Tuesday, April 29, 2008

He Killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, I'll vote for him!




....flashback to West Africa, 1997....The first 'Black president' was still whoring around with fat interns, while a despotic Charles Taylor raped, pillaged and amputated rival warlords and thier minions without pause... He is now in the hands of the International War Crimes Court.

In many ways he was the perfect man to exploit the drawn-out ending of one era — the slow demise of nationalist Big Man politics — and the beginning of another, in which warlords presiding over small, nonideological insurgencies played havoc across much of the region, enriching themselves and laying waste to their homelands.

Indeed, the term Big Man, an overworked cliché of African reportage, seems almost too small in describing Mr. Taylor, and calling him a warlord fails to grasp the breadth of his ambition.

It was his blend of the two roles that proved so diabolical and deadly. By the time he was pushed from power in 2003, more than 300,000 people had died in conflicts he ignited. His forces and allies had looted Liberia and Sierra Leone, and parts of their neighbors, down to the studs. Millions of people had been scattered into half a dozen nations around West Africa. From Liberia alone he is believed to have stolen at least $100 million as president between 1997 and 2003.

Yet, we did not feel the need to intervene, did we? On the contrary, he supped with Jimmah Carter and Jesse Jackson at the same time he was committing his brutal acts. Wonder why this was buried? We all heard about Carter's embarrassing trip to 'talk' to Hamaas, and Jesse is no stranger to publicity, yet these two ( along with idiot wingnut Pat Robertson ) actually gave him credibility, which allowed him to reign terror over West Africa. Nice. Just remember whenever you see Jackson at a 'Duke' Rally,or when Jimmah goes over to 'talk nicey nice' to Al Queda.

On another note: this is the most disturbing kids book....ever.

http://www.mybeautifulmommy.com/

Friday, April 25, 2008

Yeeeee arrrr ggghhh!!! Thanks for making me smile, Dr Dean.




Dr Paul now makes me weep, but Dr Dean never dissapoints!:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1089264

Democratic stalwarts who overwhelmingly elected Dr. Howard Dean as Democratic National Committee chairman may be wishing they’d gotten a second opinion, analysts said.

As the presidential primary season grinds on, the ex-Vermont governor once hailed as a 21st century grass-roots fund-raising guru now could be held responsible for procedural missteps that could squander the Dems’ chance to overthrow the Republican party.

“What’s going to matter is whether the convention is a big success and a nominee is elected. