare the crap out of me.

The problem I have with it though is that I do not see it as a partisan political issue. In short, I think BOTH parties are wrong about what we should do about our role in it.

(Some) Republicans want to ignore it, downplay it or pretend it's not happening at all. They want their big business cronies and sponsors to be able to pollute with greater impunity because it's good for bid-ness.

(Most, if not all) Democrats want us to sign Kyoto immediately and to take drastic measures (unilaterally I might add) to curtail greenhouse gas production here in the U.S.A.

The problem with the Republican approach is obvious. Denial is not a river in Egypt (that would likely become and ocean if the warming continues), it is dangerous.

The problem with the Democratic approach is less obvious, but just as important to examine. Signing Kyoto would do nothing more (and nothing less) than put the U.S. in an unfavorable economic position relative to the other signers AND it does not include the world's biggest current polluter: China.

If "two wrongs don't make a right," then the argument that they are a "developing nation" and have a right to an industrial revolution like we had is completely bogus. The clear difference is that during our industrial revolution, we had no idea what we were doing to the environment, nor were we doing it on as large a scale. The population of the U.S. during the mid-late 1800s was a grain of sand on the beach compared to the Chinese population, and even smaller than that compared to the population of the world as a whole--the world the Chinese want as a market for the goods they want to now mass-produce with their factories.

HOWEVER, having said that, it is important to stress that we are not innocent bystanders either. We love going to Wal-Mart & Co. to buy a pair of jeans for $10, shoes for $20 and all manner of crap for even cheaper than that. Where is it made? In those same "developing" economies like China that are the world's current big polluters.

I know what Democrats and environmentalists say--that we in the U.S. use more energy than those countries combined, but they aren't being 100% honest. Yes, we do, but not all of that energy we use is being pumped out into the environment as toxic gas (anymore). We have made huge strides in the past 50 years to clean our air and reduce emmissions. Not so in other countries, some of them without China's "excuse" either. I remember when I lived in Europe in the late '80s you couldn't walk down a city street in most of the major cities without choking on exhaust fumes. The restrictions were nowhere near what they were here, cars weren't "tested" for their output, nor were fuels formulated according to the same strict rules we had and still have. We may be pulluters, but we are not alone, so we should not be alone in trying to correct the problem.

Now don't think I'm suggesting we should stop buying things from polluting nations. That would set us on a course that would create other problems--geo-political instability for a start, possibly even war! China is a massive nation with a lot of mouths to feed. We're not likely to convince them to change their dirty ways without incurring some other problem, possibly far worse in the very near term.

Same holds true with other restrictions we might put on ourselves. Don't want to cut down oxygen-producing (pretty) trees? Make it illegal? Timber industry somewhere else will gain jobs and money (we'll lose both), we won't stop using wood that's for sure. Don't want the Chinese pumping out crap into the atmosphere? Shit, they mow their own people down with tanks when it suits their fancy, what do you think it will take for them to stop polluting the air we all breathe? Even if all their citizens suddenly became infertile because of toxins, they'd probably see it as free birth control. Don't stake your hopes on them caring, and if we put stiff tariffs on their goods? Well, like I said, they'll either punish us some other, more immediate, even less savory way, or they'll take their business elsewhere (best case).

And then there's the dirty little secret no one wants to discuss, because everyone (liberals in particular) still wants to believe that we humans are in control of the environment, the planet, of human destiny itself. That is that "God," or nature or whatever you want to call it isn't playing a role in all this too. Even (honest) scientists will tell you that one volcanic eruption (like Mt. St. Helens for example) will put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all the auto-emmissions Americans have ever put out there. Forest fires don't help either (but tell that to those who are against forest management to prevent them). And then there are the unknowns, like the possibility that some of the climatic change was destined to happen anyway, we just happen to be the unlucky bastards alive when it's first noticeable in a single generation.

I submit to you that all of these factors are important, and that is why I see no politician able to offer a solution. We have to start thinking as humans, not as conservatives, liberals, Americans, Chinese, Europeans, etc... It is the one time when national and political boundaries MUST blurr if we are to survive as a species. If not, we will (literally) go the way of the dinosaur.

Many people say that we have to make the first step because we are the last super-power, that others will follow our lead. I say hogwash. I wish it were true! That would be easy and one would wonder why we hadn't done it YEARS ago. Sadly, I think what needs to happen can't happen because it would put us in a position where it would be too late to take advantage of any newfound willingness to work together to heal the planet: Things have to get worse. The sad thing about us humans is that we have a tendency to act or be willing to act en masse only when our lives and the lives of those we love are or have been directly affected. Until then, we love to think it's someone else's problem. We also have a tendency to think there is safety in numbers. If we look around and see everyone else just going about their business as if nothing is wrong, we do the same. Don't believe me? Walk down a crowded street in a major city and yell "help!" Then check your watch and note the time it takes for someone to come to your aid. The more people there are around, the longer it will take. If it's rush hour, don't expect anyone to come at all.

That's what we're facing now--the environmental equivalent of rush hour. Case in point? The West Coast of our own nation is in desperate need of more POWER to sustain the way of life of the population out there. But how? Coal fired plants? Even though they can burn way cleaner than ever, no one wants them--perception is still that they are dirty, coal mining is dangerous, etc... How about nuclear power? Eeeew, scary! Three Mile Island fears take over, no one wants one in their backyard. Wind farms? Well, I can't comment too much on the way the people of the West feel, but John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are opposed to them in MA because they would mar the VIEW! (Out West there's probably a group against them for other environmental reasons, like some little birdy whose habitat will be threatened by the turbines).

So starting in the very near future, American humans on the West coast will likely have to endure rolling black-outs and power rationing because they don't want to take any of the necessary steps to produce the power they need. Of course the irony is that many of their reasons are environmental, but the net result is we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever (also a fossil fuel, duhr), and less likely to sacrifice in other areas that could truly help the environment long-term.

The planet is ailing, to be sure, and we as humans need to do something "STAT" to help her, but we're so busy rushing around doing other things, we can't stop long enough to even process what's at stake, never mind do anything to fix it. Add to that how terrifying it is to even think about and you have a human population that will likely suffer greatly before ultimately adapting to our NEW environment (if we are ingenious enough and there's time) or perishing from the Earth for good.

Most of us console ourselves with the notion that we'll be long dead before that happens, that we won't "feel" it, but those of us with kids, who'd like to have grandkids someday, should be worried about them. It's no longer a problem for our great-great-great-great grandkids, it's a problem for those we're likely to know and love, and if that doesn't scare us into action, I'm afraid nothing will.

(Tune in later when I will examine illegal immigration and how it feeds this problem as well!)

Homesickness (pun intended)

Whenever I feel even the slightest twinge of longing for my former home in the People's Republic of Taxachussetts (as unlikely as it would seem, it happens for a nanosecond or two here and there--I did have some friends there after all), I just pop over to Bruce's site and am set right (another intentional pun).

Prozac or Passion?

How much do you wanna bet this woman killed her husband in a fit of psychosis brought on by the improper use or discontinuation of use of an anti-depressant?

Why am I guessing this? Well let's see:

• She had a baby just over a year ago and is, therefore, a possible PPD patient


• There is no history of drug, alcohol or domestic abuse on her or her husband's part


• They have the seemingly "perfect" life


• We just saw a case of a similiarly bizarre and sudden family-on-family slaying that turned out to be a case of depression and anti-depressant-induced psychosis

I hate to sound like Tom Cruise, because I think he's an asshole, but it's a little disturbing that we are seeing more and more of these sudden-for-no-apparent-reason killings by the most unlikely of suspects, and all too often they are linked to the medication the person is taking.

Now I'm not typically a person who buys into the whole "It's not my fault, xyz made me do it" defense, but if this does turn out to be a case in which anti-depressants figure prominently, I won't be surprised. People can sing the praises of psycho-pharmacology all day long, but I say BEWARE. Yes, it works for some people, but for many it does nothing or wreaks havoc, even kills.

I didn't kill anyone, or myself, but I had a bad experience with three different anti-depressants. Whenever I see stories about people going berzerk while taking them I think "there but for the grace of God go I." My step-mom died and for 6 weeks I seemed "fine." Then the first day of week 7, I fell apart. I literally didn't get out of bed for two days. Blew off work, blew off everything and everyone. Friends, family and my boss thought I'd run away or died. People were banging on my door and I still wouldn't answer. I can't even remember who finally called and coaxed me into answering (those were the days of answering machines you could hear even if you didn't answer the phone), but when I did finally emerge, my internist prescribed Prozac. I took it and felt MISERABLE. I couldn't sleep at all, felt totally wired and was convinced I was being watched. I called the Dr. and shared my paranoia and complaints and he switched me to Paxil. I very quickly became almost narcoleptic, falling asleep at the wheel and nearly killing myself and some drivers around me while driving to work. Lucky for me, I only wrecked the car.

After that, he put me on Serzone. Now I could sleep, and at the proper times, but I lost all sense of "desire," be it for sex, food, entertainment, you name it. I felt pretty numb. I asked to go off it but he said no, that numb was better than self-destructive (apparently staying in bed is self-destructive, but driving in a drug-induced semi-coma is merely an "unfortunate side-effect"), and since I was still a person who thought doctors knew what they were talking about, I listened. I kept listening for almost two years, but I finally got sick and tired of feeling "blah" and decided to take myself off the medication. Thankfully I figured the Doctor warned me to take the pills as directed for a reason, so I told him I was going off, no ifs ands or buts, and needed to know what to do. He told me to wean myself off the meds gradually, so I did--very slowly cutting back the dose by cutting pills in half, then fourths, and then finally skipping them entirely.

My first week off I felt like a million bucks. I literally felt like I'd wasted two years of my life feeling NOTHING. Rather than simply offering me a half gallon of Haagen Dasz and some counseling, this doctor had "drugged" me out of my sadness, but had replaced it with something not much better. Sure, I didn't feel desperately sad, but I didn't feel anything else either.

My point is this: SSRI drugs might really be helpful IF (and I stress IF) the doctors who prescribed them were:

• 100% sure that what was ailing the patient was chemical imbalance of the SSRI nature


• able to test exactly how out of balance you are


• able to prescribe the precise dose of "balancing" drug for your particular imbalance


• able to tell if and when your body corrects itself so as to lower your dose


• able to control how patients take the drugs to ensure they don't do it wrong--taking double doses by mistake, or forgetting to take a dose or two


• able to predict how different people will react to going on or coming off the drugs which--let's face it folks--are MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES!

Yes, it's the dark little secret the upbeat ads don't include--that these drugs affect your neurotransmitters in your brain. They literally alter your BRAIN chemistry, which in turn alters what you think, feel and (here's the kicker) DO. In short, not some simple happy pills you can pop when life deals you a low blow or a sad turn.

Of course I'm speaking completely out of turn since I have no clue what this woman's motive may or may not have been, but I'm making a prediction that we'll be hearing the word "depression" before the investigation is over, and if that's the case, I'd bet meds were involved in her bizarre behavior.

Either that or her friends, family and neighbors didn't know her AT ALL.

Did we vote for these guys?

I didn't vote for Newspaper Editors did you? I didn't have a choice as to which of them would be making decisions about what information ought to be "classified" did you?

Nevertheless, at least one of them thinks he and his kind are the right folks to be making such decisions, in his words, "not the government."

[Culled from the findings of the guardian of our freedoms himself, Emperor Misha]

"We do not want to inadvertently threaten human life or legitimately harm national security in our reporting," [Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Compost] said.

...and here it comes, the three-letter word that automatically renders the preceding sentence meaningless:

"But it's important...in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government."

Read that again. No, really, read it again.

It’s important in our constitutional system that the final decision as to whether something should be classified is made by newspaper editors rather than elected representatives of the people.

Yes, he really is saying that.

And to think people are afraid of conservative judges and the Patriot Act, but not assholes like this?

Scary, truly scary. If you're not as terrified as I am, read the rest of Misha's post and then consider the problem again.

While you're at it, ask yourself if we would have, if we COULD have won WWII if we had to fight it today, with the level of so-called "transparency" so-called "journalists" are demanding?

I'm gonna go with NEIN, NIEMALS (for those of you who don't speak German, take a moment to reflect on the countless "secrets" than ensured it would not end up being your native tongue).

How ironic

Am I the only one who's noticed the irony of the DPW hupla?

We now have the same people who gasp in horror at the mere suggestion that we ought to racially profile people on the subways and buses and airplanes doing exactly that with an entire country. Not just any country either, but the UAE, the one arab nation that has been something resembling an ally in this "War on Terror" thing.

UAE hosts more of our war ships than any other foreign nation. To date, zero attacks.
UAE allows us to use their airspace and landing strips. To date, zero attacks. We're more worried about our planes taking off from JFK getting hit by seagulls than we are about our planes taking off from UAE.
UAE also seized the assets of terrorists immediately after 9/11, without much fuss or equivocation.

True, their banks laundered some money that belonged to the terrorists, but I'd be willing to bet the German, French, and Swiss banks did the same. Atta lived in Hamburg prior to the attacks, why not blame the Germans and not allow them to own anything in our country either?

My point simply is this: Whatever our concerns with port security (and there are many that are legit), they ought to have come to the forefront without this as a catalyst, and this deal should not be the source of the concern.

Wanna be worried? Be worried about the fact that fewer than 5% of containers coming here are inspected, by our own Coast Guard! Be worried about the fact that the Communist Chinese (not exactly our bosom buddies after all) are--and have been for some time now--running the port of Long Beach. Be worried that there aren't American companies to do the job of running operations (which is fancy language for owning the lease on the ports, nothing much else) so if Hillary gets her way and legislation were to go through prohibiting foreign ownership of our port operations, we'd be in quite a pickle with no goods coming in or out of most of them.

I also find it ironic that the very same people who--just a couple of weeks ago mind you--were ranting and raving about the theory (preposterous though it was) that Cheney PURPOSELY shot his poor buddy to get the bad news of Iran, the war in Iraq, etc... off the front pages are now sinking their teeth into this thing? The same people who said "All we have to fear is fear itself," who accused the administration of keeping us terrified at all times of an enemy that doesn't really exist, the ones who claim the "War on Terror" isn't really a war, but just a small group of fringe extremists having a bad day (or year or decade or century or whatever...) are now acting like a business transaction is the scariest thing in the universe for us because it has A-RABS involved (egads)!

The whole thing is SICKENING. The Dems will get a lot of mileage out of this one though because the Republicans--not wanting to be outdone, and for no other reason than saving face mind you--are joining the rallying cry. This really highlights how corrupt and out for themselves they ALL are, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm not that worried about this deal honestly. I don't think it makes us any less safe than the Chinese are making us. In fact, we could squish the UAE like a bug if they had the balls to try to allow anything to happen through one of the ports they manage. China? Not so much.

I hate to sound like a friend to big bidniss and all, but the scary thing is the way our politicians are behaving and the way the media isn't questioning THEM enough, not the ports deal. If the politicos cared about our safety, the Coast Guard would be recruiting at every college in this country, they'd have more money for more ships to do more inspections, and other nations from whence our cargo comes would know in no uncertain terms that if they did not adequately inspect enough cargo to satisfy us, well, we'd tax the crap out of their goods so it would sit on the docks and rot instead of sell to our people.

But hey, what the heck do I know?

Abortion as an employee "benefit?"

I'm going to be sick. No kidding around here, I'm going to puke right here at my desk.

Read this and you'll know why.

A female employee was told that her pregnancy was costing her company too much money and that it would pay for her to have an abortion. It's an extreme example, but advocates say the workplace is still tough on pregnant women.

This is precisely what I was talking about in my last post. If female politicians who supposedly advocate for "a woman's right to CHOOSE" really gave a shit about real women, they'd shut up about Dick Cheney's hunting accident for half a second and make this woman's case front page news.

But nooooooo...Far be it for the "choice" crowd to cast any aspersions on the "benefits" of abortion.

"Correctified?"

I kid you not, a customer service rep at my credit card company just uttered that "word" on the phone with me. There was a mistake on my statement, and she took care of it for me, and by way of reassurance, told me that she had "gone ahead and correctified the problem."

Lord help us...

Happy "Geocide" Day!

Aaaargh! Another happy-go-lucky liberal wishing us all a happy turkey day self-indulgent feast. [Via Right Wing News

"One indication of moral progress in the United States would be the replacement of Thanksgiving Day and its self-indulgent family feasting with a National Day of Atonement accompanied by a self-reflective collective fasting.
...Not only is the thought of such a change in this white-supremacist holiday impossible to imagine, but the very mention of the idea sends most Americans into apoplectic fits -- which speaks volumes about our historical hypocrisy and its relation to the contemporary politics of empire in the United States.

That the world's great powers achieved "greatness" through criminal brutality on a grand scale is not news, of course. That those same societies are reluctant to highlight this history of barbarism also is predictable.

...Simply put: Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers."

Well, I hope this moron enjoys his day--preferably in another country because if this "genocide" (as he refers to it) hadn't happened, there would be no USA, no "freedom of speech" within its set of laws, and he would most likely still be living back in the "old country" trying to scrape out a meager living doing something other than what he's currently doing.

That is, if his ancestors survived the poverty, squallor, disease, persecution, wars, etc... that there would have been no escape from (and no one to rescue them from) because our beloved country WOULDN'T HAVE EXISTED.

Happy THANKSGIVING to the rest of you sane people! Enjoy your turkey, trimmings, desserts piled high with artery-clogging ice-cream or whipped cream and football with the gusto they so richly deserve!

Moron Menino

I am so thankful I no longer live in a place that would re-elect someone as stupid as Boston's Mayor Menino. And to think the people of Boston just did so by a landslide...It boggles the mind, it really does.

His latest act of idiocy? Read it and weep:

Pointing to the rising number of shootings in Boston, Mayor Thomas M. Menino is calling for a "handgun summit" in New England and raised the possibility of random police searches of cars crossing into the state to intercept illegal weapons.

The summit would be a meeting of the minds to try to figure out ways to stop more guns from flooding the region’s urban streets.

"Somebody’s got to take the lead. You can’t just say we have a problem," Menino said. "I will be looking to meet with public safety officials in the next several weeks to try and put a plan in place to bring a summit together to meet with public safety officials over the summer, whatever it takes."

Whatever it takes? How about ARRESTING SOME CRIMINALS AND LOCKING THEM UP?!!

Menino, speaking a day after his landslide re-election over Maura Hennigan, said guns are no longer just coming to Boston from the South. Weapons are filtering in from New Hampshire and other abutting states, he said.

Yes folks, it's true, the "guns" have grown limbs and are walking and driving themselves over state lines. No human involvement here, just bad evil nasty killer GUNS.

He raised the potentially explosive issue of random searches as a remedy.

Yeah, because the taxpayers would much rather see their money spent stopping soccer moms in mini-vans at the NH border than arresting and (here's the trick) JAILING a bunch of scum in Roxbury, Dorchester, Charlestown, etc...

“How are guns transported across state lines? We have to spot-check the cars that come across state lines. What’s the mechanism? I’m not a public safety official but I think we have to get these folks together,� Menino said.

Oh, pardon me, I thought it was the GUNS bringing themselves into MA, now I realize what it really is: It's the CARS.

Who knew inanimate objects were so crafty!

Well I'm not the only person who's shocked not at all surprised at what this sorry sack of shit Mayor plans to do about violence in his city. Bruce was similarly disgusted. In summary, speaking to Mumbles's "plan" he says:

...had to re-read that to make sure I read it correctly. Yep, that's what it said. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Translation: I have no plan clue.

The scary thing though is he does have a "plan" of sorts, and that plan is INSANE.

If you want a preview of what a society without the ability to defend itself against lawless miscreants looks like, take a peek at FRANCE.

You're right about one thing "Mister Mayor," you're NOT a "public safety official." You're the exact opposite: You're a PUBLIC ENDANGERER!

Ouch, my arm!

...Twisted it patting myself on the back for leaving the shithole known to bright insightful folks like Bruce as mASSBACKWARDS.

First my Dad sends me surprising news an article about how shootings are up in Boston this year, then surprise surprise a quick perusal of Bruce's site turns up a much more funny and accurate rendition of the same.

As much as I wish this wasn't the case, this blog continues to write itself.

From the Boston Globe:

Shootings in Hub rise dramatically

The number of shootings in Boston has increased significantly over the last three years, jumping by 77 percent through last week, compared to the same period in 2002, and by 28 percent over the same period a year ago.

What say you, Mayor Menino?

Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday he believes that the city can do a better job of reducing gun violence in neighborhoods, which has emerged as a major issue in Tuesday's city election.

"Guns don't belong on the streets of our city or any city," he said. "Boston is one of the safest cities in the country, but we can make it safer."

OK, everyone. Repeat after me.

It's not the guns, asshole, it's the criminals!

This piece was followed up by reference to an op/ed piece that perfectly captures the essence of the liberal gun-control=safety fantasy mindset:

Blaming guns

November 3, 2005

EVEN TAKING into consideration that Tim Casey is beside himself with grief over the murder of his student Kevin Garces, his Oct. 27 letter in which he blames Garces' death and those of ''millions of other children" on the NRA is inexcusable in its ignorance and fear-mongering.

In the fantasy land of gun-phobic liberals, there are no good people and there are no evil people. That's because there is no such thing as moral agency. There are only impressionable lumps of clay in human form who, at the appearance of the ''evil" object known as a firearm, are instantly turned into maniacally cackling, bullet-spraying John Dillingers or Dylan Klebolds.

In such a fantasy land, the argument that guns should be banned because ''they have no purpose except to kill" makes sense.

The only one who has Garces' blood on his (or perhaps her) hands is the person who shot him. The same goes for anyone else who was murdered with a firearm.

ROBIN B. SHORE
Everett

God bless you Robin Shore. Too bad no one up there is listening.

I am so lucky I don't have to live there anymore. What a cesspool, and what a bunch of morons to keep electing Mumbles "Denial is my middle name" Menino!

"Rediscovering" Poverty

This piece from the WSJ by Charles Murray is excellent, and straight to the point:

Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it. Both sides are unwilling to face reality: We haven't rediscovered poverty, we have rediscovered the underclass; the underclass has been growing during all the years that people were ignoring it, including the Clinton years; and the programs politicians tout as solutions are a mismatch for the people who constitute the problem.

The government hasn't a clue. Versions of every program being proposed in the aftermath of Katrina have been tried before and evaluated. We already know that the programs are mismatched with the characteristics of the underclass. Job training? Unemployment in the underclass is not caused by lack of jobs or of job skills, but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. A homesteading act? The lack of home ownership is not caused by the inability to save money from meager earnings, but because the concept of thrift is alien. You name it, we've tried it. It doesn't work with the underclass.

Perhaps the programs now being proposed by the administration will help ordinary poor people whose socialization is just fine and need nothing more than a chance. It is comforting to think so, but past experience with similar programs does not give reason for optimism -- it is hard to exaggerate how ineffectually they have been administered. In any case, poor people who are not part of the underclass seldom need help to get out of poverty. Despite the exceptions that get the newspaper ink, the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive. And behaving self-destructively is the hallmark of the underclass.

Hurricane Katrina temporarily blew away the screens that we have erected to keep the underclass out of sight and out of mind. We are now to be treated to a flurry of government efforts from politicians who are shocked, shocked, by what they saw. What comes next is depressingly predictable. Five years from now, the official evaluations will report that there were no statistically significant differences between the subsequent lives of people who got the government help and the lives of people in a control group. Newspapers will not carry that story, because no one will be interested any longer. No one will be interested because we will have long since replaced the screens, and long since forgotten.

Moore is less

...less a human being than a very fat hairy strip of pond scum.

I'm too angry to write more. Too angry and too nauseated.

Sesame Street in the Shtetl

Picture this if you will: It's the early 1900s, immigrants from Eastern Europe are pouring into our country, many of them Jewish from Polish and Russian villages called "shtetls." They are persecuted people back home, so taking the risk to emmigrate is a no brainer. They don't speak English, they don't even speak a recognizable major foreign language, but rather something between German and Polish and Hebrew called "Yiddish."

Now picture that instead of it being the early part of the last century, it's present day. There is TV. Specificaly, PBS and the Children's Television Worshop. Now imagine that the flagship show of that network--Sesame Street--devotes a portion of every show to teaching the "Yiddish" word of the day, and to profiling the "culture" of the Jewish immigrants to this country (most of whom, by the way, came here through Ellis Island LEGALLY, and none of whom benefitted from social programs paid for by others because they didn't exist yet).

Mind you, the immigrants of whom I speak took great pains to a) learn the language (ENGLISH), b) allowed their names to be changed to something more pronounceable (as if they had a choice) c) arrived with enough money to be shipped back immediately if they were sick with so much as the common cold d) had to find jobs and prove they were employable when they arrived e) WANTED to assimilate into "American" culture and probably would have been horrified to have their own culture singled out for examination and "celebration" like they were animals in some multicultural zoo.

I have you imagining all of this because if you fast-forward to today with TODAY'S population of immigrants (many if not most of whom are illegally arriving across our borders), you have exactly what I've described on Sesame Street. Today's ENTIRE program had a "Mexican-American" theme, the goal of which was (obviously) to teach the audience of children how nifty it is to be Mexican, and how great it is to be distinctly Mexican even if you live here in the US (even if that means you speak little or no English). Not only was my child being "taught" several Spanish words at 7:00 a.m., she was being taught how swell it is to be a Mexican Cowboy. I had to wonder, why was there no program focused on how swell it is to be an AMERICAN Cowboy?

Oh yeah, I already know the answer: Because Amereican "Cowboys" are baaaaaaad! Evil in fact. Just ask Michael Moore, or any European (and probably any Mexican too). Apparently, only ethnic versions of Cowboys are "cool."

Anyone else out there sick to death of the way in which we are glorifying "other cultures" and pretending that we don't have one of our own that's worth protecting?

Anyone else sick of our kids being taught Spanish while Spanish-speakers are not even "encouraged" to speak English???

Anyone else sick of PAYING for all this crap?

Because we are. Sesame Street is funded in part by a "Ready-to-Learn" grant from the "No Child Left Behind Act." That's our tax dollars. Public schools that still teach bilingually are funded by our tax dollars, and the social programs and handouts that draw so many here in the first place (and encourage so many to stay and remain as poor and ignorant as they are when they get here) are definitely paid for by our tax dollars--many billions of them in fact!

The way I feel is that if my great-grandparents had to give up their "Shtetl Chic" to avoid being persecuted and shut out of the marketplace of commerce and ideas, then why should today's immigrants be any different? Whether they be from Mexico or Manilla, I couldn't care less, the point is the same. It's not our job to teach our kids about how great it is to be like them, it's our job to teach THEM how great it is to be like US.

Problem is, too may of us apparently don't think it is, and that is what will ruin us in the end.

A new low, even for lowbrowals

That's my new name for "liberals," like it? After I heard this story about how the "New York Slimes" was investigating the adoption records of Judge Roberts' children, it was clear that "liberal" just doesn't cut it anymore.

How disgusting, and yet, how predictable. Do whatever is necessary to ensure a woman's right to kill her unborn child (so people like the Roberts' won't have the chance to adopt it and give it a loving home and preppy outfits to wear on TV), even if "whatever is necessary" is going after thriving and happy (and LIVING) four and five year-old kids.

The NYT can disclaim Drudge's story all day long, they can claim it's all part of their "typical background check," but just imagine the reaction on the left if Judge Roberts were a pro-choice Democrat instead of a Republican. Actually, come to think of it, I think I'd like to see Teddy Kennedy's forehead vein explode, wouldn't you?

Next time you hear a Democrat whine about how it's "all for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiildren," or lecture you on how it "takes a village" to raise your kids, remember this story. I don't know about you, but I'd rather raise my kids on a deserted island than in any village populated by people who value killing the unborn more than protecting the already born.

Too stupid to vote

Can we have a provision that a modicum of intelligence be required to vote? Seems to me the people (celebrities included) who marhed in this march don't qualify.

Do they HONESTLY believe that they're going to lose their "right to vote?" Do they further really believe that if they do, it will be all the eeeevil Bushitler's fault?

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!

Perhaps if they actually shrugged off the giant chips their shoulders (the 40 year old ones) for five seconds, or long enough to READ what's being proposed, they'd calm down a bit. Restricting the number of kinds of photo ID you need to vote from 17 different types to 6 is discriminatory? I have to show a driver's license or a passport, I have no other options, should I feel put upon? D'ya think it's antisemitism at work? Hmmm...Maybe I should organize a march...

This is preposterous, and just another example of what the Democratic conspiracy to keep minorities poor and stupid hath wrought.

It's official, I live in Hell

It seems not a day goes by that I don't find another reason to HATE THIS disgusting ass-backwards, amoral, shithole that is Massachusetts.

This one may top all others to-date (at least until tomorrow):

Mallrat Poison

This story has me FUMING. A mall just north of here in New Hampshire has done something they shouldn't have had to do, they've instituted a curfew for unsupervised kids under the age of 16.

I cannot fathom why any parent would simply "drop-off" their 12 or 13 year old (shit, even a 15 year old) at the mall, without any adult supervision AT NIGHT. What parent would think this was a GOOD thing to do? Let's see...It's nighttime, dark outside, my kid is too young to drink, smoke or have sex, in all likelihood has enough homework to sink a ship (even on weekends--I'm talking "assigned" homework, not what they tell their parents they have or don't have), and yet for some reason spending two or three hours just loitering around a public place that is basically an indoor version of the public square is an "acceptable" use of their time in their parents' eyes?

Yeah, that's just what I want my daughter to do when she gets to that age--dress in belly shirts, mini skirts and flip flops, put on too much makeup and head out to a place where smarmy strangers can reasonably expect to find her unsupervised, bored and surrounded by peers of questionable morals and values just itching to influence her. She could meet up with who-knows-whom I've never met and approved of, maybe some weirdo with a God-complex she met online, or maybe just some slutty pseudo-friends whose parents I don't know who'll teach her the finer points of buying rubbers at the mall CVS so she can "do it" with her "boyfriend" (whom I also haven't met and don't know about). Or maybe she'll just hang out, doing nothing but coveting crap she can't afford--or worse, buying it with money she's stolen from our wallets (or that she's earned selling blow jobs to the hockey players at school). Worst case scenario, she could get one of the smarmy strangers who's been leering at her and her gal-pals to buy them cigarettes they can then smoke two at a time before heading off to the Gap to STEAL (or, as teens call it these days, "jack") a new outfit.

What the hell are parents like these thinking?

"I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible," said Leann Newcomb of Lowell, Mass., who was shopping Monday with her 15-year-old daughter, Ashley.

Ashley agreed.

"I can come here and I can be fine without my mom," she said.

Stacey Donovan of Tyngsborough, Mass., said she always has considered the mall a safe haven for people.

"God knows what they'll be doing if they're not at the mall," she said. "To say it's not allowed is not the right answer. Let them have their place."

OK, first of all, the mall is not "THEIR place." The mall belongs to the mall company, in this case Simon Properties. The mall stores belong to the companies that own them, and they and only they "own" the right to say who should and should not be hanging around their property at night, during the day, whatever. In fact, what separates the mall from the public square is that as "public" as it may be in terms of lack of privacy, it's most definitely PRIVATE property.

Second, to the mom who says she should be able to drop-off her kids if she "wants" to, all I have to say is WHY DO YOU WANT TO?? Don't you want to spend time with your kid? Don't you wish she wanted to spend her free time doing something other than "hanging around" with a group of people you most likely don't know and never will know? Don't you WANT to know where she is (in more specific terms), there's lots of cars at the mall, how do you know when you drop her off there that she STAYS there?

I love parents who say their kids are responsible, that they "know" this when most likely the exact opposite is true! After all, how well can a parent "know" any teenager, much less one who's "dropped off" out of sight and out of mind (apparently) during the only time his or her parents are probably around to GET to know him or her? When are these "knowing" parents learning so much about their kids? While they sleep? Are they basing their assertions on reality or wishful thinking? I'm guessing the latter.

I'm sure for every parent who says their 15 year-old is "responsible" and has "nice friends" there's a dozen who will tell that parent that they thought the same thing, that is until they were called to the hospital to see their child in a coma having OD'd on "X" at a rave. "But I thought they were just going to a party with some friends? What's a rave?"

Or what about the parents of the "nice girls" who thought they "taught her better than that" but find out their 15 year-old daughter is pregnant anyway? "But I thought she was sleeping over at her friend Tammy's house" they'll tell you. Too bad she was sleeping at the Motel 6 with her "boyfriend" Chad instead!

I'm making up these stories, but I'm sure they aren't that far-fetched. Nevertheless, there seems to be no shortage of moms like the two quoted above. There's one simple reason these moms are so clueless: THEY CHOOSE TO BE. Why? Because they WANT their kids out of their hair. They don't want to deal with the reality of parenting. They want time to themselves, they want to BE kids in a way, free to do and say and be whatever they want, whenever they want, unencumbered by the responsibility they so freely endow their minor children with on a daily basis. Thankfully that irony isn't lost on the people at Simon Properties!

As for the mom who wonders what else these kids can do if not go to the mall for hours on end, all I have to say is, if that's a serious question on her part, then her child is EXACTLY the kind of at-risk kid I'm talking about! If these parents honestly think there's nothing better to do but shop and "hang out" when you're a teen, why should their kids think any differently?

Thankfully not all parents and not all teens agree with these whiners. One boy who said he agreed with the curfew put it best:
"What about the library? Doesn't anyone read books anymore?"

My question exactly!

Always let your conscience be your guide (NOT MINE)

This is exactly the kind of thing that scares me away from the government--in this case, from the GOP and elements within it that have been rather vocal of late:

Who's conscience rules?
TO BEGIN with, I don't believe that anyone should be compelled to do work they regard as unethical. History is full of heroes who rebelliously followed their consciences. It's also full of people who shamefully followed orders.

For that matter, I believe that companies and institutions should have a code of ethics. What is the alternative to corporate responsibility and public morality? Enron?

So I approach the subject of conscience clauses rather gingerly.

The very first such laws offered an exemption for doctors in 47 states who don't want to perform abortions on moral grounds. That seems to me a matter of common decency. Doctors are not automatons who leave their beliefs at the operating room door. It also seems like common sense. Who would want their abortion performed by an opponent?

Gradually however, we have had the incredibly expanding conscience clause. In 10 states healthcare professionals can conscientiously refuse to provide contraceptives. In 12 states they can refuse to do sterilizations.

Indeed, last year the government decided that entire hospitals and HMOs had the right to deny these services without losing federal funding. Never mind that it is not clear who owns the conscience of a hospital: A church hierarchy? A board of directors? The doctors? The community? Or the taxpayers who foot the hospital bills?

Now, we have gone even further. Conscience clauses are being proposed to protect professionals who refuse to follow end-of-life directives and refuse to use treatments from stem cell research. Most notably, we have bills in a dozen states to include pharmacists who won't fill a prescription.

It's the pharmacists who are getting the most attention right now. In just six months, there were about 180 reports of pharmacists who said no. One refused to fill a college student's birth-control prescription. Another refused medication to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage.

This has led to a counter bill in California that would make pharmacists tell employers of their objections in advance and be prepared to make referrals. It's led to a rule by the Illinois governor that every pharmacy -- though not every pharmacist -- must fill prescriptions, ''No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Karen Brauer, who heads a group called Pharmacists for Life that claims 1,600 members, compares them to ''conscientious objectors." But it isn't that simple.

The pharmacist who refuses emergency contraception is not just following his moral code, he's trumping the moral beliefs of the doctor and the patient.

''If you open the door to this, I don't see any place to draw a line," says Anita Allen, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of ''The New Ethics." If the pharmacist is officially sanctioned as the moral arbiter of the drugstore, does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape? Can his conscience be the guide to second-guessing Ritalin as well as Viagra?

How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have a right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction. In the debate over conscience clauses, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice says properly, ''There is very little recognition that the conscience of the woman is as important, let alone more important, than the conscience of the provider."

Pharmacists don't have the same claim to refuse filling a prescription as a doctor has to refuse performing an abortion. But there are other ways to exercise a private conscience clause. Indeed, in a conflict between your job and your ethics, you can quit. It happens every day.

When Thoreau refused to pay taxes as a war protest, remember, he went to jail. What pharmacists and others are asking for is conscience without consequence. The plea to protect their conscience is a thinly veiled ploy for conquest.

This is not easy stuff. But in the culture wars we have become enamored of moral stances. Have we forgotten that what holds us together is the other lowly virtue: minding your own business?

To each his own conscience. But the drugstore is not an altar. The last time I looked, the pharmacist's license did not include the right to dispense morality.

When people wonder why I expressed grave concern during the Schiavo debate battle, this was why. Clearly we don't want state-sponsored murder (of innocent people), but neither do we want the state to allow professionals who are sworn to "do no harm" or protect us or serve us to simply "decide" not to because of how they personally feel about what we've freely chosen to do with our bodies or our lives.

It's a dark day in conservative politics when those who claim to be "conservative" simultaneously support crap like this.

While no one was looking (over here)

While the entire right-to-life movement was focused on saving a woman who had no chance of recovery, a woman who (it was proven in evidentiary hearings) wanted to die if she were ever in such condition--the stem-cell research lobby snuck this through.

House approves stem cell research
Measure garners veto-proof margin
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff  |  April 1, 2005

The state House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday that promotes embryonic stem cell research in the Bay State, rejecting by a veto-proof margin Governor Mitt Romney's attempt to prohibit a research technique that involves the cloning of human cells.

The House action followed the Senate's approval of a slightly different stem cell bill on Wednesday, meaning the two versions must be reconciled before the legislation goes to Romney. Both versions endorse the creation of human embryos for stem cell research, so Romney will probably reject the bill that emerges.

Lawmakers said the two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate that passed the legislation, and refused to strip what some call therapeutic cloning from the bill, make it likely the Legislature will override a Romney veto. The tally on final passage was 117-37 in the House last night and 35-2 in the Senate Wednesday.

Make no mistake folks, this is a disaster for anyone who TRULY respects life. If you thought starving a brain-dead woman to death was a crime, how do you feel about creating new human lives in a dish, allowing them to grow to the point where they contain enough "material" for research (not one or two cells by the way, not a mere zygote, but rather something closer to what you might call a FETUS or what I'd call a BABY HUMAN), and then KILLING those helpless voiceless creatures so your lab business can make great strides in medical research money?

These cynical politicians are desperate to keep businesses in this state, and to attrack new ones, and they have been led to believe that by allowing stem cell research to the extent of so-called "theraputic cloning" they will achieve both goals.

Newsflash: It will not. The reason people are leaving in droves is that is's HARD TO LIVE HERE. It's expensive, dangerous and the schools are some of the worst (yet most expensive) in the nation. All the cloning in the world isn't going to change that.

What's really sick is that the "research" that this move will allegedly help has yet to create anything other than TUMORS. Yes, that's right folks. So-called "embryonic stem-cell" research has been going on for over 20 years, and there hasn't been a single cure or even treatment discovered. But don't take MY word for it:
Read this:

Myth 3—Embryonic stem-cell research show the most promise

Father Pacholcyzk outlined some 98 different diseases that can be treated using umbilical cord and adult stem cells.  Research using adult stem cells is 20 to 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research and actually holds greater promise.  Currently, there is no scientific evidence where embryonic stem cells have been used successfully in animal trials.

“They’ve found that in the research that has been done that embryonic stem cells actually end up generating tumors in the animals and do not assimilate into the body,� the priest said.  “The embryonic stem cells are so energetic that they are hard to control and manipulate.�

In stark contrast, so-called "adult" stem cell research ("adult" being the term applied to any stem cells harvested from a human being outside the womb and includes cord blood stem cells) has yielded many cures and treatments for life-threatening diseases like childhood cancers. But are you hearing about this research? Nope. Why? Because the "choice" folks don't have anything to gain by pushing it, but they do have something to gain by pushing the "embryonic" kind. Sick.

So where are you Randall Terry? How about you Tom Delay? Where's Federalism when we need it! What happened to the "culture of life" that the President wanted to support? So they could muster their support for one single woman--who supposedly wanted to die anyway--but they can't for countless millions of yet-to-be-created (and never-allowed-to-be-born) people?

And I'm the heartless one?

Spare me.

A party divided cannot stand

Lee nails it (with some help from Instapundit Glenn).

Glenn said:

But I do think that process, and the Constitution, matter. Trampling the Constitution in an earnest desire to do good in high-profile cases has been a hallmark of a certain sort of liberalism, and it’s the sort of thing that I thought conservatives eschewed. If I were in charge of making the decision, I might well put the tube back and turn Terri Schiavo over to her family. But I’m not, and the Florida courts are, and they seem to have done a conscientious job. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn’t. But respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don’t like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this.

And Lee said:

Honestly, this issue has put me in a position where I seriously doubt I’ll ever vote Republican again.  I might just have to bite the bullet and vote for the Libertarians in protest.  I became a Republican because I believed in limited government, states rights, and a strong military.  Since 1994, when the GOP took over the House, they’ve crapped all over two of those principles.

And I say AMEN BROTHERS.

It's a sad sad time for our Republic and the party I thought I could trust not to succumb to the Randall Terry's of this world. But hey, I'm a big enough person that I can admit when I'm wrong. Horribly. Tragically. WRONG.

I hope Tom Delay goes down in flames and takes Randall Terry with him.

Tire-Iron Maiden

Oh boy does this bring back bad memories.

In fact, when John Depetro talked about the topic during his show on WRKO the other morning, I felt compelled to call in with my story. Admitedly, I don't know all the details of this case, but I would be willing to bet that the story being dished by the parents of the kids, the school and the cops has as many holes in it as the Big Dig!

I can picture the kid who was allegedly "not involved" in the snowball incident. I can picture him "asking" Marie Needs to move her car. I can see his face and hear his tone, and I wasn't even there and don't even know him. I can just imagine how "polite" he probably was wasn't, and I can imagine how scared and angry and frustrated she was when he asked (even if he was polite).

If this kid was not involved and saw her so upset, why didn't he offer to help her? Why didn't he approach her and ask her if she was OK, especially if she was hit in the face with a snowball as she alleges she was (in one account I heard on the radio)? Tell me, is it wise, or even nice to approach someone who's obviously in a freaked-out state demanding that they do anything? Even I wouldn't have done that.

What I do know is that Marie Needs isn't talking to the media. Her lawyer is advising her not to--he doesn't want the case tried in the media, and he's right. The only trouble with that is (as I learned the hard way in our situation), by trying to retain her privacy and protect her case, she's allowing the media to carry only the accounts of those only too willing to tell their story--the kids, parents and schools. What I also know is that their version is going to make her out to be a deranged parnaoid lunatic. I know, because I've been there, and all I can say is, being accosted by kids--kids who are supposed to respect their elders, who are supposed to fear consequences, who don't do either--can be so terrifying that you can be driven to become the "deranged lunatic" they accuse you of being.

How the Grinch Stole the Holidays?

"Offensive" and "Christmas" aren't two words I'd expect to hear in the same sentence, with the former referring to the latter, but lately, I seem to be hearing "You can't say 'Christmas,' you might 'offend" someone..." all over the place.

Local talk radio did a whole segment on it the other day, taking calls from people who had heard similar things at work or school, and some of the stories were insane. The most ridiculous involved a school district two towns north of here. A dad called in to say that he had just seen the flyer from his son's school announcing this year's production of "How the Grinch Stole the Holidays."

Let's see...How would that work? Would the Grinch have a bigger sleigh? Two dogs? More time? He only just managed to "steal" Christmas in the original ("offensive") version of the Seuss classic. Remember, he had only just made it to the top of Mt. Krumpet when the sun began to rise on the new day? Indeed it was the sound of the Whos "Whoing" that famous refrain "Da-Who-Do-Ray" that stopped him from dumping the loot into the abyss. What would happen in this version? Would the overstuffed sleigh full of Christmas, Hanukkah AND Kwanza presents automatically tumble over the cliff before Grinchy's heart has time to grow large enough for him to realize the error of his Grinchy ways? Gee, that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

ENOUGH ALREADY! What is so "offensive" about a holiday dedicated to "peace on earth, good will toward men?" Because believe in him as your savior or not, that's what Christ stood for. And the fact that we still know that, and people in this country in particular still strive to follow his teachings (whether they fail miserably from time-to-time isn't the issue, it's the trying that matters) after over 2,004 long years really says something. In fact, in my book, that makes his birthday as worthy of celebration as George Washington's, Abe Lincoln's or Martin Luther King's! What's so "offensive" about a birthday celebration for someone who was--objectively speaking--a pretty amazing man? So amazing in fact, it was he who inspired the other three amazing men I mentioned whose birthday's don't seem to offend anyone!

Who are these "offended" people anyway? How are they harmed by a holiday? How does saying "Merry Christmas" hurt them, threaten them or "offend" them? Why aren't they just as "offended" when someone says "Happy Holidays?" I mean, one of the "Holidays" in question is still Christmas! In fact, THE one that falls on the day we all get off from work. We don't get to stay home on the eight days of Hanukkah. We don't get off from work on Kwanza. The "holiday" that starts the whole commercial orgy we now vaguely refer to as "the season of giving" is CHRISTMAS. Hanukkah historically has nothing to do with presents. Sure, God gave the Macabees the "gift" of eight days of light out of one day's worth of oil (which in turn "gave" them a victory), but that's not quite the same thing as adults bringing gifts to a small child in honor of his birth, an act repeated billions of times over for the past couple of centuries at least.

And I'm sure I'll piss off a few people when I say this, but Kwanza is a made up holiday altogether--an invention to further separate "African Americans" from the country in which they actually live (and the religions most of them actually practics). Let's face it, most African Americans celebrate Christmas, and not just with presents either, but with hours upon hours of full-throttle, gospel-singing, Christ-adoring gusto!

So again I'll ask, who ARE the people soooo offended by the mere mention of a holiday dedicated to love and peace? Why won't they make themselves known to the vast majority of their countrymen who AREN'T offended? Why do they insist on imposing their insidious will on us?

I'm Jewish and I'm married to a Catholic. I guess I should be offended every day and night, right? Add to that the fact that I have a big fat CHRISTMAS tree in the middle of my living room and a nativity scene on my console table and you have the makings of a lawsuit (or grounds for divorce) I suppose.

PUHLEEZE. First of all, the tree is a pagan symbol of the winter solstice celebration, which just so happens to coincide with Christmas (sort of). It in itself has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. Same with the wreath, Santa Claus, the elves, etc... Yet still I've heard about people who've refused to do business in stores that display wreaths because they are "offended" at the "exclusionary nature" of such a symbol. "Exclusionary?" It's some branches with a bow on it, how insecure do you have to be to feel threatened by that?

Then there's the dreaded Christmas Carol. Has there ever been a more "offensive" form of music? Egads! Another caller to the radio, a DJ and party planner, told the story of a company's principal who approached him with a "Do Not Play List" that inclued "Silent Night" and "Angels We Have Heard on High." When asked if the instrumental versions were OK, the principle replied (true story remember) "No. Everyone knows the words to those songs, and people might start singing to themselves, and next thing you know, they might start singing out loud."

Oh no! What next? Would singing lead to people spontaneously marching like zombies to the nearest church? Give me a break. If everyone knows the words, and might be moved to singing on their own, why would they be offended? Are we to believe they would be offended by their own off-key singing? What do you bet the same "Do Not Play" list did not included anything by Nelly, M&M, or anything else in the vast (and objectively offensive) catalogue of gangsta rap and hip-hop music?

I know I keep asking the same not-so-rhetorical question, but seriously, who ARE these people? Who scared the Mayor of Somerville MA into apologizing for "accidentally" referring to an upcoming city party as the "Christmas Party?" Funny, none of them managed to intimidate the Marblehead Chamber of Commerce into changing the same of their annual "Christmas Walk." What gives?

Am I the only person who thinks this is NUTS?

If it's just a few people behind this, a "minority" of people, why can't I--a member of what I assume is a majority--get some of the crap I find offensive censored?
Why can't I get total strangers to stop talking at the top of their lungs on cell phones in public places? Why can't I intimidate the producers (and sponsors) of "Desperate Housewives" into taking that piece of crap show off the air, or at least renaming it "Shallow Bitches With Too Much Time On Their Hands?" Who do I talk to about the check-out clerks who think nothing of complaining about their job, their customers and how much they can't wait to get the "hell out of here" while I'm paying for an item their store sells?
Why can't I be offended by the people who are offended by a wooden baby Jesus or an evergreen covered with lights in their town square?

Just a few of the many questions I have in this life that I'm sure will go unanswered!

Where's Superman and his X-Ray vision when you need him?

At least I'm assuming that Clark Kent's alter-ego had powers sufficient to conquer this problem. (Hat tip to Lee for the link.

Oddly Enough - Reuters UK
Fat Americans overwhelm imaging machines

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Obese Americans are overwhelming medical imaging machines that now have a hard time peering inside their bodies, doctors have reported.

"Hospital radiology departments are increasingly unable to adequately image and assess obese patients because of the limitations in current radiology equipment," said Raul Uppot, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Equipment makers "need to think about design changes and technological advancements to obtain quality imaging in larger patients," he added.

How very predictable that a doctor from Massachusetts (the "Waaaah! I'm a victim! Someone else solve my problems, they're not MY fault..." capitol of the world East Coast) would put the onus for solving this problem on the manufacturers of the machines and not on the fat people themselves.

Just wait. The makers of the machines will strengthen them, and then we'll find out in ten years that the extra radiation absorbed by the fatties caused all sorts of cell mutations, leading to all sorts of cancers (because after all, fat is notoriously good at holding onto all manner of toxins), and then the poor bastards who make the x-ray equipment will be blamed sued, and we know what happens next, right? The number of companies that will bother to make x-ray equipment will dwindle to a couple, and they won't necessarily be the best ones, just the ones that are either international and not subject to our laws (i.e., not employers of Americans either--as it is, the world's best x-ray equipment is made in Israel) or those with deep enough pockets to handle the settlements.

When will people just wake the hell up and realize that being obese is not only bad for you, it can't possibly always be someone else's fault. The people at McDonalds doesn't force feed its customers Big Macs, your "genes" don't make people fat, they make them predisposed to getting fat if they eat too many calories, and I highly doubt that 60% of the total population can legitimately claim "bad genes" as an excuse for their tubbiness.

Am I bigotted against fat people? Well, I suppose you could call me bigotted against those who blame their condition on everything and everyone other than themselves. Are there cultural influences nudging us in the direction of nasty-ass high-calorie hyper-processed foods? Sure, but there are also those pushing us towards anorexia, so what's your point? The same culture that makes people want to starve themselves to death can't possibly be simultaneoulsy blamed for our weight woes. At some point we have to step away from the cake, put down the cola and beer and kick our own asses into shape.

A reason to love tolerate the French?

Vinny pointed me to this article about promising results in a French AIDS vaccine study.

French researchers reported Sunday that an AIDS vaccine designed to treat the disease, rather than prevent it, has scored an initial success by suppressing the virus for up to a year among a small group of patients who tried it.

Although the technique is cumbersome and costly, the experiment published in an online version of the British journal Nature Medicine is being touted as "the first demonstration of an efficient therapeutic vaccine against AIDS."

The vaccine was tested in Brazil on 18 volunteers who were already infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but who were not yet taking any antiviral drugs. After four months, the level of HIV in their bloodstreams had been reduced an average of 80 percent.

By the end of one year, eight patients in the group had maintained a 90 percent reduction in virus particles in their bloodstream. Four of those patients had virus levels so low that they were comparable to so-called "long- term non-progressors," a rare cohort of people infected with HIV who never seem to get sick.

Wow. It's almost enough to make me NOT want to spit on a frenchman!

Seriously though, kinda makes that set of power tools I've been wanting for Christmas seem sort of lame. I'll take an effective AIDS vaccine instead. My daugther being able to live without the spectre of that awful disease as she embarks on her life as a sexually active woman (waaaay off in the distant future, preferably after marriage at an appropriately mature age and after careful reflection, but either way, it's still a threat) would be a much better gift.

Smaht or Retahded?

Found a quiz entitled"Not All Americans are Stupid" through Lee's site, and wouldn't you know it, I scored 18 out of 20 correct. The "profile" attached to my results read thus:

You have an impressive understanding of the world for an American. It is likely that you feel intellectually isolated in your home country, and often have to hide your opinions from others. Deep down, you realise that your country is the single biggest threat to world peace in modern times, but you have not yet summoned up the courage to emigrate.

Well, they're right about one thing: I do feel intellectually isolated. I live in Massachusetts. I'm surrounded by liberals. Nuff said.

Liberal Lead Foot

Apparently the way the some on the left exercise their "freedom of expression" is by turning human beings into speed-bumps!

(CNN) -- Police in Sarasota, Florida, arrested a man accused of trying to run down Rep. Katherine Harris and her supporters with a car Tuesday, a police spokesman said.

A silver Cadillac "swerved off the road and drove up the sidewalk" heading "straight towards Ms. Harris," according to the police arrest report.

"Harris stated that she was afraid for her life," according to the police report, "and could not move as the vehicle approached her."

No one was injured in the alleged incident.

It happened as Harris and her supporters were campaigning in Sarasota, her spokeswoman said Wednesday.

A witness to the incident saw part of the vehicle tag before the car left the scene, according to the report. Police matched the tag to a car registered to Barry Seltzer, 46, of Sarasota.

After police tried to contact Seltzer, he came to to the Sarasota Police station where, according to a police report, he admitted trying to "intimidate" a group of Harris supporters.

"I was exercising my political expression," Seltzer told police, according to the report.

Tell me again how "tolerant" you "liberals" are? I keep forgetting...

Debate reaction on 24-hour delay

Hey, I tried. I tried to calm down. I delayed my written reaction to last night's fiasco in the vain hope that it would make what I'd have to say sound more thoughtful than frustrated, more irritated than irate, but alas, I fear I have failed. I've tried writing this post in draft form half a dozen times, and I keep going OFF on either Kerry or Bush's handlers (or even Bush himself), and so I'm finally going to simply re-print the e-mail I sent to my Dad (who declared he had "more important" things to watch last night, namely the Yankees securing their spot in the post-season) after he sent me this piece of crap in a futile attempt to talk me off the virtual ledge. He was trying to reassure me that not everyone agreed that Kerry won this first round.

Here was my response. I feel the same now as I did 24 hours ago:

That was a dumb article. It was made up of opinions cast by the partisans who were fired-up enough to write into CNN.com right away. The people who matter, the so-called "swing-voters" (whoever they are) were looking to hear something NEW, from either guy. Now I grant you, with Kerry that can happen any minute, he never says the same thing twice, but the swing-voter hasn't been paying all that much attention until now. All Kerry had to do was say a bunch of stuff that simply hasn't come up much during the campaign at all, and all Bush needed to do was talk about what he might do differently (keeping his values and overall strateg'ery the same, ha ha) in the future.

Kerry won on this score because he simply brought up a bunch of specific (albeit INCORRECT) "facts" about the issues (he got N. Korea and our policy there totally ass-backwards, he made it sound like he'd voted FOR body armor and armored humvees, when in fact he's consistently voted AGAINST funding such things, and he made it look like the President has gutted first-responders and intelligence, when in fact Kerry voted numerous times to do exactly that and the President has increased funding of BOTH by a wide margin over his predecessor). People won't go looking up Kerry's record. Remember, he "served in Vietnam," that's all he's talked about. His decades in the Senate? A mirage I suppose...A figment of our imagination, nothing we need trouble our puny brains with I guess!

I like Bush, I will vote for him, and yet I still thought he came off stubborn, vague and repetitive in this debate. I could have done better, MUCH better, and that's pathetic. Having said that, however, being President is NOT about debate, it's about decisiveness. Being a legislator is about debate. Someone, ANYONE, needs to make this point about Kerry. He's not going to get "alliances" to back us by debating or arguing with them, and "persuasion" doesn't work anymore in this world of "Pay me, kill me or get of of my way" diplomacy. Kerry lives in a long-dead era that only existed in his imagination--an era in which heavily starched gentlemen in spats and pinstripes "discussed" foreign policy decisions (i.e., "What ever should we do with those silly WOGs anyway?") over tea and crumpets (or cafe and croissants, or kaffe and semmeln). Someone needs to call him on it. Bush missed a golden opportunity to do that, not just once, but several times. I would have:
1) Called out Kerry's dissing of Alawi minutes after the poor bastard finished his speech to the join session
2) Called out BY NAME the list of nations currently assisting us with troops and financial backing
3) Reminded the viewing audience (and Kerry himself apparently) about the oil-for-food scandal, the UN inaction in Rwanda and Sudan, and pointed back at Kerry to highlight that these are the people Kerry wants us to run to for help
4) Reminded the viewing audience (and Kerry himself) that France and Germany stated quite clearly not five days ago that they would not--under ANY circumstances--commit troops to Iraq, regardless (and this is the key language) of who was President
5) Emphasized 9/11 more and the fact that operating on the defensive is what we WERE doing on 9/10 and look how well THAT worked out for us; I would further have added that even the 9/11 commission cited that more fire-fighters and first responders weren't the issue, it was BETTER INTELLIGENCE, something Kerry voted numerous times to GUT during his Senate tenure (and prior to that fateful day)
6) Emphasized that our biggest problem in the world today is not that France and Germany don't like us--they aren't blowing up our buildings--it's that crazy lunatic terrorists want to kill us for no reason other than the fact that we exist. I would have cited the numerous examples of MUSLIM countries that are suffering from attacks (Turkey, who didn't help us in Iraq would be top-o-the-list), and I would have stressed that Zarquawi went to IRAQ for medical treatment when he was wounded in Afghanistan while Saddam was in power and with Saddam's blessing.
7) Kerry claimed we "outsourced" the hunt for OBL, I'd stress that we're doing this for DIPLOMATIC reasons because the "nuances" of the political situation "on the ground" in Pakistan and Afghanistan are such that we MUST work with the warlords and the border cheiftans or we WILL FAIL in the entire mission, never mind finding Bin Laden. For a guy who talks about diplomacy, he sure doesn't get how it's' done in REAL life.
8) By the same token, I'd remind him that we backed off in Fallujah because the SOVEREIGN STATE OF IRAQ asked us to, and we--being a nation of our word (goes to the whole "credibility" issue of which Kerry is so fond of speaking)--don't turn over sovereignty and then willy-nilly destroy a whole city without at least attempting to allow the new government to find another solution. Would I have done it that way? No, but in the world of Kerry, if he means what he says, we did it right! (snicker snicker)
9) Again, speaking of diplomacy, where does Kerry get off slamming Afghanistan the way he did? He acted as thought the place is one big opium den full of killers, still, when the GOVERNMENT there is an ally of ours at this point, one we sorely need in the war on terror.
10) He wants to bring our soldiers home in one piece? I wish someone had asked him what he thinks about the policy of paying bribes to kidnappers in Iraq. I wish someone would have asked him how he feels about supposed "allies" in the war on terror who do that, who willingly transfer funds to the bank accounts of those who'd kill Americans in exchange for the lives of their own citizens? I know how I feel about it, and how the President probably feels about it, but Kerry would probably say it's a good idea--even though the money will be used to buy weapons to kill more of OUR SOLDIERS. Kerry's answer? "I'll sprinkle my magic fairy dust on Jacques Chirac, and he'll send French soldiers to die alongside ours, that will make it ALL BETTER!"

AAARGH!

And people think Karl Rove is manipulating Bush? Or Cheney? Spare me. Both of them were home biting holes in their wrists wishing it were all a bad dream, I assure you. The worst part is that this was Bush's to lose! This is HIS AREA. Sure, we all know Kerry is as soft as dogshit on domestic issues--he's gonna tax us all into oblivion if he's elected, and will try to force some hideous national healthcare system down Congress's throat (which will waste millions in taxpayer dollars and accomplish nothing but a stalemate that he will call "obstructionism"), but Bush? Oh GOD. Even I think the guy has done nothing much domestically except No-Child-Left-Behind. They better rehearse him better for that one! They better remind Bush that NCLB was Ted Kennedy's idea, and had wide bipartisan support. They also better remind him that NCLB is NOT underfunded, as Kerry claims, but that schools don't all want to comply and therefore aren't eligible (accountability man, it's a bitch!)

They better also remind him that the whole gay marriage thing is a dead horse. It didn't pass, it's not going to pass, and it shouldn't pass in the future (and that's coming from someone who thinks gay marriage IS an abomination--socially, not religiously). He can say he supported it, past tense, but now that it's over, LET IT GO GEORGE! He should simply say it's been put to the states in the houses of Congress, they said "no thank you," nuff said! The Federal Government has spoken it's piece, it will have nothing further to do with it, game over. Of course he won't say that. He'll say, instead (no doubt) that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and he'll be the laughing stock every media outlet on the planet. In fact, I think he should go so far as to say "You know where I stand on this issue and why, but even the President doesn't always get what he wants (argues against the perception of the almighty Bush 'taking-over-the-world' conspiracy).

In short, if I had to grade these two, here's how I would grade:

Body language, manner, diction:
Bush = C-
Kerry = B+

Content, substance, honesty
Bush B+
Kerry D-

"Likability"
Bush C
Kerry C

So I guess if you average those out, you get a tie, but voters won't be averaging. They'll take their hot-button issue (and Kerry hit them all) and fixate on it and however Bush answered is how they'll think of him, which is too bad.

Bush let himself get rattled, as only Kerry knows how to rattle a guy, and it sucks. I feel for him, I really do.

But I feel for us more if Bush loses in a few weeks and we get stuck with a leader who won with nothing more between his ears than made-up memories of the only war we ever lost, a poufy hairdo and a bottle tan.

Who says "thank-you" to a murderer?

As of this writing, one hostage remains in Al-Zarquawi's evil clutches, begging for his life. Watching the video footage of him doing so was gut-wrenchingly difficult. My heart truly does go out to him and his family, and I pray that someone will ruthlessly avenge what I fear will soon be his death.

HOWEVER, having said all that, I have to ask:

WHAT THE FUCK WERE THESE PEOPLE THINKING?
"The Bigley family released a televised statement Wednesday to the kidnappers in response to the video.

It was read by Bigley's son, Craig, and he was joined by Bigley's oldest and youngest brother, Stan and Phil Bigley.

"We have seen and heard Ken's pleas. Thank you for letting Ken make his appeal," Craig Bigley said.

"All of the family are very grateful to you for his message. They wish you to say to Ken that they love him dearly and are waiting for him to come home soon.

"We have heard what you say and want to continue to listen to you. You have proved to the world that you are committed and determined. Be merciful as we know you can be.

"Release Ken back to his wife and family. We ask you, as a family, to be all merciful."

OK. Let's get a few things straight:

1. There are no female prisoners in Iraqi prisons (unless you count Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax, and anyone who wants them let loose on the world needs to check their priorities in a hurry)


2. Zarquawi doesn't really care about Iraqi prisoners, he's not Iraqi. If he cared about Iraqis, he'd be feeding this engineer tea and crumpets, shaking his hand and thanking him for coming to Iraq to help the beleaguered Iraqi people. The very fact that these monsters would target someone trying to HELP Iraqis is evidence of their total lack of concern for Iraq the nation and its people


3. What part of "trying to foment civil war" do you not understand? The same guy holding your loved one is working hard to prevent elections from happening, and wants to see Iraq in smoking ruins


4. Your statement says that you see that these people are "determined." Now if that's not the biggest euphemism I've ever heard, I don't know what is! "Determined?" Give me a break! Lance Armstrong was determined, these assholes are obsessed, and obsessed people don't listen to reason. Obsessed people--if their obsession drives them to do (shall we say) "unhealthy" things--are by definition NUTJOBS!


5. By begging in this pathetic manner, you are only legitimizing the very capture (and ultimate murder I believe) you loathe and detest so much. These killers are not reluctant criminals backed into a corner. They aren't going to suddenly "feel bad" or see the error of their ways. They aren't going to believe there's some "way out" for them if they cooperate! They see only the panic in your eyes, hear only the terror in your voice, and they get off on it the way Howard Stern gets off on lesbian sex!


6. The begging, I'm sorry to say, won't work. Instead, it will only encourage them to capture and kill someone else's loved one tomorrow, just so they can hear (and laugh at) the pleading of another helpless terrorized family. That's why they call it TERROR-ISM, or didn't you know?

I don't mean to be cruel, really I don't, but COME ON! "Thank you" for letting the poor guy speak?

Let me go on the record right here and now, for all of my readers and family to know: If I ever end up in a situation like the one this man is in, I hope and pray fervently that anyone who has access to a microphone or camera on my behalf would tell the filthy motherfuckers who are holding me exactly where they can stick their simitar. I hope they coldly stare down the camera and tell the bastards that my blood will not be shed in vain, and they will be coming for my killers, no matter how long it takes, and no matter how much it costs. I hope my loved ones stand tall and refuse to show these fuckers how scared they are, if only so my murder will be even slightly less enjoyable for my killers.

That's what we all need to wake up and realize, and SOON. These people don't kill for a "cause." They don't kill to achieve anything other than our deaths, period. Theirs is a cult of death. Every time we pretend otherwise, we give them more power. If we want to defeat them, we first must defeat our own fear, and failing that, we must at least defeat our incessant need to "be the bigger person."

Can you imagine if people behaved like this during WWII? I can hear it now: "Please Mr. Hitler, Moishe is a really good guy, you'd like him, he never did anything to you. You've proven how 'determined' you are...Those cattle cars and ghettos really got that point across...But can't you just show mercy this one time?"

That would have aired, of course, five minutes after the Dan Rather one-on-one interview with the Fuhrer himself no doubt.

"Mercy" is not something that would make these people feel powerful. "Mercy" is for the weak in their world. Murder is what "strong" people do. We'd be wise to see that, even wiser to accept it, and wisest to copy it.

Rather frightening

I don't know about you folks, but I get a chill down my spine thinking about how close we might have come to seeing John Kerry take the White House soley because the media perpetrated a BIG FAT LIE. It's bad enough that most Americans don't think critically about the candidates and the issues without having the broadcast media doing ALL of their thinking for them, right up to and including inventing the facts they're supposed to believe!

And isn't that the problem really? The Democrats (as one caller on Rush's show yesterday pointed out) don't just tell you how to think, they tell you what to think as well, and often times the "what" has little or nothing to do with the facts on the ground. If that kind of M.O. gets voted into high office, you can be sure it will completely take over our lives and this experiment we like to call "democracy" will fail. Oh sure, it will have all the trappings of a democracy aesthetically; We'll still line up to vote, and we'll still take polls, but in the end, the polls will merely be focus groups designed to find out whether the thought police have gotten through to us effectively or not. Whenever they get a result they don't like, they'll just redouble their efforts and beef up their lies, resting assured that we won't bother to verify what they're telling us. And if they are successful for long enough, we won't be able to verify what they're telling us because there will be no place to go to find the "truth" because they will have rewritten it.

In other words, we'll have won the cold war only to recreate the Soviet Union right here at home!

Think I'm paranoid or crazy? Perhaps, perhaps. But think about it. What if "journalists" could run with stories about YOU that weren't true, simply based upon some documents someone who hated you decided to create? What if they could get away with it, without being punished for their crimes of forgery, libel and slander? And what if--having gotten away with it--they did it again, and again, and again to many other people, to the point where no one good decided to run for office. As if it's not bad enough that every candidate's personal life gets put under the microscope, now they'd have to worry about people discovering a past they didn't even live and can't even imagine.

And people think the Patriot Act is scary?

Dan Rather, CBS and Mary Mapes need to be required--by conscience if not by law--to apologize to the President on-air, so we all see them do it. Mary Mapes should lose her job YESTERDAY, and she should be investigated for fraud and knowingly passing off forged Federal documents. Burkett should also be indicted, and he should go to jail. People need to see that this kind of crime is a crime against ALL of us, not just the President. If we can't trust the press to give us accurate information about our would-be leaders, then we might as well look at the Manchurian Candidate as a documentary, it's that simple.

Maybe we're not worth saving?

When I read stories like this, I begin to understand why we have such lousy government. As they say, in Democracies, the people get the government they deserve, not the one they need.

Then again, there are some really amazing Americans too--people with their heads screwed on straight who actually do love this country, work hard, pay taxes, READ and raise their children to do the same.

People like the ones we met yesterday at Chan's Weekend Pundit Blog bash, for example.

Chills down my spine

Did you ever read something written in the past about the future that was so prescient it gave you chills? Consider the book my Dad and I found while going through old boxes yesterday. It's called "How Democracies Perish" by (of all people) a Frenchman named Jean Francois Revel, and it was published exactly 20 years ago in 1984. The book is out of print, but a quick search of Amazon.com shows you can find a copy used for a mere seventy-five cents. Not a high price to pay for a must-read.

Substitute the word "Islamofacism" for "Communism" and I think you'll quickly see why my blood suddenly ran cold simply reading the dust-jaket:

At a time when many pressures push for accommodations with communism, Revel's new books says:

• Democracy is not structured to defend itself against enemies seeking its annihilation


• Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it.


• Not only do the democracies today award themselves sins they have not committed, they have formed the habit of judging themselves as defendants who are automatically guilty.


• We deliberately adopt policies most favorable to the Russians.


• Detente was not a dream, it was a trap.


• The Soviet Union's economic exploitation of Western Europe is well under way. Given the balance of power, Western Europe no longer dares say no, and vents its irritation at its cowardice on the United States.


• The target of all the pacifist waves that rock the West...has always been democracy as such.


• We have become so accustomed to surrender that it is now the norm..."

After I read these lines, I looked up "Ronald Reagan" in the index. I wasn't sure he'd get much mention because the book was only published at the end of his first term in office, but then again, Reagan came into office preaching about the evils of communism, so there had to be some mention of him.

Sure enough, there were not one, but ten references to Reagan, the first of which made me laugh out loud:

Naturally, in foreign policy one must take the rival country's viewpoint so as to try and understand its policy and anticipate its future moves. But this is exactly what the West does not do. Instead, we think what the U.S.S.R. wants us to think--for example, that economic sanctions would increase Soviet intransigence and would turn out badly for us. What we do is accept the principle of nonreciprocity or concessions as a legitimate rule. We see ourselves as aggressors when we react, if only verbally, to Soviet aggression.

Again, be sure to substitute "Islamofacists" for "Russians" or "Soviets" and you'll quickly see how frighteningly little we have learned in the past two decades. It's truly terrifying to realize that children have been born and have reached adulthood since Revel wrote these words, and yet they are more true today than ever before.

But wait, there's more...

For example, a Reaganite congressman from Iowa said in January 1982 that the administration had alienated the young with its "hard-line foreign policy." That young Americas oppose even a remote possibility of reviving the draft is only human. But it is astonishing to hear talk of a "hard-line policy" when they are only being asked to register for a call-up that will probably never come, with nothing said about a peacetime draft. What, then, would a "soft line" be?

And if this isn't starting to sound familiar enough, how about Revel's advice to this and other potential leaders of the free world:

...I must insist that foreign and defense policies must be based on worst-case hypotheses that anticipate the least favorable developments for ourselves. We are not covered unless we do this. If a man comes at you in the street holidng a gun in each hand, it's one chance in a million that he's just a guy from a shooting gallery taking his stock back to the fairgrounds. It would certainly be reckless to take that as your only working hypothesis. [Emphasis mine]

I could go on, but you get the point. We were warned about our passivity. We were warned not to be so self-loathing, and we didn't listen. Reagan listened, shit, he literally saved us from the specific threat of communist totalitarianism that inspired Revel to write twenty years ago, but who's listening today? Who even remembers the Soviet threat to our way of life, much less sees it as remotely analagous to what we face from islamism today? Most importantly, who remembers and understands the crucial differences that make the two situations not analagous? Of course I'm talking about the fact that--at their core--the Soviets were still essentially "Western" in their culture, if nothing else. They were not fanatics, not devoted to anything other than remaining in power in this world, never mind seeking redemption in the next! The enemy we face today is far more dangerous, and not just because it can't be clearly identified on a map. Islamofasism is more dangerous than communism because its followers--those who seek to annihilate us--aren't just looking to change our system of government or economy, they aren't just looking for political advantage or military superiority, nor are they motivated by paranoia. No, our current enemy wants us dead, pure and simple. They aren't "afraid" of us, they HATE us, and that's a fundamental difference we'd be wise to accept in a hurry. The Soviets--for all their flaws--didn't "hate" us per se, they just wanted to best us, control us, change us. Islamofascists? I'm not sure they even see us as human beings. In short, the comparison falls apart when you realize that today's totalitarian enemy at our gates is one we cannot possibly understand on any level. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Revel himself would be the first to warn us against drawing too close a comparison lest we be lured into a false sense that we can once again deter or destroy our foes simply by maintaining a strong defense. Given his comments above about worst-case hypotheses, I'm sure he'd advocate the use of preemptive force against the real-life equivalent of the man in the street with a gun in each hand (anyone else envision Saddam while reading those lines, or was it just me?).

The point is:
- There's at least one Frenchman who has a clue (and a spine)
- We've been here before, and only narrowly escaped before, and only because we had a leader with balls enough to tell the passive amongst us to--in the immortal words of Theresa Heinz-Kerry--"Shove it"
- We'd do well to remember our history lest we be doomed--not to repeat it necessarily, that wouldn't be so bad apparently--but simply to be doomed, period.

McDonalds has gone nuts

Vinny has identified the latest item on the "reasons the world would be better without lawyers" list.

Apparently, Mickey-D's is offering a new fruit and walnut salad, but be careful if you order it...You might miss the fine-print warning that it (gasp) "contains nuts!"

Yes folks. Once again, people who had no business going to barber school managed to get through law school and pass the bar just in time to save us from possible doom by overstating the obvious.

What's next? Warnings on produce that say "Caution: This fruit was grown on land that was once a toilet for a passing herd of bison?"

Kerry reinvents the abortion debate

As usual, Lileks is brilliant. Not only does he bring this issue to my attention when I'd otherwise missed it, he persuasively argues that Kerry is even more of an asshole than I'd previously thought, WITHOUT EVEN TRYING.

Here's the link,, but here's the teaser:

It has to do with something I heard Kerry say on the radio last Friday, a snippet from a speech made a few months ago. He said something that seemed to conflate two different issues:

"Abortion should be rare, but it should be safe and legal -- and the government should stay out of the bedrooms of America," he said to cheers and applause.

Abortion takes place in the bedroom?

No; conception takes place in the bedroom. (Usually.) Iím all for keeping government out of the bedroom; sodomy laws are preposterous, just as the laws against contraceptives were preposterous. But the ìgovernment out of the bedrooms of Americaî line applies to consenting activity between adults; the matter of abortion revolves around the question of a third party ñ what rights the fetus has, whether it is a party with rights at all, etc. The standard line about governmental interference has previously been phrased as a matter of medical privacy, e.g., the state should stay out of the doctorís office. Or itís a matter of personal real estate: keep your laws out of my uterus, as the bumpersticker has it. But Iíve never heard the bedroom referenced in the abortion debate. Why?

Bad speechwriting ñ or an attempt to blur the issue, and make reproductive choice part and parcel of sexual freedom? In other words, are we now to believe that the decision not to use contraceptives automatically overrides any ethical questions that later arise from that action? ìIt was my choice to risk pregnancy, therefore I have total control over the results of that choice.î Seems a shaky argument to me; itís like saying ìI chose not to demand that my passenger wear a seatbelt, so now that heís in a coma after the accident I caused, I alone have the right to say that life support should be withdrawn.î

Go read the rest, now.

Should we let them win too?

It's funny that of all the bad news I've heard or seen since Nick Berg's murder, this story about how our athletes have been "advised" to "tone down" their "exuberance" at this summer's' Olympic games pisses me off the most.

ìWe are not the favourite kid in the room as a country,î said Bill Martin, the president of theÝUnited States Olympic Committee. ìWe are sensitive to the issue of flaunting and jingoism in its raw sense. This is going to be a tough Games for us as a country.î

In recent years the sight of U.S. track and field stars strutting around Olympic stadiums draped in the stars and stripes has become as much a part of the Games as the five rings and the flame.

WTF?!

Proudly displaying the colors of your nation is "jingoism?" Since when?

"Strutting?" Isn't that something ALL athletes do after they win a race, particularly in track and field events? Isn't it just another form of WALKING with a discernable spring in your step?

ìWe are now discussing proper conduct at the Games,î said Darryl Seibel, a spokesman for the USOC. ìGiven the current international climate, we want to make sure our athletes are well advised and know what they might face inÝAthens.

ìThat doesnít mean they should not celebrate when they win, or wave the flag. But what it does mean is that they should act appropriately given the international situation.î

"Appropriately given the international situation???" What the hell does THAT mean? Why don't they just say what they really mean?
"We're really upset that non-Americans don't like us very much and we wish they liked us more, so let's go out of our way to show how really very sorry we are that we ARE Americans."

After all, when have American Olympians ever held back on their "exuberance" upon winning? Why was it ok for us to preen and "strutt" when we were the "favourite" kid on the block, but now that we're not, we can't? Since when did other people's feelings about us become our number one concern?

What if the so-called "international community" decided that our winning itself was "arrogant?" What if they thought it was just plain rude of us to be so darn good at track and field? Should we apologize for having enough money and leisure time to field such a good team? Should we feel guilty for not sucking as much as some of the other teams too?

But what really set my hair on fire were comments by Mike Moran on Linda Vester's show today saying that the U.S. athletes will be carrying flags from the country or countries representing their "ethnic" origin.

Again...WTF???

Good thing I'm not an Olympic athlete! I'd have to carry at a minimum the Russian and German flags, and I'd be tempted to carry an Israeli flag because ethnically I'm Jewish, no? I mean, I'm not "racially" Jewish (it's not a race), and people keep telling me it's "not just a religion," so then what would I do? Carry the Israeli flag I suppose. But why not just paint a big red bullseye on my ass while I'm at it? If you think the American flag makes someone a target, try the Israeli flag! Yet I bet they'll be flying their colors with pride!

And might this plan backfire? Why not just carry a banner that says:
Our ancestors thought your countries sucked enough to LEAVE!

Might that hurt their wittle feewings too? Why not just march in burning the American flag? Why not have someone really popular like Bono right a new National Anthem entitled "America, bloody America?"

Is anyone else as royally pissed as I am? Aren't we allowed to be offended by the way the rest of the world talks about US? Shouldn't we--being at the top of the "please oh please give us 'aid'" food chain--be a little more demanding of the rest of the planet when it comes to OUR FEELINGS? Can you imagine if Western Europe had bailed our sorry asses out of total destruction, not once, but twice (wait, if you count the Cold War, that would be THREE times) and we sat around whining and comparing them to the blood-thirsty vermin who tried to enslave us and from whom they rescued us in the first place?

Oh wait, I can imagine it because to this day, France refuses to let us forget that they came to our aid in the Revolution! We're supposed to get down on bended knee and kiss their unwashed feet, but a scant sixty years after we liberated Paris and they feel perfectly free to selectively forget that WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS?!

Which is exactly why I sure as hell hope that no Jewish athlete marches in holding a German or Russian flag, even if, like me, their ancestors hailed from those countries. I hope instead they wear t-shirts saying "If not for America, I'd never have been born because your ancestors would have MURDERED mine!"

Enough is enough people! There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING we can do to change the way other people in other countries feel about us. Didn't Mike Moran's parents ever teach him that? Did they pat him on the back and send him to school with the message "Go ahead, give the schoolyard bully your lunch and he'll like you"?

If he had been female, would they have said "Go ahead and sleep with him, it will definitely make him like you better"?

Why can't supposedly intelligent, rational people get it through their thick skulls that these situations ARE analogous. You can't MAKE people feel anything, period. If they choose to hate you, that's how it's gonna be until they choose not to anymore, and most people who choose dislike or hatred--as I've said before--are pretty stubborn about admitting they were wrong or have changed their mind on that score.

Still think there's anything we could do to win over the audience at the Olympics--beyond just showing up and doing our very best to BE OURSELVES? Witness Nick Berg's father. The guy--a die-hard anti-war activist--sees and hears his son's murder at the hands of people other than George Bush, and yet he still blames Bush for the killing! Here is a guy who did everything a person could do to avoid pissing off terrorists--he opposed the war, signed petitions and letters accordingly, donated money and time to stop it, and continues to this day to be a mouthpiece against the U.S. government--and yet the terrorists STILL singled out his son for murder! They didn't figure out who Nick was and say "Oh, you're the guy whose Dad hates the same guy we hate! Cool, OK, you get to live. Go tell the old-man to keep up the good work!"

No way! They said the equivalent of "we don't give a donkey'ss ass what your father thinks of Bush or this war, you are American, and a Jew, and therefore you must die."

I know what you're thinking:
"Deb, only you could find a link between the Olympics and Nick Berg's murder!"

Well, yeah, leave it to me to see irony in everything. It's just too hard to ignore in this instance. If Nick's murder taught us anything, it's that feeble gestures like carrying the right kinds of flags and "toning down" enthusiasm or "exuberance" or whatever you want to call it are not going to save the athletes from anything an America-hater might want to do to them at the summer games, be it booing OR beheading. I just hope the flags are bulletproof because that's the only way they'll be of any use to anyone.

Let the madness begin

Well folks, we're less than two days away from the end of marriage as we know it. I keep trying to tell myself that there will be some good that will come of this mess. I watch ER, I saw what happened to Kerry Weaver's son when her partner died--the way Sandy's parents just took the little boy away from the only living "parent" he had left simply because she was gay and had no inherent right to keep him--it was gut-wrenchingly sad to watch.

It's just that the analytical side of me wonders why someone smart enough to become a doctor, and someone with an inherently dangerous job, didn't seek legal counsel BEFORE visiting the sperm bank! Why didn't Sandy have a proper will, granting Kerry sole guardianship of Henry in the event of her death, especially in view of the fact that her parents never supported her lifestyle or her choice of partner?

I am sympathetic to people in this situation (to the kids in particular), but I'm also a bit astonished at their irresponsibility. Why should the rest of us be forced to accept a sea change to our culture because they are lousy planners? You can't tell me they couldn't afford to get a will either. If you can afford a child, you can afford a will. We had ours done for $150. That may not be pocket change, but it's not a king's ransom either.

What I'm rambling on about here is that on Sunday, so-called "same sex" marriages will happen for the first time here in Massachusetts. Shows like "ER" went so far as to kill-off a major character to make the point that this is a good thing, but as hard as they tried to manipulate my emotions, and as nearly as they succeeded, they could not convince me. I think it's a bad thing, and I'll tell you why:

• By removing morality from the equation and saying that marriage is about "equal access" under the law to rights and privileges, all logical and legal arguments against bigamy, polygamy and incest have been removed. You can try to argue that these will remain illegal on moral grounds, but you will fail


• "Same sex" means just that, SAME SEX. It does not mean "two gay people who love each other." Legally, there is nothing to stop two heterosexual people of the same gender from "marrying" each other in order to receive tax, inheritance or health benefits. I can easily see numerous logical applications wherein such an arrangement might make sense (two spinsters or old bachelors, a parent and child who want to avoid death taxes, siblings who want to share health benefits, etc...). Since consumation is out of the equation, it's nobody's business what the exact "relationship" of the two people is at all, and with no-fault divorce, it would be pretty easy to terminate such an arragement should one or both parties see fit in the future. I guarantee you people will begin doing this almost immediately, if only to prove the point. If and when they are denied, they will sue, and they will win. This is precisely how the bigamy and polygamy and incest laws will be overturned because people who want these arrangements (no doubt advised by an attorney to do so) will run to the courthouse with their lawsuit briefs in hand when they arrive.


• Same-sex couples of all kinds will lie about their residency, especially since the Massachusetts officials have already declared that they will not seek "proof" of residency, but will simply take the applicants' word as bond. Well, at least they'll ask them to LIE I guess, but I doubt perjuring themselves in this manner will hurt them much when they file their lawsuits against the states in which they actually live. They'll challenge the defense of marriage act, and their cases will make it up the food chain to the SCOTUS, and if the composition remains what it is now, or (perish the thought) Kerry gets into office and makes some appointments, they will likely turn their backs on the same legislation that made it impossible for slave owners to own slaves in northern or newly formed states. How ironic this will be coming from liberals! A win for the plaintiffs in such lawsuits will mean that 4 judges in Massachusetts decided what marriage should look like for the entire nation. That, my friends, is judicial tyranny of a sort that should scare the crap out of all of us.


• Given that no spouse can testify against his or her spouse--even voluntarily--members of crime syndicates and families will begin marrying each other. As someone pointed out on the radio today, it's too bad Whitey Bulger can't reappear long enough to marry Flemmi--then the two would be unable to testify against each other, and would end up untouchable by the prosecution. If polygamy becomes legal (which it will), it won't matter that a mobster already has a wife. All he needs to do is get all the key witnesses or co-conspirators to marry him, and they are untouchable, literally!


• Couples who were receiving insurance benefits under a partner's policy in areas that had "domestic partnership" benefits will instantly lose their benefits as companies realize they no longer need to offer such things to compensate for the "unfairness" of covering only heterosexual married couples. This means that heterosexual and homosexual people will find themselves suddenly without health insurance unless they get married right away, which they may not want to do. Many will go ahead and do it though, figuring that a divorce later will be less bad than lack of coverage now, and if polygamy becomes allowable, and all are consenting later, divorce may not even be necessary!

Am I the only person who finds all of this completely INSANE?

Go ahead and argue that I'm nuts. Argue that bigamy and polygamy can't be legalized because, well, THOSE THINGS are immoral. Really? On what grounds? If you remove sex from the equation, and you remove religion from the equation, what defines the morality in the institution of marriage? The state? How? You simply cannot argue that the state cannot use religion or "morality" to make something you dislike illegal if you've already forbidden them from using the same argument to make that which you LIKE illegal.

Thanks to the justices in this case, killing isn't illegal because it's "immoral," it's illegal because it deprives a person of life, liberty, etc... What we've done to ourselves is create a society in which any behavior can be deemed "legal" simply because no one can find any reason for it not to be that isn't based on morality or religion!

Are there iniquities between gay and heterosexual couples that should be remedied? Yes, sure, fine, I can agree to that. I don't want to see families torn apart or loved ones denied access to health and inheritance benefits, but if these are really the core issues, they can be remedied in other ways. Making "marriage" available to everyone, regardless of sex, and justified on the grounds that morality isn't relevant is overreaching, and it's overkill.

It is simply impossible to logically argue that morality can and should define law SOMETIMES, but not when it negatively affects YOU or people you like. That's not how the law works. Or, I should say, that's not how the law is supposed to work. The Massachusetts Supreme Court obviously had other ideas.

Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

That's what I have to say about the Friends "finale!"

I am so damn sick of these pampered stars who get paid way too much for us to be falling all over them in adoration. Wanna know why they'll be crying tonight? Because they'll never again have a job so easy that pays so much, that's why. One million per episode? Give me a break.

Then again, it's not the money they make that I find so troubling. I'm a capitalist pig at heart, so I don't begrudge people just because they're rich. What makes my skin crawl is that the show is so ridiculously unrealistic--to the point of being offensive--and yet millions of young Americans will use it as a yardstick against which to measure their own success as twenty, and eventually, thirty-somethings.

Let's start with my biggest pet-peeve: The way the show handles children. Whether it's the carrying, birthing or rearing of kids, this show has found a way to sugar-coat the process. Pregnancy isn't about being exhausted, nauseated and fat, it's about all the cute clothes you can wear and how you can become the center of attention! Giving birth isn't about agonizing pain that lasts for hours, hideously large needles, IV drips, not being able to eat or drink for days on end, possible surgery, bleeding all over the place, tearing in the nether-regions of your body and bursting blood vessels in your eyeballs from pushing so hard. Oh no, it's a bonding opportunity for you and your pals, all of whom are mysteriously allowed in your delivery room at the same time.

Once the baby is born--whether it's Phoebe's triplets or Rachel's Emma--it's' back to life-as-usual right away. There's no baby-blues, no sagging, flabby parts, just "Pop! Oh look, it's a baby, let's go have a Latte!"

But what's really disgusting--bad enough to make me yell and throw things at the television--is the way "Friends" portrays parenting. Does Ross ever see his son? Does he give him a passing thought when he's not with him? Oh sure, we hear about him every once in a while when it serves Ross well to play the "Daddy" card, but do we actually see him being one? The kid is growing up with two mommies for Chrissake, doesn't he feel it's important to be a part of the kid's life on a regular basis? Is he really completely consumed with his own love life, dinosaurs and Rachel, Rachel, Rachel?

Speaking of whom...Rachel has no legal right to take Emma out of the country to France or anywhere else for that matter, not without Ross's consent that is. But does the show deal with that? Do they even mention it? Nope. My guess is the show's creators want to send the message that it's her "CHOICE" to take that child and do whatever she wants with her because she's the "WOMAN."

Gag.

This is my take on Rachel vis a vis Emma: (By the way, it unnerves me no end that more than one person has already asked me if I "copied" her in naming my daughter Emma. The answer is an emphatic NO, the name comes from Austen, not Aniston!)

Rachel gives birth to a baby conceived during a drunken roll-in-the-hay with an ex-boyfriend she has no intention of marrying. Well and good that she had the baby, but having done so, she acts as if nothing has changed in her life. She goes back to work early and full-time, in a high-intensity, competitive, low-paying field like the fashion industry (I speak from experience on this one), and doesn't seem to lose one minute of sleep worrying about who's taking care of her precious baby while she's busy climbing the corporate ladder (or cute executive, whichever comes first).

Rachel also doesn't seem to worry about her figure, her hair, her nails, her clothing, all of it looks just as perfect as before she gave birth. What real first-time mom has time to take a shower daily, much less get her highlights, manicure, pedicure and pilates done? Isn't the message "if she can do it, why can't you?"

Poor Emma seems more like a fashion accessory to this high-fashion lifestyle than anything. She's just another excuse for product placement on the show. It's not enough that Michael Stars t-shirts and Ralph Lauren's whole line get plugs, high-end baby items like fancy strollers, designer layette and nursery decor need some as well.

We rarely see Rachel "mothering" this child, we only see Emma in her arms on the way to her crib, stroller or pack n' play. And what good mother would drag her one-year-old to a foreign country, away from her father and family--indeed, away from her entire support network--to chase a "dream" like living in Paris? Does Rachel think that she's going to live the life of the bon vivant once she gets there? Who's going to watch Emma while she's out trying on berets in every color? French daycare? Who's going to teach the kid English while Mommy is out living la vie en rose?

Rachel doesn't seem to care, so why should we, isn't that the message? Having a baby doens't put a damper on your adult dreams, it's not a reason to make any sacrifices where your personal fulfillment is concerned. Growing up without a father is a problem for a little girl? Really? Nah! Not in Rachel's world! Ironically, this little-girl-lost who turns to her doting father in virtually every crisis of her life has a pretty cavalier attitude towards the father of her own little girl. What's the message there? That men are supposed to be there when we want them, and not when they cramp our style?

The icing on the loathing-cake for me came during last night's episode. Rachel leaves baby Emma ALONE and ASLEEP in her apartment while she goes to Monica and Chandler's for her own going-away party. Oh sure, they show her arrive with her baby monitor (another product placement, this time for a heavy-duty 900mhz model that can transmit as far as down the street, not that any decent parent would need it to go that far), but she puts it down the second she walks in (I was watching) and leaves without it (a directorial oversight, or proof that this woman isn't worthy of parenthood?).

I won't leave my Emma in the house alone, with a dog, and an alarm, even to move my car from one side of the street to the other, but this chick leaves her baby alone for hours so she can go to a PARTY? Where I come from, that's called "child endangerment," but aparently on "Friends," it's called "life." If I pulled a stunt like that, DSS would swoop down on me like white on rice and remove my daughter from my home. I'm not saying that would be right either, I'm just making the point that the show has a really warped view of what's acceptible parenting, and I worry that the teens and young would-be hipster parents who watch this crap are getting the wrong messages.

What messages precisely? Well, I've named a few, but let me be more precise:

• Having unprotected sex is OK, even if you get pregnant, everyone will rally around you and take care of you


• Having unprotected sex with someone you don't want to date, much less marry, is perfectly fine, especially if you're so drunk you can't even remember doing it


• Having a baby out of wedlock is fine too, provided it's your "choice" to do so, no one pressured you or talked you into it, and provided you plan to dress her up real cute in expensive brand-name clothing after she's born


• Having a baby doesn't change your life! It's an afterthought really. Just pop it out and continue as planned, or not planned, que sera sera. Feel free to accept last-minute party invitations, far-away job offers and sexual propositions from whomever you like, just drag the baby along, or leave her behind, it's your choice

Yes, I am aware that it's "only a TV show," but ask yourself why it is that teens and pre-teens today don't look upon oral sex as "sex?" Celebrities (and Presidents who wish they were celebrities) do set an example that our young people follow. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Is it any worse than teenagers having babies so they can feel they "accomplished" something in their miserable, hopeless, inner-city lives? No, probably not, but so what? Does our society really need another example of a wrong being "right?"

So unlike Katie Couric and Matt Lauer, and Baba Wawa, and the millions of Americans they claim to be serving with their multi-hour farewell interview shows, I will not shed a tear tonight. As far as I'm concerned, this show is a blot on the culture, and I'm glad it's finally (FINALLY) over.

Assumption Junction

That's my new pet name for Boston, my not-so-beloved hometown (at the moment). People here tend to assume a whole lot about my politics (and preferences for sports teams) just because I live here. Sometimes, when I take steps to disabuse the "assumers" of the notion that I'm as much of a mindless lemming as they are, I find myself on the receiving end of some pretty ugly verbal abuse. Most of the time, however, I just get the Vulcan death glare.

I've written about this before, but never as humorously as whoever wrote the joke my friend Ruth e-mailed me today:

Two boys in Boston were playing basketball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck. A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy.

The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline:
"Brave Young Celtics Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal."

"But I'm not a Celtics fan," the little hero interjected.

"Sorry," replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston, Mass, I just
assumed you were."

Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again, "John Kerry Fan rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack."

"But I'm not a Kerry fan either," the boy responds.

The reporter says, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Celtics or Kerry or Kennedy. What team or person do you support?"

I'm a Houston Rockets fan and I really like George W. Bush" the boy says.

Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again, "Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet."

Thanks for the chuckles Ruth! I needed them...

Do you myth reality?

Pardon my lyspy pun, but I think you'll understand where I'm coming from when you read Victor Davis Hanson's latest.

Here's my favorite part:

Myth #5: Israel has caused the United States untold headaches in the Arab world by its intransigent policies. The refutation of this myth could take volumes, given the depth of daily misinformation. Perhaps, though, we can sum up the absurdity by looking at the nature of West Bank demonstrations over the past few months.

The issues baffle Americans: Some Arab citizens of Israel, residing in almost entirely Arab border towns and calling themselves Palestinians, were furious about Mr. Sharon's offer to cede them sovereign Israeli soil and thus allow them to join the new Palestinian nation. Others were hysterical that two killers ó who promised not merely the "liberation" of the West Bank, but also the utter destruction of Israel ó were in fact killed in a war by Israelis. Both of the deceased had damned the United States and expressed support for Islamicists now killing our soldiers in Iraq ó even as their supporters whined that we did not lament their recent departures to a much-praised paradise.

Elsewhere fiery demonstrators were shaking keys to houses that they have not been residing in for 60 years ó furious about the forfeiture of the "right of return" and their inability to migrate to live out their lives in the hated "Zionist entry." Notably absent were the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of Jews of Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, and other Arab capitals who years ago were all ethnically cleansed and sent packing from centuries-old homes, but apparently got on with what was left of their lives.

The Palestinians will, in fact, get their de facto state, though one that may be now cut off entirely from Israeli commerce and cultural intercourse. This is an apparently terrifying thought: Palestinian men can no longer blow up Jews on Monday, seek dialysis from them on Tuesday, get an Israeli paycheck on Wednesday, demonstrate to CNN cameras about the injustice of it all on Thursday ó and then go back to tunneling under Gaza and three-hour, all-male, conspiracy-mongering sessions in coffee-houses on Friday. Beware of getting what you bomb for.

Go. Read. Now.

Love, Scandinavian Style

For those who believe that there is no evidence to support the theory that gay marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself in our culture, I submit for your review the following:

Marriage is dying in Scandinavia, which has had marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships for over a decade.

Data from European demographers and statistical bureaus show that a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where the idea of same-sex registered partnerships is widely accepted, marriage itself has almost entirely disappeared.

What does marriage and child-rearing have to do with each other you might ask? THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! Proponents of gay marriage purposely separate the two or bring them together, whenever it suits them to do so. On the one hand, they'll say that marriage has nothing to do with creating a stable unit in which children can be brought into the world and reared, but is rather a right that two people have to be together if they love each other.

On the other hand, gay marriage supporters will tell you that not being able to get married is hurting "families" because gay and lesbian couples already have children, and marriage would protect these children, especially financially.

The problem I have is that no one is talking about how marriage between a MAN AND WOMAN benefits children. We already have reems of data to support this statement, but proponents of gay marriage act like it doesn't exist or doesn't matter, and opponents of gay marriage (other than the author of the above-referenced article) aren't talking about it enough!

What cracks me up is that some of the same liberal pundits who now support gay marriage use the data when it suits their purposes, but toss it aside when it gets in the way. Time and time again we hear about young offenders who come from broken or single-parent homes as if this is some kind of excuse for their behavior. I don't happen to agree that it provides an excuse, but I do agree that there is a correlation between delinquency (of both boys and girls) and a lack of "nuclear family" unit at home.

The difference between those who seek to excuse bad behavior by citing troubled home life and me is that I don't see any difference between a "broken" home or a "single parent" home and a "same-sex" home in one crucial area: children from all three are essentially missing one or the other of their "parents" from a gender perspective.

In the divorced family, the child (typically) only sees the non-custodial parent on weekends. He or she is, for all intents and purposes, fatherless or motherless during the week. The custodial parent might have a boyfriend, girlfriend, housekeeper, or other adults playing a role in that child's life, but these people cannot replace the missing parent.

In the single-parent family, the child is LITERALLY fatherless or motherless, and suffers not only from a lack of healthy relationship role modeling, but also from a lack of gender role modeling regardless of the gender of the child or of the missing parent.

Whether we like it or not, when half of a whole--and in this case, every human child is made because a male's sperm and a female's ovum got together--is missing, there is a loss. Nature created opposites for a reason. If you look around, nothing (literally) works in nature without its opposite being present as well. To deny this is not only a lie, it's selfish in the extreme. Boys and girls alike need the influence of both genders in their lives, and not just on a part-time basis either. No matter how loving and responsible a parent of one gender might be, he or she cannot make up for the missing influence of the opposite gendered parent.

I can give an example from my own life actually. My mother left us, and I spent several formative years with only a father. My father was amazing. He took excellent care of us, made enough money to hire female babysitters, housekeepers and the like, and did his best to listen to my tales of feminine woe as I made the transition to womanhood. It didn't matter though. As much as I adored him and knew he was doing the best he could, I desperately wanted a "mother." When someone hurt me, I didn't lie in bed at night and cry for "daddy," I cried for "mommy," only I didn't have one. That is, until my Dad remarried my step-mom. I was 13 at the time, but she made all the difference in my life. Without a doubt, had she not come into my life, I would not be the person I am today. In fact, anything I know about how to have a relationship with a man I owe to her, and anything I know about how to have a relationship with women I owe to her. I needed them BOTH, in combination, and no matter how wonderful my father was, he couldn't be two genders.

Some might ask if it really mattered that they were married, and again the answer is YES, it damn well mattered to me, and I was given the option as a child, if you can believe that! When my step-mom moved in with us, I was happy, but tense. What if she left? What if they broke up? What if I opened my heart to her and one day she was gone, just like my mom? Marriage wasn't a guarantee--it hadn't kept my biological mom around--but it sure felt more secure than "living together."

So when my Dad asked me and my sister if we would mind if they got married, I was amazed. "Mind?" I couldn't wait for it to happen. Granted, had I not liked her it would have been different, but being a GOOD father, my Dad wouldn't have allowed someone we didn't like to live with us in the first place.

When my father remarried, I felt like a boulder had been lifted off my shoulders. I no longer felt alone in a house with only a "man" to talk to. I had both sides of the gender equation, and I had two people to take care of me, not just one. I have a hard time believing that most kids wouldn't prefer this situation.

But in Scandinavia, most kids don't have that option. Most kids are at the mercy of the selfishness of their parents who--apparently--look upon them as accessories of their adulthood rather than responsibilities. If we all lived in villages in which the adults in every hut were equally responsible for all the children in the village, maybe cohabitation and same-sex parenting or "union" would be OK, but we don't. We live in mostly urban, industrial Western society. We primarily take care of ourselves and want to be left alone, but ironically, when something goes wrong, we have a funny way of looking to blame the whole--the society at large--for our problems. That's why the whole society has a real stake in how we organize ourselves, especially with regard to the raising of children and the creation of families.

If we're going to turn around and ask for help later, or blame our misdeeds on our home environment, then it stands to reason that society has some say--at least at a high level--in defining what that home environment can look like.

And for those who disagree with me still, all I have to say is that I never ever again want to hear how some poor kid shouldn't be held accountable for his or her crimes because he or she was "fatherless" or "motherless" or in some other way came from a "single-parent home."

After all, "single-parent" is just another way of saying "single-gender," or do you really think the extra pair of hands makes all the difference?

UPDATE: Please note that I am NOT saying that all single-parent or divorced families will end up with delinquents for children, I am simply saying that there is data to support that such situations do put a child at greater risk than they might otherwise be. .

Naomi crying Wolf (again)

I'm not sure why I'm surprised...After all, Naomi "Lipstick is the bane of our existence" Wolf, author of the Beauty Myth (and other fairly ridiculous persecution tales) is the woman who said THIS about motherhood:

"We need to not act like motherhood is some natural thing you just do like a cow," Wolf told Andrew Denton on his excellent ABC TV show, Enough Rope, on Monday night before flying to Australia.

She says motherhood is a thankless job in which, "No one pays you, you're doing manual labour a lot of the time, you get very few social benefits, you're supposed to run on just pure, kind of, emotion without any kind of social support or status and you're supposed to do it all alone even though in traditional societies there were many, many hands helping you."

She went on at length in this pessimistic vein: "[There is a] kind of a conspiracy of silence ... about how it's so fabulous to take home this tiny, adorable being, but then there's the fact that 50 per cent of women in the industrialised world experience postpartum depression and there's the fact that it's very likely that your partner will have to go back to work two weeks after your baby is born, leaving you all alone with this tiny dependent being."

I grant you, pregnancy isn't the easiest thing I've ever done, and giving birth was three days of unmittigated hell, but I'd do it all again in a minute, with or without the help of my husband, if it would mean I'd end up holding my daughter in my arms!

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that motherhood is by far the most EMPOWERING experience I've ever felt. I CREATED A PERSON! Granted, I had help, but shit folks, a real live human being came out of MY BODY! What is more amazing than that? On top of that, I have the ability to feed this tiny creature, also using my own body. What could possibly contribute to body image more positively than motherhood? Whatever one looks like--fat, slim, tall, short, model pretty or not-so-much--a woman has the unique ability to have a baby and instead of whining about how haaaaaard it is, those of us who are fortunate enough to do so in our lifetimes should be getting down on bended knee and thanking God for the opportunity (literally) of a lifetime!

What's worth doing in this life that isn't hard anyway? Was it "easy" to become a nationally known writer Ms. Wolf? Was it "easy" to find a guy willing to marry your man-hating feminist self? I doubt it on either score, so presuming you wouldn't rather be doing something else or married to someone else, let's just say that sometimes the worth of a thing is directly proportional to how difficult it was to accomplish, mmm'kay?

Motherhood has so-far been the most fulfilling thing I've ever done, and what galls me is that Ms. Wolf would paint such a negative picture of it--not only because she might scare prospective mothers unnecessarily, but because SHE is contributing to the negative perception society has of mothers. Follow her reasoning to its logical conclusion and you are left wondering what doormat of a woman would willingly subject herself to such a horror as giving birth and raising a child?

But back to why I'm picking on Naomi TODAY. After all, that little speech of hers in Sydney took place over a year ago. Today I'm writing about her utterly moronic statements regarding Martha Stewart and why she was targeted for prosecution. If you haven't heard this one, get ready, it's about as ridiculous as anything you'll hear this week. According to Ms. Wolf, Martha was hand-picked for persecution because (drumroll please)...SHE'S SINGLE.

Yes folks, if you weren't watching O'Reilly last night, you heard it here first. This is exactly what she had to say:

Said Naomi, "There is a special taboo against women being too powerful without being attached to a man. I think if she was married, it would have mitigated this."

Bill was abso-friggin-lutely right to make this item the most RIDICULOUS one of the day! What a crock. "Special taboo" against women being too powerful without being attached to a man? Oh reeeeeally Naomi? I have just one thing to say to that:
O-P-R-A-H

Perhaps you've heard of her? Richest woman in America? One of the richest on the planet in fact? The woman poised (well before Ms. Stewart's demise) to take over the Martha Stewart Living market with a lifestyle/homemaking magazine of her own, set to release later this year?

Gee Naomi, while you've got your tinfoil hat on, maybe you want to consider that maybe this was all Oprah's idea! Maybe she used her power and influence to get the Fed to get rid of Martha. Oh, that's right, she's female, she couldn't possibly have such power, so what then, did she get her pal Dr. Phil to do it? Did he decide Friday would be a "changing day" in Martha's life?

Give me a break! They picked her because she broke the law, and because having broken the law so openly and unapologetically (remember, they offered her a deal--a chance to come clean without serving time--and SHE rejected it claiming to have done "nothing wrong"), she was too high-profile to just let go! If they had, we'd have all whined and cried (perhaps justifiably) about how the rich are different than you and I--they get away with whatever they damn well please!

Speaking of doing what one pleases...Did you know what Martha put in her college yearbook quote Naomi?

"I do what I please, and I do it with ease!"

Maybe--just maybe--this attitude singled her out for prosecution more than the fact that she's not "attached" to a man.

"It's a good thing"

I'm shocked, truly shocked and aghast that so many people are so shocked and aghast that Martha Stewart was found guilty on all counts of conspiracy and LYING to Federal investigators.

Why are people so shocked?
Because she's rich?
Because she's famous?
Because she's popular?
Because she's female?

Give me a break! The law is the law, and it oughtn't to matter who you are--if you're guilty of breaking it, you go to jail. Period.

"So then why did the prosecution go after HER with such zeal?"

I can hear all of you supporters of hers chanting in mindless unison...

Well, call it the Everest Argument: Because she was THERE! When I say "there" I mean "OBVIOUSLY GUILTY!"

What if they hadn't gone after her, after investigating her, despite the damning evidence against her? What would people have said then?

Lemme guess: "See, figures! If you're rich, white and popular, you get to do whatever the hell you want in this country and get away with it!"

Instead, they did go after her, charges that were over-the-top were--appropriately--dropped, and a thoughtful jury found her guilty as charged. The system worked.

"But what about ENRON?! It's way worse, this is small potatoes!"

Well, let's look at that shall we? The Enron executives ARE being brought up on charges, one by one, and they WILL do much more serious jail time than Martha will, trust me, but let's not compare apples to oranges (or as Martha might, persimmons to pomagranates). Not all corporate scandals are created equal. The Enron situation involves many people, tons of cover up, reems of documents, whistle-blowers, years of convoluted deal-making, and not one of the people who are currently whining about how "unfair" the whole thing is with Martha understands what the Enron people did wrong enough to even describe it, much less compare it to Martha's situation!

Martha's case? Simple. She made a decision to sell some stock in a company run by a close personal friend at a suspicious time, and when asked about it, she LIED and she and her broker took active steps to cover up the fact that she'd lied. Had you or I done this, we would have been brought up on charges too, so why shouldn't she be? Becaue it was only $40,000? Because she's MAAAAAARTHA? Because there are other worse crimes out there to prosecute?

Won't there always be worse crimes out there? What kind of illogic is this? What next? Let's not arrest the rich popular guy who drives drunk one time because there's some drunken loser we don't know out there who does it every weekend? Is that what we've come to as a society? Do we really want to give our celebrities free passes to behave badly? Do we really want to prosecute criminals on a sliding scale? I sure hope not!

The other thing that pisses me off is the way the media and some "friends of Martha" are spinning this to be (like everything else) George Bush's fault. I can see it now:

"Never mind Osama boys, go get me that cookie-makin' bitch's head on a platter, and don't forget the garnish!"

Spare me. Why is it somehow the President's FAULT that Federal law enforcement officers are (egads) DOING THEIR JOB? Again, imagine if it weren't Martha, but rather one of the President's buddies who conveniently sold some stock on a hot tip from his broker who had inside information? Wouldn't people want to see that guy's head roll? Isn't that ultimately why people keep ranting about Enron? Because there's this perception that Bush was tight with the leadership there? Again, spare me. Take a peek at how many times the top brass of that company visited with the former occupant of the White House before you go throwing stones at this President on that score. He's no more responsible for what those assholes did at Enron than Bill Cosby is responsible for what Martha did!

Botton line? The only person to blame for what's happening to Martha is MARTHA, and before you lose too much sleep worrying about this woman you think you know, but don't, remind yourself that if the shoe were on the other foot, she'd be much more interested in telling you how it doesn't go with your outfit than in rushing defend your honor.

"Lazy Good-for-Nothings for $100 Alex"

[Cue 'Double Jeopardy' Music]

Alex:
"That's today's Daily Double! OK Deb, you're going for Double Jeopardy now...Here's the answer: This is the most expensive government entitlement in the United States bar none, yet most people aren't even aware of it."

Deb:
"Oh that's easy Alex! What is SSDI or Social Security Disability Insurance?!"

Alex:
"That's right! Social Security Disability Insurance, collected nationally by more than 6 million people under the age of 65! And did you know Deb that fewer than 1% of those on the SSDI rolls will EVER WORK AGAIN? Did you know that no one really checks in on these people to see if they still need SSDI, even after years of getting it? And did you also know that DEPRESSION counts as a "disability?" You know what that means don't you?"

Deb:
"Why yes Alex, it means that we, the people of the United States of America will be taking care of these lazy-assed-good-for-nothings for the rest of their natural lives, even though most of them are perfectly capable of working!"

Alex:
"That's right Deb! And now that you've won this round, you get to pick the next category."

Deb:
"I'll take 'Bags of hot air' for $100 Alex!"

Alex:
"OK! This guy would rather have you believe that the Government's biggest expenditure is tax cuts for the 'rich,' many of whom are already paying 39+% in taxes."

Deb:
"These are too easy Alex! "Who is John Kerry?"

If I were Queen...

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that the Mayor of San Francisco has crowned himself King of the city. No word yet though on whether he'll change the name of the city to something that better celebrates his meteoric rise from simple Mayor to All-Powerful-Dictator, like "Newsomtopia" or something like that...

Watching Newsom's total disregard for the rule of law has got me thinking: What would I do if I were Queen of Boston? What wrong would I right? What would be my first step as "visionary" new leader of my hometown?

AHA! I know! I would waltz into office (after lying under oath of course) and I would tell the people at City Hall to start writing up Licenses to CARRY! Yup, that would be my first order of business. Anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon, come on down! Gun laws? Unconstitutional I say! It says right there in plain English in the Constitution of the United States (2nd Amendment to be exact) that citizens have a right to bear arms, and I'm a gonna give it back to them!

Waiting period? Nah! Background check? As-IF! D'ya think the bad guys wait when they want a gun in their back pocket? Sure, and a monkey just flew out my butt too! D'ya think the criminals submit to background checks when they buy their guns illegally on the street? It is to laugh!

C'mon people! No lines, no waiting, City Hall will be henceforth open all night so I can be sure to get a gun in the hands of every poor oppressed citizen who wants one.

Legislative process? Laws on the books? Will of the majority of the people of the state? Fuck that noise! I say the people are deprived of their rights, and what I say is the law from today on!

How well do you think that would fly, eh?

Airing our dirty laundry

The other day, as I was pathetically flipping channels (pathetically because I ought to know by now that there's nothing on during the day that's worth watching), I noticed that the morbidly ugly fat chicks on the Jerry Springer show who typically just scream obscenities and hurl punches at each other were doing so in the nude!

I thought maybe it was part of the show's topic ("Ugly fat chicks who like to strip-catfight" perhaps?), but then today I was flipping again, and when I came to the show's channel, there they were again! More ugly fat chicks fighting and screaming at each other with their titties hanging out.

At what point did these mutants decide that it wasn't enough for us to hear their dirty laundry, we should see it too?! Where is the FCC on this? Why is it ok for these creatures to behave this way in the after-school time slot but Janet can't bare her nipple for a nanosecond on a live broadcast during the Super Bowl?

Don't get me wrong, I take issue with Ms. Jackson's behavior as much as the next person (with sense) out there, but what bothers me isn't the nudity per se, it's the entire nature of the half-time show. Janet didn't strip for us, her top was ripped off her by a man singing "I'll have you naked before the end of this song" or something like that. In other words, she glamorized male sexual aggression towards women, and her behavior was just the icing on a half-time cake of the same flavor.

Nudity in and of itself isn't a problem, but nudity juxtaposed against violence or aggression IS. When we show our daughters that sexuality and violence go hand-in-hand, we have only ourselves to blame when they give themselves away for free to boys who could care less about them and who mock them if they try to say "no." When we show our sons that getting a woman to "do it" is a sign of manhood--whether "it" at their age is first base or so far out in left field, they're not playing baseball anymore (metaphorically speaking)--we have no one but ourselves to blame when they get their teenage girlfriend pregnant, catch an STD or grow up incapable of forming healthy intimate relationships with women.

Sex is sex. Violence is violence, and one would hope that never the twain should meet in our popular culture. The problem is, none of the pundits are talking about HOW and WHY people are getting naked on our TV sets, they're just gasping at the flesh and that's missing the point entirely (no pun intended).

Teach your kids to scream, PLEASE!

For the love of GOD, will we never learn?

I have no idea what, if anything, Carlie Bruscia was taught about stranger danger, but I sure remember what I was taught, and that was way back in the dark ages before child abductions were a weekly occurrence (that we knew of anyway).

My siblings and I were taught that, if ANY adult approached us when we were alone, even if we were five feet away from our parents at the time, we were to run first, ask questions later. The way it was presented to us was as follows:
Adults don't ask little kids for help: It's pretty simple really, they just don't. If I'm lost somewhere, I don't pull up alongside a kid to ask for directions. First, because I don't expect the kid to be able to give them to me accurately, and second because I don't want to scare the bejeezus out of the kid.

If an adult really needs to tell a kid something, he or she can do so from a distance: Adult voices are loud enough to carry, no one needs to touch a kid to convey a message, no matter how important. Even if a kid is wandering into the street and into oncoming traffic, the adult can yell first, run and grab the kid second.

Kids don't always have to do what adults say: Even if an adult is wearing what looks like a uniform and driving what looks like a police or official car, you don't have to listen to them or go anywhere with them. Go home or call a parent to come to where you are first.

If you need help or get lost, try to ask a woman with small kids for help: Women with small kids are usually trustworthy because, at the very least, they are bogged down and not likely to be able to take another kid without help. Notice I said a woman, not a couple. Look for a woman alone with her toddler or something, chances are she's safe.

Never under any circumstances get into a car with a stranger: This includes hitch-hiking of course, but it also covers instances when an adult might grab you and tell you they'll hurt you if you don't get in their car. DON'T DO IT! Kick, scream, bite, throw yourself to the ground and writhe around like a lunatic if you have to, but do NOT get into their car, even if they have a knife or a gun. If you can just get 3 feet away from this creep, you will probably survive. If you get into the car, you will probably die.

No safe grown-up asks a kid to keep a secret from his or her parents: This is self-explanatory.

Every one of the five-thousand or so times I've seen the video footage of that poor little girl being led away, most likely to her death, I want to SCREAM for her. Why didn't she scream? Why was she looking down while walking through the parking lot in the first place? Why did she seem to allow this guy to take her by the arm and lead her away, presumably to a waiting vehicle?

We'll most likely never know (although I'm praying hard that I'm wrong), but I hope that for once and for all the parents of America will wise up and stop relying on Amber Alerts and the like. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when it comes to kidnapping, and I can't help but feel that this scumbag was only successful because Carlie had no idea what to do when confronted by him last Sunday.

In the meantime, I have a feeling this monster would "cooperate" a whole lot more if we sat him in a bucket and strapped a car battery to his nuts.

I am a material girl...

At least according to Ambient Irony I am. Peter sent me a link to a post there that extrapolates from Stephen Den Beste's latest and provides insight into the mental disorder known as "idealism."

The basic concept of materialism is very simple, and it is this: The universe exists. Got that? Well, that's all it is, really. The universe exists, and we exist within it. Living creatures are made up of the same fundamental particles as stars and planets and comets and so on; our brains are made up of the same sort of molecules as our bodies, and we use those brains to observe the universe and try to make some sense of it.

Now, idealism says exactly the opposite: The universe does not exist of itself, but is merely an artifact of mind. It is our perceptions that are the fundamental reality, and matter has no existence independent of perception.

Yes, I know. You don't have to tell me, I know. Until a year or so ago, I thought that the entire concept of idealism was just a game thought up by philosophers to tease first-year philosophy students... But it's not. There are people who really believe this.

One of the consequences of the philosophy of materialism is realism. If the universe exists, there's not much you can do about it. It exists, you are part of it, and you need to deal with the universe the way it is. The most successful example of this is scientific materialism, which adds a second basic concept: The universe exists, and it works in a consistent manner. The whole aim of science is to find out just what that consistent manner is.

Now, if you are an idealist, you will tend to work in the opposite direction: Mind exists, and the universe is the perceptions of that mind. Which means that the universe should work the way we think it does... Rather than the way it actually does.

Which is why very few cavemen were idealists. They died out rather quickly. It takes a robust and peaceful civilisation to support concepts that far out of whack with reality.

Do read the whole thing, it's not only insightful, it's funny in an "I'd laugh out loud if it weren't so pathetically sad" kind of way.

Is it the "ILL" or the "EGAL"

Which part of "illegal" do people not understand?

Well whichever it is, Vinny has an excellent vocabulary lesson for those of you who stubbornly refuse to call a person who snuck into the country, thus BREAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND an "Illegal Alien."

I can see people having a problem with the "Alien" part--last time I checked, none of them were green and driving space ships--but there's no disputing or sugar-coating their status. You break the law to get here, you are here ILLEGALLY. End of story. No one forced you to come here that way (unless you were kidnapped and brought in against your will and held in bondage in some sweat-shop somewhere at gunpoint), and now that you're here, no one is forcing you to stay.

I'm sick of paying for your health care.
I'm sick of paying to educate your spawn.
I'm sick of paying to prosecute you for OTHER crimes you commit.
I'm sick of paying to house, feed and clothe you when you're convicted.

Most of all, I'm sick and tired of hearing how grateful I'm supposed to be that you're here--allegedly contributing to our economy. I'd rather you were gone and I had to pay $5 for a head of lettuce than that you were allowed to stay and I had to pay $5 more in taxes to pay for all of the above.

Think this sounds petty of me? Hardly. For starters, I bet the amount I pay in taxes (since MA is a payer state, not a receiver state) to make your "American Dream" come true is more than $5 above and beyond what it would be if you weren't here in the first place. I also bet the lettuce wouldn't be $5 if employers weren't so selective with the laws they choose to abide by. If they offered U.S. citizens what they offer you, I have a feeling some would take the jobs, but since they "can't" they don't.

We don't need Bush's "humane" plan for you scumbags, we need a more "humane" plan for Americans. My suggestion? Bring back "Right to Contract" for U.S. Citizens! Then we wouldn't have to offer a right that was OURS to a bunch of criminals from other countries.

Are we getting that? Nope. Instead we get a bunch of bullshit double-speak about "undocumented workers" and how much we should thank them for being here.

"Thank-you" my red-blooded-American ASS! My ancestors came here LEGALLY. They paid their fares, crammed their asses onto crowded boats, and came here ready to work for whatever jobs they could get. Those who broke the law were arrested. Those who arrived diseased were sent back. Those who tried to sneak in anyway were DEPORTED. And the ones who got to stay? They learned to speak English, without anyone paying for tutors, special classes or signage in their languages, and they sure didn't get any health care from anyone. If I owe anyone a debt of gratitude it's THEM, not you.

Like Vinny, I applaud and welcome the LEGAL immigrant. I am not a racist, it matters not to me whence they came. They are demonstrating the respect for our Constitution that it deserves, and in most cases, they aren't the ones DEMANDING that I foot the bill for their new life in the new world. Sure, they might take advantage of programs I help pay for, but I believe in most cases, the person who follows the legal avenues to get here is one who prefers to make it on his or her own in the end.

Mr. Bush, just as a note...Be glad this war is still on and some of us feel we still prefer you and your entourage to any of the Nine Dwarves because if it weren't, and if we didn't, you'd be as gone as I wish your precious "foreign workers" were!

Where there's smoke, there's a bunch o' whining smokers

If I hear one more whining smoker complain about how his "civil rights" are being violated, I'm going to ram a lit cigarette up his nose (it's not like he was using it anyway)!

Last night on The Big Story with John Gibson there was some asshole who just wrote a book about how he's been going around New York flagrantly disobeying the smoking laws, and how he's got friends who own bars and clubs who are doing the same--allowing people to smoke in their establishments. This guy went on to claim that without smokers in bars, New York was becoming like suburbia (i.e., "bland and sterile" according to him). He went on to say that to prove it, all he had to do was point to the lack of "authenticity" he experienced in a Jazz club recently. Apparently, he was unable to enjoy the music without being surrounded by a chokingly thick layer of carcinogens, it just wasn't "cool" anymore without the smoke!

What's this guy's point? Is he saying that being able to breathe while listening to Jazz is a bad thing? Coming home smelling remotely human, being able to crawl into bed without taking a shower to wash the smell of dirty ashtray out of your hair is pedestrian and bourgeois?

Apparently, his sense of righteous indignation is only partly fueled by his preference for smoke-filled cultural venues. According to him, smoking bans are wrong because smoking is LEGAL.

Uh huh, smoking is "legal," drinking is "legal" too, just not in a moving car, a movie theater or a public bus or train, so what? Eating is legal, but I bet purposely throwing up all over other people in the restaurant isn't, so why should smokers be allowed to inhale a toxic substance, mix it with their saliva, suck it down into their lungs, allow it to mix with the blood in the fine capillaries, and then spew what's left of it, and the waste products produced by this entire process all over me and everyone else around them? Legal shmegal!

Lots of self-destructive things are "legal," but as soon as someone else's self-destruction spills over into MY life and starts negatively impacting it, then MY rights are being trampled upon.
- Gambling is legal, but when chronic gamblers go broke and end up on welfare, their habit becomes my business.
- Drinking is legal, but when drunken morons smash into other people's cars, killing or maiming them in the process, their habit becomes my business.
- Taking prescription painkillers is legal, but when some addict high on OCs decides to go to work driving the bus anyway and smashes it into a pedestrian, their habit becomes my business.

The funny thing is, unlike the gambler or the drinker, I don't have to wait for a smoke to smoke to excess before I'm affected. Just being near one affects me. They don't have to smoke excessively or irresponsibly for me to feel nauseated, lose my senses of taste and smell and develop an itch so bad in the back of my throat that I start to gag. And these are just the effects I can perceive! Never mind the buildup of tar and other gunk in my lungs, or the oxygen deprivation in my brain...

But even if I'm not around when a smoker lights up, I'm still affected. My tax dollars help pay for the care of those suffering from smoking-related illnesses (some of whom are victims of secondhand smoke). Why isn't that a violation of MY rights? What is so bloody sacred about smoking that even some of my fellow conservatives who loathe paying for other people's problems still chime in to defend smokers' "rights" to poison the rest of us while poisoning themselves?

All I know is, I'm sick and tired of being made to feel like I'm some kind of petty, misguided busy-body because I applaud the smoking ban laws. I really don't give a shit if one of my fellow American want's to kill him or herself slowly, provided they do it in their own home, far away from the air I breathe.

Double Exposure

Vinny has a good point about Valerie Plame...In reference to her two-page spread appearance in this month's "Vanity Fair" magazine, he says:

For someone whose life may or may not be in danger by the release of her name, this is quite an interesting way to handle concerns for your safety... Showing your face, albeit slightly covered, in a two-page magazine spread. Oh, and the text in the upper left corner? It mentions that she's a covert CIA operative.

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but if her life were truly in danger, wouldn't staying out of the public eye be better than identifying yourself, with a picture in a magazine and your employment details?

Apparently the Wilsons aren't concerned about Valerie's safety as much as they say they were.

TV is worse than crap on a stick

Seriously! And I ought to know, I've watched WAAAAAAAY too much of it lately. You see, having a new baby has turned me (unwillingly perhaps) into the target demographic of daytime TV advertisers. I'm a mommy now, and apparently I'm supposed to be all-consumed with fear of household germs and a desire to prepare a hot "home-cooked" meal in thirty seconds or less, "meat included!"

I understand why I'm expected to be watching more TV. What else can you do during the day that requires only one finger (to operate the remote) and your eyes. With my arms and upper torso "otherwise engaged" 90% of the day (the other 10% being used for sleeping, eating, showering and what the health care professionals refer to as "eliminating"), there's not much else TO do. I can't even read a book because I can't hold onto it without bonking the baby in the head or rereading the same paragraph 57 times because I keep getting interrupted.

I'm not complaining about why I'm so busy mind you. I'm thrilled to have this demanding little creature around! I'm just so disgusted with the entertainment that is available to me during this time--especially since we pay so damn much for access to it!

TV today is a wasteland, a picture window into all the levels of Hell. Watch too much of it in one sitting, and you're liable to become depressed I think. What else could you feel knowing that there's an entire show (Maury) that appears to be devoted to revealing that men are not the natural fathers of their children (a fact apparently kept secret from them until DNA tests paid for by the exploitative producers reveal the truth)?

No, I do not WATCH this show, I see snippets of it as I pathetically "flip" channels all day searching in vain for something worth watching.

Last week, I got so fed up I decided the problem must be that I used to have the news on most of the day--as background noise while I blogged or cooked or read or did housework or whatever--and now my status as new mommy makes the endless repetition of the same BAD news feel like Chinese water torture. So I'd never actually taken the time to see what else was on all day, and was perhaps missing something by continually relying on the same old channels.

My solution was to devote five minutes to EVERY channel available, just to see what they had to offer (between commercials of course). I even watched five minutes of each of the religion channels, just to keep the exercise intellectually honest.

What a load of CRAP! I mean, I always suspected it was all garbage, but I had no idea it was this bad! Here's how it breaks down as far as I can tell:

• Depressing personal dirty-laundry shows that seem to have permanent casting calls for morbidly obese, greasy-haired half-wits with bad teeth who see nothing wrong with having sex at 12, having half a dozen illegitimate kids by the age of 18 (each with different fathers or mothers), cheating on their fiancees with his or her so-called "best friend," sister, brother, mother, father, etc...


• Soap Operas, or what your Great Aunt Tilly probably refers to as her "Stories." These are the mind-numbingly predictable and trite melodramas of the daytime airwaves, and it was next to impossible for me to sit through the whole five minutes on each channel. How people can get hooked on shows with characters named "Star" and "Dorian" is beyond me, but the makers of Tide, Huggies and Tampax seem to be banking on lots of them doing it!


• Sit around and talk to famous people about NUTHIN' shows. There's a whole new crop of these apparently. Wayne Brady, Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Osbourne have joined the ranks of old standbys like Regis and Kelly and the View, but the format is the same. They're just one-hour commercials for some famous person's FAME, nothing more. As my friend Juli said today "I took a wrong turn at Smith College. I should have bought some fake boobs, a bottle of hair bleach, and a personal trainer. How sad is that? I would be a gazillionaire, for a lot less investment than my anthropology degree."

  No truer words were ever spoken...



• Sit around and whine shows. As if Oprah wasn't enough, now we have Dr. Phil. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy's in-your-face straight talking style, but DAMN his guests are pathetic sometimes! During the five minutes I watched, I wanted to reach into the screen and slap some sense into them more than once. I hear he's doing good things with the people trying to lose weight, but that's not the show I saw. In my case, it was some crap about a couple whose marriage was on the rocks because the husband played too much golf.


• Litigation is for everyone shows. Joining Rainman's favorite "People's Court" we now have "Divorce Court," "Judge Hatchett," "Judge Judy" and "Texas Justice," not to mention an entire channel called "Court TV!" Dear GOD, we are a culture obsessed with blame! If I'd watched nothing but the five minute segments of these shows, I'd still be depressed. I don't want to be the kind of person who finds the stupidity and greed of other people "entertaining."


• Game shows. See, I said "stupidity and greed" and look what came to mind! Mind you, were this a scathing review of Prime Time TV Crap, I'd be including "Fear Factor," "Survivor," "House Rules" and "Big Brother" in this list. As it is, I have to just focus on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (isn't that a rhetorical question?), "The Price is Right" and shows like that. The funny thing is, the people on these shows are actually smarter than the guests on Sharon Osbourne's couch. At least most of them have a ballpark guess as to what a washing machine costs. Try asking Jessica Simpson the same question and I'll bet you'll get something like "You're supposed to WASH your clothes? I thought you just threw them out and got new ones each day!"

  Still, game shows are pretty boring. Who wants to sit around and watch other people win stuff that you need? My only solace is in knowing that they'll have to pay hefty taxes on their winnings--something I'll bet they aren't thinking about when Bob Barker yells "It's a NEW CAR!!!"



• God is watching shows. Here we have the infamous Pat Robertson as well as what appears to be a bunch of Catholic masses and bible classes, televised for those who can't seem to pray without someone telling them what to say first. There was one though that I found moderately interesting when I watched it--can't remember the name--because the host had a guest who was an expert on Islam (an apostate actually, former Muslim who'd converted) who was giving some insight into the less than peaceful aspects of the history and teachings of the so-called "religion of peace."


• Mezmerize the kiddies so you can have time to vacuum shows. Here we have Teletubbies, Rolly Poly Ollie, Zubumafoo, Barney, etc...Dear Lord, how can any parent think this stuff is educational, much less appropriate. Those Teletubbies give me the heebie jeebies (there's just something creepy and eery about them, can't put my finger on it...), and the segment of Rolly Poly Ollie that I caught was about how much fun it was to watch TV! Yeah, just the message I want to send to my kids someday. Ugh...At least Zoom is still on. I used to like it when I was a kid, and today's version seems OK, if a bit "dumbed-down" from the version I remember.


• Insomnia remedies for night shift workers who have to sleep during the day. Yes folks, I'm talking about CSPAN and the like. I grant you, it can be interesting when they televise something like Tony Blair in front of Parliament. That is comedy, pure and simple. But on the whole, it's the real-life equivalent of listening to Charlie Brown's teacher for hours on end! Not to mention it's even more disheartening to watch government getting nothing done at our expense, so why bother?


• "How to" cook massively complicated recipes with ingredients you don't have using utensils you can't afford in a kitchen bigger than you're whole house shows. This is pretty much everything on the Food Network, and the re-runs of Martha Stewart too. Nuff said!


• Buy this and your whole life will turn around "shows." This includes the Home Shopping Network, QVC and every informercial ever made (too many of which seem to replace the movies and usual programming on channels like the WE during the day). I just have one question...WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP THESE THINGS IN BUSINESS??? I know I'm not one of them, and I don't think I know anyone personally who is, so either I know very few people (most likely) or there are a handful of people out there with homes full of stuff they don't need and credit card debt up the wazoo!


• Crap TV version 1.0, otherwise known as "The shows we grew up with" in syndication. Here we have re-runs of Roseanne, Full House, 7th Heaven, The Wonder Years, and that show (name escapes me) that made "Screetch" a household name. Ironically, these are my favorites. They take me back to a simpler time, when kids still at least LOOKED like kids, and school still looked like school, and adults still bossed the kids around (or at least tried to) rather than the reverse. These are shows I can at least tolerate, or--in the case of 7th Heaven--these are shows I can enjoy. But let's not kid ourselves, they are still crap when you get right down to it. Even 7th Heaven is hopelessly unrealistic, and in that sense, it can be as depressing as it is educational.

Have I missed anything? I'm sure I have. The only thing more notable than the poor quality of programming on daytime TV is the massive quantity of it. I didn't actually make it through every channel in a single day, but I tried and it was actually painful.

The net result was that I cancelled my premium package with cable (savings $40/month) opting instead to rent movies I haven't seen and want to see, when I want to see them, rather than re-watching crap I've already seen, or sitting through crap I didn't care enough about to see in the theaters in the first place.

I also now watch only one hour of news in the morning--just so I don't go through the day without knowing about something important that might have happened--and 7th Heaven re-runs at 4 p.m. The rest of the day I focus on my daughter and on trying to come up with designs for products that can help terminally bored new mommies like me with activities that require hands and arms when ours are otherwise engaged! I'm sure they already have high-tech stuff like this for amputees and people with paralysis, but I'd like to come up with some items that are affordable enough let's say to be sold on QVC someday!

And wouldn't that be the irony to end all ironies?

People who need another hole in their head

Of course I'm talking about a BULLET HOLE, and I'm also talking about so-called "sex offenders."

Why can't we call these people what they are? Violent predators who cannot ever be "rehabilitated" and for whom jail is only a punishment insofar as it keeps them (temporarily) from having access to the objects of their (ugh) "desire."

They have no remorse. They WANT to do "it" again, as soon as possible I imagine. Even serving 20-some-odd years in prison isn't enough to dissuade them from being the miscreants that they are.

In my humble opinion, such people should just be removed from society--PERMANENTLY. If you're not the capital punishment type, fine, but be prepared to pay for their care and feeding for the rest of their natural lives then because there is no "safe" time to let them out of prison.

Some (the ACLU and their ilk) work hard defending this filth. They step up and cry "foul" whenever we--the justifiably sickened and fed-up law-abiding public--try to keep track of these monsters after they get out of prison. They tell us we can't continue to punish them after their sentence has been served. But what good was all that time in jail (on our dime no less) if there's ZERO chance it acted as a deterrent? We can register these people all we want, what good will it do when they cross state lines to hunt for victims? We can even chemically castrate them, but what if they refuse to take their meds? Are we seriously supposed to rely on the self-discipline of someone who spends their days and nights hunting for innocent and often very young lives to ruin or worse, to end?

For such people, it's not about punishment as far as I'm concerned. It's about REMOVAL from our midst, period. They serve no purpose in our society. When is the last time you heard about someone who was this great guy, well on his way to finding the cure for cancer (or even just raising a nice crop of organic tomatoes for the local co-op), until he had this massive brain fart and decided to molest little kids (or any unwilling person)?

Seems every time I hear one of these stories, the perpetrator in question is some man-child who either lives at home with his mother at the age of 45, or alone at the local YMCA in between looking for janitorial jobs at the local elementary schools (I'm being melodramatic and over-generalizing here to make my point, don't ask me to give examples, okay?).

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the French may have had the right idea one time in their miserable history. Devil's Island (and places like it) may serve a purpose after all. Why can't we send people who are so obviously out of their minds out of our sight for good?

Whatever we do, we have to change the laws regarding sex offenders, and we have to do it NOW! Registration doesn't work. Chemical castration doesn't work. I'll bet tracking devices wouldn't even work (except if we're looking for a better way to find the victims after these demons are done with them).

We also have to change the laws regarding appeals! If I read one more story about some sicko who was released or who never got convicted in the first place because of some "technicality" ("But your honor, the victim can't remember the exact times and dates on which the alleged crimes took place..." or "Your honor, the police spoke too harshly to the defendant during his interrogation so we can't admit his subsequent confession into evidence despite the DNA match to his semen..." etc...), I'm going to put my fist through a wall!

What must the parents of this woman be feeling? I pray to God they find her alive, but if they don't, and it turns out this Alfonso Rodriguez creep is to blame, how will they refrain from taking a double-barreled shotgun to the courthouse and blowing his diseased head clean off?

That's what I'd want to do, and frankly, that's no more than the victims of such crimes deserve as payback for what's happened to them.

Hypocrisy Week ends

Have you noticed how this entire week has been one blatant demonstration of hypocrisy after another--sometimes several instances revealed in one day?

Let's take a peek, shall we?

• "Independent Counsel": Horrible, outdated, expensive, unnecessary and "eeeeeeeeevil," unless a Republican administration is under investigation.


• "Imminent Danger": Objective, measurable, irrefutable, even without sufficient evidence, unless the administration defining the danger is led by a Democrat.


• "Racist commentary": Anytime a white person other than Robert Byrd or a Hispanic other than Cruz Bustamente uses the term "black" or "ni--er" in a sentence.


• "Gulity of Sexual Harrassment/Sexual Assault": Anytime a man is accused of touching or verbally admiring a woman without her consent (even if he's not charged with a crime or sued), unless you're Bill Clinton.


• "Drug abuse": A way for celebrities to get attention and boost their careers, gain sympathy or launch lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, unless you're a Conservative Commentator and Radio Talk Show Host.


• "Dirty politics"/"smear tactics"/"witch hunt"/"conspiracy": Disclosing smarmy details of a candidate's past behavior within days of an election, unless the candidate is a Republican.


• "Youthful indiscretion/no regrets necessary": Participating in activities unbecoming a public servant, 25 years or more before he/she decides to become a public servant, unless you're a Republican.


• "Quagmire" in which "no one feels safe": Iraq, where there's an ongoing war against persistant groups of terrorists, but not South Central L.A., or San Francisco's Mission District.

Do I need to go on? I think you get the picture.

Now you know why I can barely watch or read the news in the mainstream media without praying for the day when I'm no longer pregnant (or breastfeeding) and can do so with a double shot of scotch in my hand!

Doin' it Donkey Style

That's my new term for the way Democrats play the political game. It sounds just sordid enough, don't you think?

I bet the American Jingo would agree with me. After all, his assessment of the entire Wilson/Plame tempest-in-a-teapot inspired me to come up with the term in the first place.

Here's a sample of some of his spot-on insights into the whole mess [Via Vinny]:

But is this just another example of the Democrats looking for something (correction, anything) to nail the President to the wall with? You'd have to say, if you have an education above third grade, that of course the answer is yes.

Fact:
The Democrats making the biggest stink about confidential information being leaked made no comments at all about:
1. 1100 Republican adversary's FBI files showing up in a bodyguard's office during the Clinton Presidency.
2. Linda Tripp's Pentagon employee file being leaked to the press (Lars Erik Nelson to be specific) which was later used to paint her as a shoplifter and thief.
3. Paula Jones' income tax return being leaked so that her "questionable charitable donations" could be used to discredit her in her testimony against Bill Clinton.

In fact, with regards to confidential information, the Democrats, to borrow a phrase from one of the nine dwarves running for President, are a miserable failure. No more evident is this failure than in Nancy Pelosi (who ranted yesterday about the importance of confidentiality) and Chuck "Press Conference Every Sunday" Schumer, both of whom would not vote for a resolution in 1993 that would require Representatives to take an oath of confidentiality, which if violated would result in censure or expulsion. Odd behavior for people so staunch on defending the confidentiality of operatives in the field, right?

Read the whole thing and think about how sad (pathetic actually) it is that the so-called "mainstream" (a bogus term if there ever was one) media is completley ignoring ALL of the facts he cites, replacing them instead with speculation, supposition and outright BULLSHIT.

When are we on the right going to stage a protest during which we burn (instead of the flag, like the liberals), the RAG--the New York Times, the symbol of this kind of partisan mind-fuck mentality?

Crazy people

DISCLAIMER: If you are a raging left-wing liberal nutcase (i.e., if you think Howard Dean is God even though you're an atheist), read Vinny's post at your own risk. You just might need a sedative after seeing the horrifying imagery contained therein!

Vinny is on a roll this week.

It's truly sad to see how completely unglued Norm and his kids can get at the sight of the American flag.

Look Mummy, I "nearly" passed my exams!

[Via Lee]

And I thought our educational system was the most corrupted by political correctness...Apparently, Great Britain is a few yards ahead of us in the fast lane to hell:

British kids can't fail, they just 'nearly' pass
LONDON - The British education authorities - in an effort to remove all risk of failure from key national tests - are replacing the F for 'fail' grade with an N for 'nearly'.

Critics are already calling the changes as 'politically correct twaddle'.

They include such instructions that markers should grade maths exam answers as either 'creditworthy' or 'not creditworthy' instead of correct or incorrect, reported The Sunday Telegraph.

The instructions cover English, maths and science exams at key stages one, two and three, which are taken by seven-, 11- and 14-year-olds in all state schools and some private schools.

Markers have also been handed instructions to award the grade 'N' when a student does not reach the lowest level of proficiency targeted by the tests.

Denying that the scheme blurred the distinction between passing and failing, a spokesman for Britain's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said the focus was on reaching the lowest level targeted by the tests, 'so if pupils don't reach that target it does not mean that they have failed; it means they have nearly reached the target'.

Can you imagine if Tony Blair tried to get away with saying "Well, we were 'nearly' right about the African Uranium..."?

Nuh-uh, we don't hate Jews, just Zionists!

Vinny posted an abso-friggin-lutely brilliant op/ed from Arutz Sheva today that you simply must read.

Just picture Jacques Chirac (or similar--an all-too-broad category in today's world) speaking when you read the following excerpt.

Anti-Semites? Who us?
by Steven Plaut
Say what? Anti-Semites? Who, us anti-Zionists? Us? We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one another. Venus and Mars. Night and day. Trust us.

Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation, never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle East that is not a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only a religion. We do not have an answer to how people who do not practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except Jews, and including even the make-pretend Palestinian ìpeopleî. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We hate it when people blame the victims, except of course when people blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech, free press or free courts be destroyed. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed at Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Go read the whole thing. Hard to believe there could be so many absurd justifications for such a double-standard, but alas, there are, and Plaut seems to have captured all of them.

Whatever anyone thinks of Iraeli policies, or the Palestinian right to a state of their own, no intellectually honest person could possibly subscribe to ANY of the opinions noted in this piece and still claim NOT to be anti-semitic.

And if someone does, within earshot, be sure to say what I always say to them:

BULL SHIT!

What is it they want???

Here's what I don't get: What do the Democrats, and their supporters want anyway?

Do they REALLY want to yank the troops out of Iraq tomorrow?
Do they REALLY want to go back to a time when Saddam was still in power?
Do they REALLY want the Taliban to still be in charge in Afghanistan?
Do they REALLY want illegal immigrants to stream in willy nilly and get drivers licenses in this time of terrorism?
Do they REALLY believe that we were better off under Clinton--the man who was in office when Bin Laden planned 9/11?
Do they REALLY want the economy in the shitter, just so Bush can look bad?

What I can't figure out is, what DO they care about?
What DO they believe in?

Not a bunch of rhetoric about what's WRONG with what's been done, but what WILL THEY DO?

So the war was wrong they say. If they win, are we leaving Iraq unfinished? And if not, what does "internationalizing" the effort mean? Who's going to jump in to help them rather than Bush, and how do they know? Have they asked? Have they received assurances? If so, why not say so?

How do they know that "internationalizing" the effort will save American lives? 3,000 died when we weren't "bullying" the rest of the world. If we stop doing it now (their word, not mine), why won't we go back to that place--the unsafe place--where we are at risk? What's going to be different now? How will Iraq be so much more stable than Afghanistan was, or than Iraq itself was when France, Germany and Russia were paying rapt attention to Saddam? Somehow he managed to get those $25,000 checks out to the members of Hamas and Hezbollah, and somehow he managed to raid the Oil for Food coffers, their "attention" notwithstanding.

What about here at home...How is allowing gay marriage going to keep me safe? How is getting more money to our schools and old people going to improve either? What specifically is wrong with them now that they plan to specifically fix, and HOW?

If not the Patriot Act, then what? Some want to get rid of it outright, some want to rewrite it. Fine. Rewrite away, but WHY, and HOW, and what is the ultimate goal? Protecting innocent people or catching terrorists?

We should be nicer to our "allies" they tell us, and claim they will be. What does "nicer" mean? What does "diplomacy" do for ME? How is the fact that France might "like" me better help ME, keep me safer or make the country stronger? They appeared to "like" us when Clinton was in office, and 3,000 people STILL DIED on 9/11. One does not preclude the other. Stop acting like it will.

And what if we do push back on Israel, or refuse to "take sides" in that conflict? What then? Is that kind of hipocrisy OK? Some kinds are OK, but others are not? As long as foaming-at-the-mouth Islamists who hate us are mollified for ten nanoseconds? Is THAT the goal?

Help me out here. I'm confused.

As far as I can tell, the "goal" is to WIN. The "goal" is to defeat Bush, period. After that, no one seems to have a plan! All I hear about is undoing that which has been done. But I gotta tell you, I look around and see a lot of unfinished business that I'd like to see finished before it's deemed a "miserable failure!" How the hell does anyone know yet?

A former boss of mine had a poster in his office that I used to think was corny, but now think was right on the money.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Who amongst these candidates is part of the solution, today or as projected by any specific PLAN they offer up for our review?

Of those currently serving in our government, who hasn't shown up to vote over 90% of the time?

Who haven't ever served as elected officials?

Who was driven from office for corruption and misappropriation of funds?

Who supported the war, and then changed their minds when it became politically expedient to do so?

Who swear the economy is 100% the President's fault, but represent states so depressed, they can hardly be believed to be blameless?

Need I go on?

My point is simple. Whatever one might think of the current administration, they have clear goals and a clear vision, and a plan for achieving both. You may not like it, but at least you know what it is. I don't like all parts of it, but on balance I like enough that I'm loathe to see it change mid-stream, especially to someone with NO plan, or a plan for what I consider to be REGRESSION to a time I don't consider to have been all that great!

The way I see the world is simple: Pre-9/11 and Post 9/11. In the Post 9/11 world, our number one concern MUST be national security and supporting and advancing our interests abroad. Without this laser-beam focus, our economy doesn't stand a chance, and our way of life is in serious peril. It's that simple.

For those of you who want to go back to a time when we had some other focus of attention, all I can say is, you are deluded, you are in denial, you are scary. And I can assure you that if your side wins in 2004, one of two things will happen:
1) You will be sorely disappointed to see your candidate of choice change very little at all
or
2) Many Americans will die hideous deaths on another version of 9/11

I'm not saying only Bush can save us, I'm saying no one on your side seems to "get" the danger we still face because not one of them has articulated how he (or she) plans to deal with it. All they do is say how Bush's way is WRONG. OK gang, what would be right? Their total lack of attention to this serious matter strikes me as indicative of a lack of comprehension of the problem!

They talk incessantly about the economy, and how Bush has ruined it--completely ignoring the nosedive the economy took BEFORE Clinton left office, and the one it took as a direct result of 9/11 (planned on his watch by a guy he allowed to run free). But even putting these things aside, they refuse to acknowlege the present-day reality that our economy cannot improve, much less succeed at the rate we've come to expect (unrealistic to start with, but I digress) if we do not attack the terrorists--their ideology, their footsoldiers and their state sponsors alike--HEAD ON!

They could at least start with the plan for how they plan to do that DIFFERENTLY THAN BUSH HAS DONE. At least then they'd demonstrate that they "get" the fundamental problem we face today.

Until then, I'll vote for the guys who at least have a plan in mind, and in motion! I'm not a big one for "change for change's sake." Guess that's why I'm a "conservative!"

He's right, it is the "Other America"

In my earlier post, I'd called it "the Other Half," but Jeff calls it "the Other America" and he's got some great points.

Go read about it. See if you live in that America, or in the one the Democrats and the media allege is cowering with fear under the "oppressive" boot of the current administration.

I live in Jeff's America, that's for sure. And he's right, it's pretty nice here.

It would be even nicer if I didn't have to deal with
- a pop-culture that assumes I'm obsessed with my own genitalia (and everyone else's)
- an elite media that thinks I'll wilt and die if they don't come up with a "top story" to "report" ever minute of every hour of every day, be it in politics, entertainment or sports
- supposedly well-meaning, tolerant and well-educated people in charge of educating our youth who are so self-loathing, self-conscious and trapped in the mythology of Vietnam that we as parents have to compete with their whiny, self-indulgent, self-pitying message or risk seeing our kids end up just like them

But hey, "We don't live anywhere near Perfect. That's why there's Walgreens."

Or so I've heard...

Separation of brain and state

I have HAD IT with people willfully misunderstanding--nay, MISREADING--the Constitution of the U.S. vis a vis "separation of church and state."

First, let's get one thing perfectly clear: The above words appear NOWHERE in the document. This "concept" is a made-up one, and it's based on what surely must be an illiterate's interpretation of the Founders writings.

What does the document actually say? (If you have trouble reading this, get someone with half a brain to read it to you):

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription (Printer Friendly Version):

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

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.

In the words of Porky Pig, ththththththththththththat's all folks!

Where does it say "The government will crack down on the public practice of any faith whatsoever--especially if it's Christianity"?

Where does it say "The government shall not be allowed to grant or loan money to any person doing anything that could possibly be connected to their belief in a particular deity"?

Where am I going with this? Apparently, the State of Michigan routinely withdraws or rejects applications for scholarships and grants when the student in question chooses to major in divinity or theology! Their reasoning? "Separation of Church and State" of course!

How is an individual's choice of subject matter subject to state review in this way? Moreover, why is it religion? I have to wonder, do they withdraw their financial support for those studying "Middle Eastern Studies" or "Human Sexuality?"

I doubt it. But if you want to be a minister someday, or you just want to study the history of God (which is pretty much what Theology is if you think about it), no way.

This is tyranny folks, plain and simple. The government has decided (thanks to activist courts) that its Job Number One is policing our beliefs. The Boy Scouts have been deemed a "religious group" by a court in CA, you can't refer to winter school vacation as "Christmas Vacation," and God forbid (oh, sorry, STATE forbid) that you want to choose your own damn major in college and get the same state aid that some loser who wants to study the history of porn or basket weaving will get.

Wake up America! This is not protecting anyone, this is punitive, discriminatory, and most importantly, ILLEGAL. The government IS making laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion, and we are all just sitting idly by and letting them.

Remember, we fought a revolution to end shit like this. Seems like it's about time to warm up those muskets again, don't you think?

Let's try this again...

For those of you who were bottle fed, or who bottle fed your own kids, and are now pissed off at me because you feel judged, I have two things to say:
- Get over yourselves, in all likelihood I'm not talking about you
- READ THE COMMENTS TO THE G-DAMN POST, then decide if you "got" what I was trying to say in the first place.

In a nutshell?
- Shit that happened 30 years ago (even 10 actually) is DIFFERENT! There wasn't as much information about how to succeed at breastfeeding when it became difficult. We no longer live in "villages" or extended family communities where a neighbor, aunt, sister, cousin, or even midwife might help us through the process. Since the 1920s, we've been living in single family homes or apartments, raising our kids pretty much in isolated family units, or alone, so without proper education and support, something like breastfeeding would be more difficult to master.
- We in the West HAVE A CHOICE. Formula exists. I have to ask, what would those of you who "tried" but failed have done if this were not the case?? Would you have thrown up your hands and said "Oh well, guess the kid has to die now." No, you would have turned over every rock to find a way to feed your child what he or she needed, right? Of course you would have, because you love your kids! In other words, when presented with an easy, sometimes ready-made replacement, why not take it, especially when you're told it's just as good, or even better? I do not fault people who tried and then chose formula in this instance, especially if they were misinformed or starting to freak out to the point where their baby was suffering from having a freaked-out mom or set of parents. No need, really.
- The women I was talking about were PLANNING TO GIVE UP! One had to wonder why they were even in the class, ok? Their overall attitude was "I'll say I'm going to try because I know that's what I'm supposed to do, but really I'm going to quit unless it's easy-as-pie."

If you fault me for judging a woman (or anyone for that matter) with such an attitude (especially when some had no qualms about expressing it thus), then you have very low expectations of parents in this country indeed.

And that would explain a LOT.

How does this shit happen?

Can someone in California explain to me how it came to pass that High Schools in their state not only allow students to miss school for doctors appointments the students schedule for themselves, they will NOT tell parents about these appointments or that their kids missed classes to keep them!

How is it that parents aren't rioting in the streets? How can they sign a permission slip for the class field trip to the art museum with a straight face, knowing that the day before their daughter may have been getting an abortion, drug treatment, or antibiotics without their knowledge, much less their permission?

What if this oh-so-honest kid withholds information from other adults? How arrogant of the schools and clinics to assume that parents are the only ones kids mistrust. Ha! What if this kid withholds, for example, a coke habit that when mixed with alcohol in something as simple as cough syrup could form a lethal dose of a chemical that could kill him or her? What if this kid forgets, or just plain doesn't know (perhaps because they haven't had any since they were a baby) that they are allergic to penicillin or sulfa drugs, takes some to treat an STD, then goes home and goes into shock and the parent has no idea why?

What if a kid gets a prescription for anti-despressants, and neglects to (or forgets to) inform the doctor or clinic that they are already taking MAOI inhibitors? Or what if they just get the Prozac and take too much or too little of it, or go off it cold turkey because no one knows they're on it and therefore can't figure out why they're suddenly acting psychotic until they march into school with an AK47 and blow a few people away?

These are not nightmare scenarios, they are realistic, and I just have to wonder how long it will be before the first lawsuit gets filed by a parent against the school district because some kid dies of infection, overdose, allergy, etc...Or because the kid kills himself or others after improperly using medication prescribed to them in secret.

Kids are NOT adults. They aren't allowed to drink legally until they are 21, vote until they are 18, they are NOT a constituency to be pleased or appeased when they are in High School! Why is it ok for California to put parents in the position of children ("You don't know what's best, we do") kids in the position of adults ("Feel free to make health care decisions for yourself even though you aren't capable of deciding what shoes to wear with your purple cords") and schools/clinics in the position of "home" or "family" ("Our culture is the one you should trust and rely on")?

Can someone, anyone explain this to me? Please?

Don't "Try", "SUCCEED!"

I've always known I would breastfeed my child. In fact, it never occurred to me that formula feeding was a choice I should consider. Sure, I knew that some women know they won't breastfeed because they can't--they have AIDS or some other health condition that makes it physically impossible or dangerous for them to do so, but I assumed for the rest of us, the decision to breastfeed would be a fairly easy one.

After all, breast milk and breastfeeding
- is free, as opposed to upwards of $4,000/year
- reduces the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in the mother
- reduces the risk of allergies in the child
- is literally custom-designed for the child in question, adapting as needed to their individual growth spurts, eating habits and nutritional needs
- facilitates bonding between mother and child
- is always ready when you need it, and the right temperature
- is always available in the quantity you need, even in the middle of a blizzard, a hurricane or on a desert island
- is linked to higher IQs (up to 10 pts) for the child
- lessens the severity of colic, if the child is colicky or fussy
- reduced risk of SIDS
- facilitates weight loss in the mother
- helps babies resist infections and illness better
- did I already mention that it's FREE?

Well knock me over with a feather! Apparently, it's not the no-brainer I thought it was for many (most?) women these days. Naive little me learned this last week at my breastfeeding class. The teacher (an RN and lactation expert) had us introduce ourselves and say whether we planned to breastfeed or not. I thought this was a funny question for people in a breastfeeding class! I mean, I thought these 30 or so women were there precisely because they'd already made that choice.

"Gong! Thanks for playing our game, and now Don Pardo will tell you what lovely parting gifts we have for you Deb..."

I was only one of TWO women who said she would breastfeed. The rest said "I'm going to try."

At first, I thought perhaps they meant "I'm going to try it and see if I like it," but the teacher asked each of them to clarify their position, and every single one said no, she didn't mean that, she meant "try" in the sense that she expected to fail.

Fail??? At breastfeeding? Their womb worked, right? It managed to turn two individual cells into a brand new human being in a mere 9 months, but their breasts are going to let them down? Help me out here folks, what's going on?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know it's not "easy" in the sense that it does have a learning curve to do it right, but presumably that's why we were all in class, right?

I could understand if women were reluctant to turn over their sex-toys for 6 months to a year (or more), and I could even feel some sympathy for women who were dubious about their ability or willingness to pump daily in order to breastfeed and go back to work full time, but the women around me weren't talking about these things. They were hung up (apparently) on the assumption that breastfeeding "doesn't always work" (their words, not mine).

As I listened to these women some more, I realized what was going on. They were leaping from "there's a learning curve" to "I'll probably fail." I shouldn't have been surprised really. These were the same women who went to birthing class and said "I'll try to give birth without a c-section" even though the odds were still 70% in their favor that they'd succeed!

What's going on here? These are the power-chicks of the Northeast, Bostonian women who've insisted for a generation now that they are not only just as strong/intelligent/capable/powerful, etc...as men, they are MORESO, and here they sat whimpering about pain they had yet to feel that might or might not even affect them at all. It seemed to me they had given up before they'd "tried" because their attitude was so dismal, and I couldn't help but feel judgemental. Why were they giving up so easily? How could they expect so little of themselves, and have so little faith in the same body that just performed such a huge miracle for them? To tell you the truth, I wanted to go around the room and shake these people, I really did.

Some of them blamed friends and family, people who'd told them "horror stories" of sore nipples and engorgement, and still others blamed their husbands ("what if he wants to feed the baby?") even though they could pump and store their milk.

No one really blamed work. I'd have been skeptical even if they had because in MA, employers are required to provide time for female employees to pump, and a clean private space in which to do it.

As the class went on, I expected women to express more and more confidence that they would be "successful" in their attempts, but again I was wrong. The longer we sat there listening to the teacher, the more the women seemed to be shaking their heads and expressing concern. It seemed to me they were losing interest in even "trying" something that wasn't a slam-dunk, easy-as-pie, strap that baby on and go kind of process. A few women even left halfway through saying they had decided to go with formula because they "didn't realize there was so much to know" about breastfeeding. Others said they "didn't realize they couldn't control" their child's feeding schedule.

I wanted to scream at these people: "But you want to be MOTHERS???"

Nah, nothing to know about mothering! Nothing you can't "control" about that, why bog yourself down with something as "messy" as breastfeeding when the rest of your job for the next 18+ years is going to be such a "slam-dunk!"

When did my gender get so weak? How ironic that we went from the so-called "weaker sex" who could manage to somehow to birth and nurse babies without epidurals or soy formula and high-tech "more like mother" bottles and "nursing systems," to the modern "strong" woman who can't.

So I am reminded of what my father used to say when I'd try to excuse weak effort in advance by saying "I'll try..."

He'd say "Don't try, succeed!"

That's what I wanted to say to these women. I wanted to tell them how selfish I thought it was for them to give up so easily. I wanted to tell them what a poor example they'd likely set for their kids by being such wussies, but obviously I didn't. I couldn't.

So I'm telling all of you. If you are one of these people, and you're offended, well....TOO BAD. I think breastmilk is every baby's birthright unless, as I said, there's a medical reason to not feed it. I think depriving a child because of fear or doubt sets a pattern in motion that does not bode well for the rest of the parent/child relationship too. Guess what? Talking to kids about sex and drugs is "hard" too, will they "try" to do those things too? Getting kids to do their homewok is hard, will they only "try?"

Most importantly, how will they feel the first time they ask their kids to do something they know they should be able to do--something they are physically well-equipped to do, like clean their room, eat their vegetables, or tell the truth , and they say "I'll try"?

They'd better figure that out pretty quick, because it would seem they have many years of such conversations to look forward to!

Not quite angry enough

Francis (a.k.a. the "Curmudgeon") makes the obvious, but too oft overlooked point that as angry as we may think we are about 9/11 and other attacks on our country, we're still not nearly angry enough, and not at all the right people either.

In a world in which leftist agitators call for the destruction of our society because single mothers on welfare can't afford plasma TVs, the degree of rage appropriate to the Black Tuesday atrocities defies quantification.

The degree of rage that would befit the open celebration and espousal of such deeds by Muslims around the world invites comparison to nuclear events.

The degree of rage that should respond to the condemnations of "allies" who claim that we have no cause to take up arms despite Black Tuesday would blot the Sun from the sky.

A healthy human being is an intelligent flame, a node of purpose and energy that's self-directed toward the satisfaction of desires. In a healthy society, which proclaims the rights of all and expects each to acknowledge the rights of others, that flame is a tool, a welder's torch with which the achievements of a free society are built. When the prerequisites for these things are threatened, the fire of creation quite properly becomes a flame of rage.

Or at least it should. So what's stopping us, and how do we get where we need to be?

Read the rest of his post to find out. Do it. Now. Because I said so, that's why!

(See, I'm practicing early for this parenthood gig)

UN proves itself useless, again

Well this ought to come as no surprise. The same body that refused to refer to Saddam's treatment of his own people (right under their noses in fact) as war crimes, or at least "crimes against humanity," the same ones who refuse to call Hamas bombings "terrorism," voted today to consider it a war crime when anyone kills a UN worker.

Let's recap shall we?

Q: Women and babies on a bus, blown to bits by a suicide bomber?
A: Not a war crime.

Q: Rescue workers trying to pick up the pieces of said women and babies, attacked my second bomber waiting in the wings to get them?
A: Not a war crime.

Q: UN workers knowingly putting themselves in harm's way, rejecting armed protection by anyone other than those who worked for the same regime that routinely tortured and murdered innocent civilians, getting blown to bits by a suicide bomber?
A: War crime.

Just so we're all clear, these are the same folks the libtards think will make ALL the difference to the success of our efforts to stabilize Iraq.

I'm SURE the suicide bombers are sitting there now saying "Oh well, if it's going to be a war crime to blow these burocrats to smithereens, then forget it. Count me out."

When can we stop paying attention (and money) to these worthless pieces of crap?

Forget something???!

WHAT THE @#$% IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?????

It happens with alarming frequency: A parent or day-care worker, often busy or distracted, leaves a helpless child in a vehicle with the windows rolled up, and the youngster dies in the heat.

So far this year, at least 36 children in the United States have died under similar circumstances.

In once such case last week, it was about 100 degrees in Dallas when 8-month-old Jordan Thomas was forgotten inside a day-care center's sport-utility vehicle. Inside, the temperature soared to a blistering 130 to 140 degrees.

"Busy?" "Distracted?" "Forgetful?" How many of these same people "forgot" to take their purse/wallet/briefcase/cell-phone/Frappucino/Super Big-Gulp with them when they got out of the car though?

Betcha NOT ONE.

What's even more disgusting than the sheer fact that this is happening? The excuses the so-called child-advocacy "experts" are making on behalf of the adults:

Janette Fennell, founder and president of the advocacy group Kids And Cars in Kansas City, Kansas, said most cases of heat deaths involve either new parents or those who have recently changed their driving routine.

OK, the first time I took my DOG anyplace with me, I didn't leave him in the car--not even for five minutes with the windows cracked open, and I was as worried about someone kidnapping him as I was that he would cook in his own skin.

I was a "new" dog owner, and taking him with me to my Dad's weekend place in CT (a drive far enough away that he was fast asleep when we arrived, especially as a puppy) wasn't part of my "usual routine," but somehow I remembered to liberate him from his crate and take him inside so he wouldn't melt in the heat. And he's a DOG!

"The lion's share are loving, caring, devoted parents. We're talking educated people who love and adore their kids," Fennell said. "It says a little bit about the society we live in today. We're rushed, we're hurried; one little change can mean the difference between life and death."

I'm sorry, I don't leave anything I "love and adore" in my car, not even my favorite CD, for fear it might be stolen if nothing else. Why would I leave a small human--my DNA, my legacy, my flesh and blood? Never mind the weather, what about kidnappers, child molesters and car-jackers? I don't care if it's 50 degrees outside and you're running into the Store 24 to buy Lotto ticket, you don't leave your kid in the damn car!

Two weeks ago, a professor's 10-month-old son died after being locked in a car at the University of California at Irvine for more than three hours while temperatures were in the 90s. The youngster's father, Mark J. Warschauer, was described as a doting parent by neighbors. No immediate charges were filed.

"Doting?" How doting could he have been? Can you say "self-absorbed" people? Again, I dote on my PET more than this guy doted on his child. If this is the caliber of person teaching at U of C Irvine, I'm sure glad I don't know anyone who goes there.

But here's the real kicker--the truly disgusting, despicable part of this whole story--the part that makes me think that people should have to automatically go to jail if they EVER do this to a child, "doting-ness" aside:

Experts say a few simple precautions could drastically reduce such tragedies.

Fennell suggested placing reminders in the car, such as a bag of diapers in the front seat or a purse or briefcase in the back with the child.

WHAAAAAAAAT? So they're admitting that parents would be more likely to "remember" a briefcase than a HUMAN?

Lock 'em up and take away their gonads, immediately. People like this have no business reproducing.

Chiming in

I know, I know...I've been HORRIBLY delinquent in my blogging lately. My only excuse is that sitting long enough to do it is kind of painful at this point, and I hate my lap-top (which I would use lying down).

Ugh...I do miss whining and bitching at all of you though, so I'm going to take a few moments to stream-of-conciousness vent about shit that's going down out there in the world, and hope you'll bear with the apalling lack of source links for my angst.

California Recall
Diane Feinstein has really hit rock-bottom with this one. Blame Arnold for the overuse of the phrase "Hasta la vista baby," but gun violence in California? Not a day goes by without some Democrat somewhere proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that being a member of their party (and proud of it) today is a serious mental disorder.

As for the recall itself...Why is it that I just can't get too excited about this? Like I said last week, I don't think Arnold is the right guy for the job. I think McClintock is, but because people don't think he can get elected, he won't. I know this though, if Arnold doesn't tackle illegal immigration, he will FAIL miserably. I'm also starting to think that maybe (don't throw rotten veggies at me) it would be best if Cruz won. I figure whoever gets the job is in for a rough term, and many losing battles, and for selfish reasons, I'd kind of like to make sure that the Dems get the honor of retaining the dubious distinction of being in charge of such a clusterfuck as California is these days.

Then again, I don't live there.

Bombings in Iraq and Israel
Is it me, or is it just plain nauseating that Koffi is finally waking up to the evil that is terrorism now that it's hit his own organization, even though they:

• Refused US protection


• Retained the same guards they had under Saddam


• Ran around whining that the US wasn't involving them enough in rebuilding Iraq and that the effort needs to be "internationalized" (excuse me, what part of 'coalition' do they not understand?) in order to reduce the likelihood of violence and reprisals and rejection, etc...

AND, on the same day, Hamas slaughters dozens of innocents--several children amongst them--and Koffi doesn't even mention it?

Speaking of which...

Here are some things that puzzle me about Hamas:

• When a Hamas member blows himself up, it's glorious martydom


• When an Israeli gunship beats him to the punch and blows him up BEFORE he can carry out, plan or support the slaughter of innocent Jewish men, women and children, it's murder and must be "avenged," (naturally with the killing of more innocent Israeli civilians)


• Hamas does not want peace. Hamas does not want two states living side by side. Hamas wants an Islamic Palestine, free of Jews OR Christians for that matter. Hamas makes no attempt to hide these views, YET Hamas blames Israel for the Hamas decision to end the "cease-fire"

Is it me, or is it pretty hard to end that which never really started?
Is it me, or is there a marked difference between secretly plotting to kill as many innocent people as possible--with the SOLE INTENT of killing them--and targeting a very small number of known terrorists in order to PREVENT them from being able to kill any more innocent people in the future?
Is it me, or has the part of the world that actually buys Hamas's bullshit gone stark raving mad?

These people are ruthless, bloothirsty killers, whose sole purpose is to murder every Israeli man woman and child. They are perfectly ok with dying as long as they take a Jew with them to their grave, but when Jews get wise to their plans and kill them first (or kill them afterwards), they get all outraged and act like some heinous crime has been committed against innocent victims, and a good portion of the so-called "civilized" world swallows this shit!

Picture these two scenarios:
1) The Jerusalem bus bombing takes place. Dozens are killed, amongst them several small children. Within hours, countless thousands of Israelis take to the streets, turning over cars, lighting them on fire, pulling body parts out of wreckage and holding them aloft, all the while chanting "Death to Muslims! Kill all the Muslims! Filthy Muslims! Kill them all! Drive them into the desert!"

2) The rocket hits the terrorist's car. Three are killed, one or two passersby are injured by flying debris. Within hours, countless thousands of Palestinians take to the streets, turning over cars, lighting them on fire, pulling body parts out of wreckage and holding them aloft, all the while chanting "Death to Jews! Kill all the Jews! Filthy Jews! Kill them all! Drive them into the sea!"

Now, the latter scenario ought to be easy to picture, because it happens all the time. The former ought to be harder to fathom because it NEVER HAPPENS.

But what if it did. C'mon, be honest. If you are one of those who apologize for terrorism with a bunch of gobbledygook about Rachel Corrie and settlements and bulldozers, or equate the two sides as "both at fault," tell me, what was your knee-jerk reaction to the picture in hypothetical #1?

Revulsion wasn't it?! Horror, right? Disgust no doubt too. I mean, how could civilized people who supposedly value freedom and self-determination behave in such a barbaric, racist way?

YES, HOW INDEED?!

So why the double standard eh? Why is it understandable--nay, even pitiable to so many of you to see the scene in scenario #2 played out again and again and again? WHY?

I'm sure many of you would say that it's not anti-semitism! Oh now! Perish the thought! Oh me oh my, no! You just want what's fair! You just want Israel to behave as a democracy should, blah blah blah...

Oh reeeeeeeally? So I guess that if and when Hamas decides to blow up a school bus in New York, or Texas, or Florida, it will be perfectly ok with you if we do jack shit to stop them. I'm sure it will be just dandy with you if we politely continue to allow people we know for a fact are members of their group to walk around freely in their countries of origin, unmolested, undeterred, rewarded and applauded even.

Uh-huh. Right. And I suppose you have a bridge to sell me too.

Please don't even try to explain your reasoning to me. I don't want to hear it. There is no excuse for this hypocrisy, none.

What else...

Environmentalist Wackos
OK, here's what I don't get: How is setting fire to a Hummer dealership beneficial to the environment? The pollution from the burning tires alone probably produces more toxins in one day than the entire stock of vehicles would have produced in their lifetimes on the road! What kind of sick twisted fucktards would be braindead enough to think that this is somehow helpful to their cause?

These people make me sick.

And finally, I am reminded that I am an old fuddy-duddy at the tender age of 37. Lee reports that Amazon.com's "Back-to-School Sale" includes, amongst other things, a jumbo box of Trojan-Enz condoms for 66% off their regular price!

I'm not sure which is more absurd--the presence of this item on a back-to-school shopping list, or the customer product reviews and "customers who bought this item also bought" list included with it.

As he says, things sure have changed since we were in High School.

Queer Conundrum

First read this, and then tell me something:

If, as Professor Halperin says, "'lesbian and gay studies scholars'" [are] leaders in lobbying universities and governments 'to adopt and enforce anti-discrimination policies, to recognize same-sex couples, to oppose the U.S. military's anti-gay policy, to suspend professional activities in states that criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortion, and to intervene on behalf of human rights for lesbians, bisexuals and gay men at the local and national levels'" [Emphasis mine], how would he--or other "gay studies scholars" react/respond to the following hypothetical:

Science makes it possible to identify a gene or chromosome that is shown to have as high a statistical relevance in the identification of a "gay" child as the current tests for Downs Syndrome have. Women receiving amnio at 5 months are given both pieces of information at the same time. Parents who do not want gay children begin selectively aborting those that carry this chromosome, much as some currently do with Downs babies. Keep in mind that amnio does NOT 100% identify a Downs child, it merely indicates the percentage risk or the presence of a chromosomal abnormality that "may" indicate Downs, yet people still abort on this basis alone, so the analogy works.

Hmmmmm...Tough one isn't it Professor Halperin! Still don't want to qualify "choice" at all? Are you suuuuuuuuuure?

Echoes of Nazism

[Via Lee]

There are no words to desribe the revulsion I feel when I realize, as Lee says, that "this is what passes for left-wing dissent these days."

Excuse me while I go puke.

The Constitutionality of "Fuck"

[Via Lee]

I could not make this shit up if I tried.

What's next? A motion to dismiss a case in which the defendent yells "fire" in a crowded theater based on the constitutionality of the word "fire?" How about "bomb" on an airplane?

Well now I know it's hopeless...I'll never be able to convince my kids not to swear at adults in an abusive manner (like the punks in the park). After all, it would be a violation of their civil rights.

Perhaps someone needs to write a brief for the plaintiff citing the history of the word "civil."

Now there's a legal document I'd like to read!

(No, the irony of my ire is not lost on me. I do love this word, but I don't maintain any illusions about its appropriateness in certain situations. As my father always says, "there's a time and a place...")

Fair shmair!

Well, all I can say is, it's ABOUT FUCKING TIME public housing residents who don't work had to get up off their asses and do something to earn MY MONEY (a.k.a., the money that pays for the homes and "free" services they get).

Here in my section of Boston, 90% of the hard-core crime, noise and litter is heaped upon us by the residents of such projects, many of whom sit around all day--in the summer especially--with their huge stereo systems, big screen TVs and La-Z-boy recliners set up OUTSIDE so they can bask in the sun while enjoying their leisure time on our dime. So why shouldn't they have to spend some of their time volunteering?

Let's see how some of these model citizens answer THAT queston:

Keshan Reynolds, 20, riding a bike through the courtyard, said there would need to be an added incentive for him and his friends to volunteer. ''I'd do it if they paid me,'' he said. ''I ain't picking up trash for nothing.''

Scary to think we paid taxes so this illiterate, double-negative-using prick could go to school (but I'm sure didnt') too!

HUD is trying to set the bar at 30 hours of work to exempt someone from volunteer hours. Considering that most of the people who pay the taxes that pay for these projects work at least 40 (even if they're working two jobs or more), this seems fair to me. Remember folks, these people are getting FREE housing. The ruling does not apply to those who pay rent of any kind for these apartments. And what do people have to say about this?

Paulette Turner, a state public housing advocate, said it is unfair and unreasonable to force anyone to perform community service if they are already working, no matter how many hours.

''They just don't have time to do another eight hours of something,'' said Turner, who formerly worked for the Committee for Boston Public Housing. ''It's not fair to them at all.''

"No matter how many hours?" So, if I work 15 hours a week at McDonalds, it's "unfair" to make me work more to earn the home I live in? Spare me. These people have no idea what fair is!

Fair would be most of these low-lifes getting rounded up and put in hard-labor camps, or being forced to clean up the neighborhood every day, all day--to pay for being drains on society, not just the free housing they get. Fair would be me being able to decide whether or not my tax dollars should provide them a house in the first place! Fair would be allowing me to decide that the tax dollars I pay locally that go to the Boston Public Schools could be used instead to help me send my daughter to private school so I wouldn't have to home school her in order to protect her from the scum that thinks it's "unfair" to make them earn what they get for free now!

What happened to pride? What happened to shame? What happened to the notion that "fairness" is not about equal outcomes, it's about equal opportunity! These people have the same opportunities to go to school, give a shit and do something with their lives as the people who live amongst them who DO work for a living, so why aren't they doing it?

What seems "unfair" to me is that the rest of us have to be force-fed this bullshit about "fairness" when it's OUR MONEY they spend to have the city shovel their walks and streets, pick up their trash (not just the stuff in the barrels either), clean and refurbish their homes, supply them with utilities, etc...No one does this crap for me for free, that's for sure. How is THAT fair?

"Hip-Hop Fans" is not a euphemism

Susanna has an excellent analysis of the negative influence of rap and hip-hop on no-black perceptions of black culture. Before you scream "RACIST," how's 'bout you read it. Here's a snippet:

Since I moved back to the northeast, I've worked with and taught a number of young blacks, men and women, who adopted to some measure the hip hop persona - the dress, the mannerisms - although given that they were in school they apparently didn't have the full disdain for education. And in my experience there was nothing between them and a good education but their attitude - I have never found a systematic difference in ability between the races in my classes, nor have I seen in the university as a whole a tendency to hold anyone down. It's all about who listens and works hard. Want to wear baggy pants and a do-rag? Be my guest, just get your essay in on time. But don't call me bitch and expect me to overlook it as a cultural artifact.

Nuns on the Guns

Lee reports on a judge--as he says--"with balls." Such a nice change of pace...

The nuns were convicted and sentenced to prison terms for vandalizing a missile silo at a nuclear weapons facility during anti-war protests last fall. Predictably, some liberal anti-war activists are up in arms, saying that their punishment has a "chilling effect" on activism in general.

Lee sums up this idocy/hypcrisy perfectly:

There's that phrase, a "chilling effect." Look, these women were not prosecuted for protesting, they were prosecuted for attacking a missile silo. I suppose that these nuns would have no problem with someone who disagrees with them vandalizing their convent and writing "Hail Satan" on it in blood. Of course, that would be considered a hate crime. Doing exactly the same thing for different reasons is "free speech."

Amen! He took the words right out of my mouth.

Serial buzz-killers still at-large

I'm waiting for someone to reveal that maintaining such a supply of bile and hatred burns calories or something. At least it would be a logical explanation for the libs apparent addiction to finding the cloud behind every silver lining (or the conspiracy behind ever human error).

Here's a sampling of their "killings" inspired by the deaths of monsters Uday and Qusay Hussein.

First, we have this from Charlie "My hair looks like this because my head has been up my butt for so long" Rangel [Via Vinny]:

Rangel: U.S. Acted Illegally in Killing Uday and Qusay
"We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody," Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it," Rangel contended. "And when you personalize the war and you say you're killing someone's kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody."

When an incredulous Sean Hannity expressed dismay at Rangel's comments, the Harlem Democrat shot back: "How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States."

So let me get this straight...It's wrong to kill two of the most brutal monsters ever to masquerade as human beings, but perfectly fine to target homeless people? I'm kidding. I know, and you know that by "bums" he meant the Bush administration, but still...To suggest that it's ok to assassinate our own leaders, but a "crime" to kill these beasts is insanity at best.

Then we have the following from blogger Hesiod [Via Michele]:

Here's what I believe.
I believe we have been tracking the two brothers for some time, and were waiting for an opportune moment to take them out.
You know...like when Bush's approval ratings started to get uncomfortably close to the South side of 50%.

Riiiiiiiiiight! That's just what happened. Because Bush is so all-knowing he knew that his approval ratings would fall that low in advance. The attacks on him are preditable to be sure, but their effects surely are NOT.

What this asshat is really saying--if you read between the lines--is that Bush and the military knew where the Hussein brothers were, but held their cards even though it would mean:

• More time for the brothers to pay more mercenaries to ambush and kill more U.S. soldiers


• More time for the brothers to possibly escape from the country completely


• More time for Iraqis to live in fear that these brutal torturers might come back and punish them for accepting the Americans and the freedom brought by them


• More time for the rest of the world to look upon the Iraqi operation as a failure


• More time for the press--the same ones who now attack Bush for killing the brothers "in cold blood"--to attack him for failing to capture or kill them

Yeah, makes perfect sense...IF YOU'RE A TOTAL MORON!

Here's what I say: Ding dong, two of the witches ARE dead. Good riddance. May they rot in hell. Would that their father would suffer a similiar fate, soon, with the only difference in his treatment perhaps being a Moussolini-esque public hanging/flogging/beheading, perhaps led by a "spontaneous gathering" of Kurds and other victims of the regime.

And you watch, if that happens, these same cockroaches will crawl out of the woodwork to condemn it.

ACLU in my neighborhood?

OK folks, you will seriously NOT believe this (wait, you will, what am I saying?)!

Last night was the town safety meeting here in my neighborhood of Boston. Attendance was higher than I've ever seen, and a BPD Commander was the main presenter. I wasn't sure how, or even if we would bring up or be asked to speak about the abuse we suffered, but given that things had been quieting down, I also wasn't sure I wanted to talk about it.

Apparently, in the past month alone, there's been a murder, an attempted murder, an attempted rape, a burglary, several dozen cases of vandalism and car theft, and a heroin problem run amok.

According to some of the neighbors, some of the shops on one of the streets aren't "real" in the sense that they don't really sell anything. Now that I think of it, I've actually never seen anyone actually come out of one little grocery store with anything resembling bads of FOOD.

This little "grocery" store is allegedly a front for heroin and oxycontin dealers. The people who live nearby say they've seen High School kids and even outsiders who get off the bus go in the store, and come out carrying large wads of cash, small plastic or canvas bags, but never groceries. The police say they know nothing about it.

The Commander told these people to continue to call 9-1-1 when they see something, but the angry residents complained that they do call and it doesn't help at all. In fact, they said that even when they do call, the police take over 45 minutes to respond because there's nothing happening at that moment--present tense. They consider the report of a drug deal something that happened in the past, and therefore only worthy of a drive by, when they get around to it, to take a peek and possibly file a report "for the file."

When asked why they don't patroll the area, possibly in plain clothes, the police Commander explained that the dealers know them all too well, and they just don't have the officers in that part of the department to swap them in and out to keep the dealers guessing.

So then one flustered resident asked why the police didn't put up a surveillance system in a hidden location so the scumbags could be caught on tape, in the act, and then cops could show up in time to actually bust some people and shut down the store.

To everyone's shock and horror, the Commander (exasperated at this point by his inability to do his job at all, much less to our satisfaction) said "We tried that, but after only a week the ACLU took us to court and made us take it down...Said we were violating the civil rights of the dealers."

There you have it folks. Reason number one why we're on the fast track to resembling Columbia--where people with money hire their own security guards, and the police work for the criminals, or not at all, and the criminals become so powerful, they replace the government in terms of who's really "making" the law.

I'm not typically a violent person, but I honestly hope that every ACLU lawyer in the country spontaneously combusts, comes down with a deadly disease, or gets assassinated by an irate victim of the people their ridiculousness protects.

For those of you who tuned in to find out about OUR story, the good news is that several more parents approached us after the meeting to give us their phone numbers, and to apologize for their kids' behavior. I'd like to think their words were genuine, but given that our CSO repeated his words from the other night that the new policy in the park will be to arrest ANY trespasser in the park if a 9-1-1 call comes in, "even if they're in diapers," I have to wonder if they aren't just scared shitless that their perfect little darlings might actually end up at the station one night in ride and possibly even a fine paid. We shall see because time WILL tell.

In the meantime, we plan to heed the advice the Commander gave to the neighbors in the heroin infested area of town and install our OWN surveillance system. According to him, this is absolutely legal and untouchable by the dreaded ACLU.

Fuckers!

Punkwatch 2, Day 4

Well, here we are the day after the first post-parental-speech night in the park. The good news is that it was quiet. Some kids showed up again, but they pretty much kept to themselves and left around 8:00 p.m. like they're supposed to. I do still wish these older kids would stay out of the little kid's playground, especially since all they really do is damage the equipment and leave large quantities of trash lying around, but then again, I suppose I shouldn't get greedy. They left us alone, and that's what we wanted, right?

But let's see how long it lasts. I want to be hopeful, but I also know how these things go in cycles. I'm sure they're just taking a week or two "off" to behave like perfect little angels so their parents will let their guards down. Remember, these punks are PR experts, and they know just how to manipulate adults. I can't see them giving up this easily, I just can't.

In the meantime, I am taking the advice you folks have given and am proceeding with the surveillance project as planned. We're just pricing out equipment now and hopefully will have something installed within a week or two. We plan to document EVERYTHING from here on out, just in case...

Also, I'm sitting down now to write a letter to the CSO's Captain, and to the local paper, praising his performance and (even though I still think it was somewhat lacking in the law-and-order sense) the actions of the parents who stepped up and talked to the kids. I'm hopeful that both letters will have a lasting impact on how at least the adults regard us in this community. It's more kiss-ass than I'm accustomed to, but I'll do it if it help me develop some allies in this little "war."

For those of you who've been following the "Gift of Pain" story (a.k.a. "Me and My Fibroid"), there is good news!
1) I've been taken off high-risk status!!
2) I still have to limit my activity and am on what they are calling "modified bed rest," but I don't have to literally stay in bed all day anymore (woo hoo!)
3) I've figured out how to take my meds such that I have few moments of real "pain" anymore. I've got it down to "mild discomfort" now, and on only two pills per day. I'm not likely to get hooked on this drug on such a low dose.
4) I've decided, as a result of my experience with pain management under the care of skilled, caring doctors, that chemistry ain't all bad! In fact, I'm even open to the idea of an epidural now. This is huge for me because I was little Miss No-Drugs-No-Matter-What, hard-core fantasy birth experience girl before this whole episode.

In summary, I think I've learned so much about being flexible and rolling with the punches that I'll actually be a better parent than I would have been had this whole mess--punk kids included--not happened.

Thanks again for all your support. I love my readers!

Punkwatch 2, Day 3

I wish I could come up with a more clever title for this post, but I just can't narrow it down to only one...

Get ready for the most bizarre post on this topic yet.

But first, an important disclaimer: The following is not, in any way shape or form, meant to belittle or exploit the pain suffered by those who have been victims of pedophilia. On the contrary. It is meant to illustrate how some people, in this case kids themselves, are willing to do both to manipulate a situation to their own benefit.

Finish drinking that cofee or soda before you start reading this, I wouldn't want you to spit it all over your screen...

Last night was a beautiful summer night, the kind that makes you want to be outside, even if, like me, you can barely walk upright. Since my doctors said a brief walk outside would do me some good, I decided to join my husband and dog for a short walk in the park around 7:30.

It was still light out, but the neighborhood kids had already started to gather at the end of the park farthest away from our house. They were sitting on a bench, cautiously eyeing us, and the Boston Public Works trucks that were out in force checking all the lights in the park to make sure they all worked (for a nice change of pace). We had to wonder if our calls to the Mayor's office earlier that day had something to do with this sudden need to fix something that has been broken all summer.

We ignored the kids, even though they were making some snide remarks already. We just weren't going to give them the satisfaction of ruining our walk. In fact, I felt like we were taking a small stand by being so visible in the park only a day after they had so viciously tormented us. Still, I couldn't shake the feeling that something was brewing--that they were plotting something specific.

As we walked past the portion of the playground where they base themselves each night--also known as the "Tot-Lot" because it's got the swings, jungle gym and an age limit of eight--we took a moment to note that the sign on the Tot-Lot gate says "This playground closes at 8 p.m." OK, so we were wrong. They're trespassing by two hours, not just one, and since they're obviously over 8 years old, they're never supposed to be loitering around in there ever.

It stayed pretty quiet for a while, and my husband wondered if maybe the new lights and the phone calls had made a dent. I still felt that eery feeling that it was merely the calm before the storm.

Sure enough, at 9:00 on the nose, all 40 or so of those kids descended on the Tot-Lot en masse, hooting and hollering and banging on the equipment. We just looked at each other and said "We're going to ignore it, right?"

My husband said "We'll see..."

I posted myself in the upstairs window, peeking out through the blinds, just to be sure I could spot any really serious vandalism in the works before it happened. After all the work we put into renovating the front of our house, there was no way I was going to stand by and just allow these punks to spray paint it or tear out my plants or anything like that.

After a few minutes, five boys gathered with two huge cardboard box halves and some paper on which they'd written "Free dogs." They were standing directly in front of our house and arguing about which one of them would be the knocker, and which would light whatever it was they were planning on putting inside the box for us. I guess their plan was to have us open the box and get a face full of something explosive. I'm sure I saw an M80 in one of their hands anyway.

I called to my husband--softly, so as not to let on that we were watching--that he should call 9-1-1. He was one step ahead of me, video camera in hand, phone in the other. I called while he started taping.

As I called, my husband managed to film one of the other kids in the park climbing the lightpost and kicking out the brand new light with his foot, and two others throwing tennis balls at the side of our house. I guess this was how they decided to get us outside without having to knock on the door standing next to the lit incendiary device in the box. My husband just kept filming.

Thankfully, before they could proceed with their plot, one of the kids in the park screamed "He's tapin' us! He's got a camera in that window, look!!"

The kids with the box backed off a bit, which frustrated the hell out of the three girls who had been giving them directions (more like orders actually) from inside the Tot-Lot itself. They tried to get the boys to continue with their plan anyway saying "He can't do nuthin' to youse, get ov-ah they-ah!"

And then it happened...The boy who'd spotted the camera yelled "PEDOPHILE!"

Several of the kids frose in their tracks, looked up at the window and said "What? Really? He's a pervert? He's tapin' us? Hey, nephew..." [this is some form of insult, although I can't figure out what it means] "...Ah you gettin' my good side? You sick fuck! Pervert! We're callin' the cops, the cops ah gonna come and get you!"

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or scream. Pedophiles? How is taping people while they harass you a turn-on? Is this some new and very specific kind of S&M?

Thirty minutes passed, still no cops. I called our community rep again, and my husband left me holding the camera while he went outside to meet up with him on the corner.

From our window, I can't see or hear what goes on at the corner of our street. It's just out of sight and hearing range. Of course, the same goes for the kids on the swings directly across from that window. Perhaps that's why they had no compunction about starting to do a strip-tease right there. They mooned me, flashed me and danced around calling me "sick fuckin' pervert."

I felt funny continuing to tape them, but then again, no one asked them to disrobe, least of all me! But after another five minutes, I'd had enough. I called my husband on his cell phone to ask him what was going on at the corner. What he told me shocked me.

Apparently, some of the kids had called their parents to tattle on US! Three parents had showed up--two mothers and a father--and one of the mothers was going OFF on my husband. She called him a "sick, disgusting child molester," and screamed at him right in front of the kids. He could barely get a word in edgewise! When he recognized her as one of the parents who'd showed up (and sided with the kids) the other night, he said "I remember you from the other night" and she said "Yeah, I remember! You were sitting there antagonizing the kids!"

Antagonizing? When he asked what she meant, she said "You were just sittin' there on your front curb, antagonizing them!"

Yeah, right. He was sitting there WAITING FOR THE COMMUNITY REP! But apparently, sitting in front of your own house, holding onto your cell phone and minding your own business is considered "antagonistic" to 11 and 12 year-olds, and justifies phone harassment, attempted vandalism and destruction of public property, not to mention violation of curfew and trespassing.

Can you imagine? Let's try to get a glimpse of the world as this mother saw it when she first arrived at the park:

My husband and I are two sick and demented people who purposely moved to a neighborhood in which we "didn't belong" because we weren't born here to parents who were also born here. We are both short in stature, and I'm pregnant--obviously a ploy to set ourselves up as victims from the git-go.

Having set ourselves up physically for toture, we then set about "antagonizing" a bunch of kids by coming and going from our own home, walking our dog, watering our plants, loading and uloading groceries and otherwise being visible near and in our home. When the kids just couldn't take it anymore, they began tormenting us with verbal abuse and trespassing, all of which we wanted of course, and then we began taping it for sexual kicks.

As soon as we turned on the camera, we called 9-1-1 to make sure they'd catch us in the act because, let's face it, our particular brand of S&M would be incomplete without this coup de grace! Can you imagine that call?

"Hello, 9-1-1 operator, what is your emergency?"

"Ummmm, yeah, I want to report a pedophile taping kids in the park in front of my house....Oh yeah, and I think it might be ME."

Trust me folks, I could NOT make this shit up if I took the entire bottle of percoset all at once and tried!

Thankfully, our one nice neighbor on the corner heard the disturbance and came out to see if she could help. She has lived here all her life, and knows us pretty well. We walk our dogs together sometimes. She stepped in and calmed this mother down by telling her that she knew us and that we weren't perverts. She also vouched for our story about the abuse because she had apparently been vicitmized a few times herself. I didn't know because, as I said, I can't see or hear what goes on at the corner, and she'd never mentioned it to me before.

With the mom's claws re-sheathed, my husband was able to explain what we were doing with the tape--putting it together for the media mostly--and that he was merely on his way to meet up with the community rep who showed up right about then.

After he told the whole story--OUR side of the story--the mom decided to round up the kids and give them a little lecture about their behavior in the park. She said she knew most of them, and was willing to do it. By this point, I had hobbled down to the park in my PJs because I couldn't stand not knowing what was going on down there, and I saw the kids being rounded up. I wanted to at least witness what was happening.

At first, we were elated! We thought we'd finally get what we wanted--parental involvement and a stern warning to the kids. We ended up having to be satisfied with one out of the two...This woman gave her little speech, and she said some good stuff. She defended me, explained how disgusting the "c" word is, and how dangerous it is for them to torment me in my condition. But she also said "You win. You've beaten this couple down. They're afraid of you, and they were going to go to the pay-pah with you-ah pick-chas on tape."

We just bit our tongues and dug our nails into our palms. "Beaten down?" "Afraid?" HARDLY! Afraid of going postal and actually killing one of these brats maybe, but not afraid of them actually hurting us! Sick to death of their shit perhaps, but not "beaten."

The father who showed up was a little better though. When one of the kids whined "But they called us punks!" He said "Well, you're acting like punks! What do you expect?"

After the mom's speech, the kids left the Tot-Lot and returned to their original perch on the far side of the park and we were left to talk to the parents some more. I didn't want to escalate the situation from that point--things seemed to be sort of on the right track--but at the same time, I wanted to make a few key points:
1. The girls were just as bad as the boys - Despite the heartfelt (heavy sarcasm) little apology three of them gave me as they left the Tot-Lot, I didn't believe for one second that these little darlings felt any remorse for what they'd done. I didn't say that to the parents, but I wanted them to know that the girls were no angels. I was careful not to single out the speechmaker's daughter (who I now know by name and face), but she was one of the leaders in the abuse against me in particular, and "cunt" is her favorite word!

2. The phone calls were being traced - The parents had mentioned the calls, but had forgotten to mention that they were being traced to deter the kids from doing it again. The father who was there knew the father of the girl whose cellphone made some of the calls. Apparently his daughter told him about the calls the day before! He said this other girl was passing her phone around to other kids so they could "call their moms" and they were calling us instead. He assured me that someone would talk to that other father, and with luck, that cell phone would be taken away.

3. We were calling 9-1-1 because the kids were BREAKING THE LAW, several laws to be exact--No one made that point to the kids. I actually only shared this with our CSO (Community Service Officer, a police officer who showed up in street clothes as a neighbor more than anything), and he was pissed. He told the mom who made the speech that the parents need to do something to keep these kids out of the park late at night because pretty soon, the police are going to start arresting everyone, even if they're in "fuckin' diapahs!"

4. We didn't do ANYTHING to deserve this treatment--Nothing was said to the effect that no one, not even so-called "yuppies" (also known, I'm told, as "carpetbaggers," "toonies," "short-timers" and "temporaries"), "deserves" to be harassed the way these kids were harassing us. If anything, the congratulatory tone was still there. The "you won" shit was really not getting the point across. I didn't say this part, but I wanted to. I didn't want to antagonize the parents who were at least trying to help, but I did stress that we hadn't done anything to bring this on, no matter WHAT their kids would tell them later at home (because I was sure they would make up some shit about us calling them names or looking down our noses at them, "waaaaaaaah"). The fact that they so quickly grabbed onto the term "pedophile" made me realize that these little shitheads are pretty strong in the propaganda department!

So, it's possible that the worst is over now. We have at least three names and numbers of three parents who have kids who play in the park. We told them we will be calling if this continues or starts up again later. We also told them that we're grateful for the initiative they took after they showed up last night, but we stopped short (unfortunately, in retrospect) of telling them that it's too damn bad that it took the kids' accusations of pedophilia to get them there!

We went back inside somewhat relieved and slightly more hopeful about our future this summer with these kids, but at the same time thoroughly disgusted that even the concerned parents were more afraid of their little darlings being videotaped from a distance while they were fully clothed than they were about them being out in the park late at night, loitering around doing God-only-knows-what with God-only-knows-whom.

Once again, a thank you to those who donated to the surveillance fund. We will probably still set it up because we're skeptical about this little "cease-fire," but we'll be changing the pledge drive today to one to raise funds for our moving costs because no matter what comes out of last night, we are still getting the hell out of this place!

Serve and protect? Yeah, right!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not so naive as to believe that the police are actually there to "serve and protect." It is, and always has been, a bullshit slogan to begin with.

[For background related to this post, read this first, then this and this.]

Police are there to enforce laws, period. What that means is, they are there to arrest those who break laws, provided there is enough evidence to warrant them to do so.

But even with a proper understanding of what the police are supposed to do, I cannot help but find the Boston Police woefully lacking in competence.

"Oh no, what now?" You ask?

Get a load of this shit...

Last night, as predictably as the sun rising in the East (or Gephardt not showing up to vote), the punks started in on us with a vengeance around 9:00 p.m. I personally find this funny (in a funny/strange, not funny/ha ha kind of way) because curfew for the park is 9:00 p.m.

The crank calls had already been going on all evening, one every hour or so, but we'd just been amused by these. After each one, we'd hit *57 to trace them, because according to the phone company, as soon as there are three successful traces to a single number, a police investigation is triggered automatically. So our attitude about these calls was "have at it morons!"

But at 9:00, the door banging started. This time, the kids were banging and ringing the bell, and throwing things at the house (pieces of hockey sticks, trash from the playground, part of a broken scooter...). At first, we tried to ignore it, not wanting to give them more the satisfaction that they were getting to us again. We just called 9-1-1 again as we'd been instructed to do the night before, and waited for the police to come clear the park.

About 30 minutes after we called 9-1-1 though, a strange thing happened. The phone rang, and it was the Police Department calling to ask us if we wanted the cops to come to our door. We told them NO! The whole reason we were suffering again was that the night before the punks saw us talking to the cops. We figured they'd know we had called, but why give them the extra ammo of being sure?

The operator said she just wanted to know how we'd like to file our report, that's all. We said we'd prefer to do it over the phone if that was ok with her, and she said it would be fine and that someone would call back so we could do that.

Meanwhile, we waited...another 15 minutes went by, not a cruiser in sight. Then the crank calls and pounding became more intense, and I noticed my husband was starting to boil over. I wanted the cops to get there fast as much to cool him off as to get rid of those damn kids. By now, they were so loud, you could hear them cat-calling for us and screaming obscenities even inside the house, with the windows closed. I could hardly believe my neighbors weren't also furious, but judging by the fact that the 9-1-1 operator told us we were the only ones to have called, I guessed they weren't, or they weren't home--one or the other.

Finally, my husband lost it again and opened the door and reached out to grab one of the punks, but the little brat got away. He was a skinny little runt, no more than 11 years old, but we now had a solid physical description so we called 9-1-1 again, asked for the same operator and gave it to her to give the cops. We told her that the only way we'd want the cop at our door was if he was holding on to this kid for proper I.D., and we'd be happy to I.D. the kid and press charges.

Why so harsh you ask? "The poor wittle kid is only 11" you say? Well, consider that this "poor wittle kid" wasn't just banging on my door every few minutes for over an hour, he was screaming some of the most vile obscenities at us through the door as he knocked, and over the phone when he called (yes, it was the same voice on at least one occasion).

Still we waited. The the phone rang, and it was the Police calling to take the report over the phone. We asked her where the cruiser was, and she said "Oh, I thought you didn't want them to come out?!"

Well...I thought my husband had suddenly morphed into Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" he was so angry. His eyes took on that deranged postal-worker on crack kind of glare, and I knew if those cops didn't show up soon, I'd have to worry about him grabbing the next punk who came to the door and beating the shit out of him. I begged the officer on the phone to send a car out immediately, for everyone's sake.

In the middle of my sentence, the phone beeped again. The officer told me to get it and repeat what the person said:

Me: "Hello?"

Punk: "I can seeeeee you! I can see you sitting there BITCH!"

Me: (losing it) "FUCK YOU!"

Click.

I clicked back over to the cop and repeated this lovely exchange. She was horrified, until I told her that this wasn't actually the worst of it and repeated the exchange from the first call of the day.

Just as an aside, if you're wondering how the kids got our number, it's really not that hard. They probably did a reverse look-up on our address. It's simple to do, and until yesterday, we'd been listed because we'd never had a problem with crank calls and didn't feel like paying extra for an unpublished number when we didn't seem to need one. Yesterday I called and had the number delisted from the white pages, but that's not really going to help with the kids who have it already, and we'd really like to get enough traces on them with the current number to be able to press charges before we change it because then the parents would be held accountable for the charges associated with the switch.

While I was on the phone giving the report, my husband was getting more and more antsy. He even took our video camera outside to capture some of the action, but it was so dark (they turn the lights off in the park thinking it will dissuade the kids from hanging out there after dark, but it has the opposite effect, DUH) he wasn't able to get much more than sounds, and even these were garbled.

Finally, the police showed up and--predictably--did exactly what we didn't want them to do. They sought us out and asked us why we'd called!

Oblivious to the kids yelling at the top of their lungs right in front of them.

Focused on finding fault with the adult and not the children on the scene.

Completely disinterested in doing their jobs! (See description above)

Despite the fact that

There is a law against minors being out after 10:00. p.m.

There is a law against trespassing on private property at any hour.

There are laws against telephone harassment--serious ones.

There are laws against stalking (and since we now know it's the same kids night after night, and we've asked them to stop, this classifies).

There are laws against anyone being in the public park after 9:00 p.m. (or after dark, whichever comes first).

In other words, there were numerous LAWS they could have enforced last night, or the other night, or any other night for that matter. Instead, they told my husband--in a snotty defensive tone no less--that the curfew signs for the park weren't clearly posted in the first place, and that it wasn't for him to tell them how to do their jobs (even though they had just asked him why he'd called, and all he'd said was "I called so you guys can clear the kids out of the park so they'll stop harassing me and my wife!").

For those of you who might still not get it, and who just don't understand what all the fuss is about, explain something to me. If kids 10-16 learn that they can easily break the laws listed above, what are they learning about abiding by the law in general? A 12 year-old lacks the cognitive reasoning ability to understand that some people (these cops for example) have decided that "serious" crimes like burglary, rape and murder are "more important" for the moment than these so-called "petty" offenses. They simply see police doing nothing, and figure "Police aren't scary" period. So who do you think will be the burglars, rapists and murderers of tomorrow? Sure, not all of these kids, but maybe one of them, two perhaps? Isn't that two too many when you consider that a short ride in a cruiser, followed by a swift kick in the ass by an angry parent might just change a punk's "misapprehension" of the importance of abiding by the law before it comes to that!

What I'm saying is, it seems to me that society would rather pay MILLIONS to investigate, try and imprison "serious" criminals someday, than pay thousands, or tens of thousands perhaps, to prevent delinquent kids from becoming such a drain on society.

Yes I know that this kind of discipline begins in the home, but it doesn't end there. If cities are going to set up public parks that are clearly designed with the entertainment of chiiiiiiiiiiildren in mind (with swings, jungle-gyms, basketball hoops and roller hockey rinks), they have an obligation to make sure that the people who use those facilities do so in a responsible manner.

The way I see it, the parents are "using" these facilities as babysitters for their kids, and every time they allow their kids to get away with behaving this way outside of their homes, and behind their backs, they are forcing the police, and the neighborhood to "work" for them. As such, they are the ones who should PAY when we work "overtime" putting up with their brats.

If the police would do the EASY thing, and would round up just a handful of these punks, for trespass alone (which is the technical offense when you're out after curfew), and would charge stiff fines to their parents each time, it would stop. Beeeeeee-lieve me, it would stop. And for those few who aren't dissuaded by pain in the pocketbooks, try a day in court and the possibility of JAIL! If the parent had to serve time for repeat offenses of the child, it would stop.

Too harsh you say? Well then, what do you suggest? If a 12 year-old thinks it's "cool" or impresses the girls to spend a night in jail (which is what we're told they do), then what good does it do? I can assure you, only the most degenerate parent would think it's equally "cool." Those who work would be forced to miss work to sit in jail or show up in court. Those who don't work could be held accountable by refusing their welfare checks or putting them on community service or forced labor. Why not? Why should we keep working harder and harder for them every day instead? Is that fair???

I've put a call into my local CSO (Community Service Officer) who is a cop. I've met him at our town safety meetings, so he knows me. I've told him about our plan to install a surveillance system so we can go to the media with the story if we don't get any action. He says he's going to talk to his Captain, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

In the meantime, I want to thank those of you who've written with words of caring and support. If you'd like to contribute to our surveillance fund, please feel free to drop a buck or two into the tip jar. If you're iffy on whether that will work, don't worry, soon enough we'll be doing a tip drive to help with moving costs! We just have to get through the summer and get this baby safety born, and we will make like the baby herself and HEAD OUTTA HERE!

I know it seems crazy...I know it seems like we should just ignore it and they'll go away, these things are so petty and seemingly harmless. But when you consider that this situation escalated for over a week BEFORE we showed our faces and grabbed the kid on the doorstep, I think you'll realize that ignoring things doesn't always work either. It's a Catch-22: They want attention so badly, they won't let up until they get it, and when you finally lose your shit and give it to them, even if it's negative, they come back for more.

But the bottom line is, the Police have a job, and it's to enforce the LAWS, and when they can't, or won't enforce the laws that protect the law-abiding, but can and do enforce the ones that protect the law-breaking, how "free" are we from tyranny really?

Not very. Think about it.

Deb to punks: "Can you hear me now? Gooood!"

So a couple of hours ago, my phone rang. The caller ID said "PRIVATE."

Hmmm...A cell phone I think, better answer it.

Me: "Hello?"

Punk: (in high-pitched mocking voice) "Hu-llo?! Hehehe! Suck my dick you yuppie cunt!"

Click.

*69 doesn't work, "The number you are trying to call cannot be reached by this method."

A few minutes later, the phone rang again. This time, it showed a number unknown to me, no name.

Me: "Hell-O!"

Punk: (Clearly oblivious to the fact that his/her phone had dialed--probably while in a pocket, pressed up against something) "Unintelligible....Hehehehe, stupid bitch....Hehehehe...Unintelligible...."

Me: "HELL-O!"

Punk: Same as above.

I hung up and quickly dialed the number.

Punk: "Yeah?"

Me: "Who is this?"

Punk: "Aileen, who's this?"

Me: "You just called me, and if you do it again, I'm gonna find out where you live, and I'm gonna find you, and you are going to regret the day you were born you little piece of shit!"

Punk: "I didn't call you, stupid cunt"

What is it with that word? Does she not realize that's a dead giveaway? Moron!

Me: "I know you did, and you'd better not do it again, got it?"

Click.

Then I sent the number to my pal Vinny, and using his secret magical powers, he checked it out and sure enough, it was a Verizon number!

So, I called Verizon, complained, and now they have it on record. The owner of the account will be notified that there has been a complaint made against that cell number for harassment, and I feel gooooooooood!

Deb: 100 pts
Punks: 0

Punkwatch2, Day 2

Here I am on the morning after, exhausted and still reeling from the events of last night."

Here's the update:
1) We have to go to the police station today to file an "Incident Report" because essentially, what we did was make a "Citizen's Arrest" of this kid by holding him until the cops showed up. This is perfectly "legal" we're told, but only if we document it with the police. If we don't, the kid, his parents, some skanky lawyer looking to make a quick buck, you name it, can come after us and claim "False Arrest" and they can make up whatever story they want and we'll have no recourse.

2) Finding this out last night necessitated over an hour of sitting down and writing everything that was said and done from the time the punks first started in on us last week. Like we haven't lost enough sleep over this shit.

3) We're looking into setting up a webcam system to capture the shit that goes on (and the sounds) in the park, and will be looking into making a "best of" tape to send to the media, Howie Carr, and the Mayor's office. No, I'm not kidding. If we can do it for under $200, we're so there!

Some other thoughts brought on by last night's activities:

• Since 90% of the kids who hang around in the park after curfew, harassing us and vandalizing public and private property, live in the Mishuwam Housing Projects down the street, is it not reasonable to consider that we are--in effect--"supporting" them?


• If we are, as my husband says "supporting them," shouldn't we have some say in how they are raised?


• If the same liberals whose elected representatives insist that "society has an obligation to educate" the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren, then am I not part of that society??? Do I not have some say in what that "education" should look like? So when I am part of the 70% majority of people who voted to get rid of the very stupid, very ineffective and VERY EXPENSIVE (try $72M) bilingual education program in favor of an "English Immersion" program, should I not expect to have my vote respected? Then why is it that our dictator Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran, saw fit to lead the legislature to first try to sneak the program back into the budget anyway, and then override the Governor's veto of its re-insertion? Wait, lemme guess...It's all for the "chiiiiiiiiildren!"


• If these kids are the ones who end up graduating from "nigger knocking" (which is apparently what it's called) to auto theft, drug dealing and murder, and are likely to end up in jail as a result, are they not going to be spending the better part of their lives living on my dime too? Should I not care then, even when it's "only a prank?" Wasn't it Rudy who said that letting the cockroaches take over the kitchen will leave you infested with rats for sure?


• Why is it "threatening" for my husband to call this little shithead who's been tresspassing on our property a "worthless piece of garbage who'll never amount to anything" (statistically true, by the way), but not threatening for his half-dozen female groupies to stand there calling me a "yuppie cunt" who's going to "get a kick in the stomach" if I don't watch out? Just because they're "chiiiiiiiiiiiiildren?"


• These are the same "chiiiiiiiildren" that the Florida Supreme Court says are mature enough and sensible enough to have abortions without their parents' consent? Wait...Let me think about this for a minute...Pin a medal on those justices! In all likelihood (and as much as I abhor abortion), they've just done society a favor. Still, it makes you think, doesn't it? Double standards and all--one minute they're mature and have "rights," and the next, they're helpless creatures in need of our assistance and guidance and not responsible for their own actions--how interesting!


• These same parents who were bitchin' and moanin' last night about us calling the cops and sicking "big brother" on them--butting our noses into their private lives (how a public park and my front stoop is "private" is beyond me, but whatever...) are the FIRST ones to demand that the government "doooooo something" to bail them out of some self-inflicted, self-destructive crisis or behavior!

I am ceaselessly amazed at the way people in this state talk out of both sides of their mouths.

They mindlessly vote Democratic in every election, even when it's friggin' McGovern running, but they are

• Racist--Blaming all of the problems in this town on bussing black kids in for the schools. It's important to note, of course, that the kids harassing us are lily white and live here, but I digress...According to these people, it's the "niggers," Jews, "Fags," "Gooks" and "Yuppies" of all stripes that are responsible for all their problems. They even called my husband a "gay faggot" last night, to which he replied "Wow! You come up with that all by yourself? How creative!".


• Hyper-"Religious"--I kid you not, these people go to church EVERY FRIGGIN' SUNDAY. They are the same Boston Catholics who are whining about the sex-abuse scandal (which is horrific, don't get me wrong) and how the church should pay, and how tragic it is that their "faith" has been tarnished in the media, blah blah..."Faith?" In what exactly? What happened to "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Oh yeah...I forgot, they don't give a rat's ass about themselves, or their kids, so I guess they're living up to that part as it is. Silly me...


• Patriotic to the point of Jingoism--It kind of goes hand in hand with their racism/xenophobia. Every "Townie" has a flag on their house, their car, their clothing...You name it, they're walking, talking Uncle Sams. Just one problem...They only seem to care about their freedom--freedom to do whatever the hell they want, using my money that is. Sure, they're thrilled that other people's kids--kids who weren't raised to be delinquents, who have good values and a work ethic--are out there voluntarily fighting and dying, but not for the right reasons. They're just happy that while they're at it, they're taking out "rag-head Arabs!"

  These people give "Patriotism" a bad name. Not just because of attitudes like this, but because they'll wave their flags at you incessantly, and then turn around and vote for some asshole like Kerry or Dean in 2004 who opposed the war, just because they'll be more likely to take money from the "rich liberal yuppies" who clearly don't deserve it (heavy sarcasm) and give it to the "poor poor pitiful downtrodden townies" because somehow it's "yuppies" who've driven property values so high in the town where they grew up. They give no thought to the fact that "yuppies" and other non-townies wouldn't have any properties to buy if native "townies" weren't willing to sell their piece of crap, falling-down-around their-ears-ancient homes to them for hefty profits in the first place! In fact, the only reason the real estate in this town is worth anything is that "yuppies" (in this case, "people with a clue" and some civic pride) have cleaned up and rehabbed otherwise uninhabitable buildings at huge expense to themselves after being gouged by the townies who charged them 10, 15 or 20 times the homes' appraised values in the first place!

  Then again, they also seem to forget that they are living in subsidized housing, using food stamps and hanging around all day at Sullivan's bar getting hammered instead of working for a living like the average (you guessed it) "YUPPIE!"

Because after all folks, "yuppie" is just a catch-all in these parts for "working stiffs who don't walk around in wife-beater t's and sweats all day." And "liberal?" Well, that's just their term for "anyone who isn't a racist, xenophobic, foul-mouthed drunk who beats his wife and kids on a regular basis."

At least that's one of the two definitions of liberal in this state. The other is reserved for the people who defend these charming folks as if they are the salt of the earth.

Yes folks, Massachusetts is not only one of the nation's biggest shit-holes, it is the most hypocritical place I've ever been. Whether it's the nutjobs in Cambridge who drool over Noam Chomsky, protest in the name of the "common man" and then send their kids to private school, or the loser morons in my part of Boston who claim to hate the "Yuppie liberals" from Cambridge--the very ones who defend them at every turn--who wave flags, salivate at the thought of dead dark-skinned foreigners and then vote for Kennedy and Kerry anyway, this place is a freak-show of gargantuan proportions.

In this state, you could be home schooling your kids for 15 years without any problem, minding your own business and paying your taxes anyway--and one day, social services could show up at your door and demand that your kids take standardized tests to prove that you are not "educationally neglecting" them, and if you refuse, you could be told that you must comply or have your kids "removed" from your home and put in foster care "for their protection," but if you go ahead and send your kids to the crap-ass public schools, where they get to hang out with other kids whose parents teach them that it's a perfectly respectable and useful thing to do to r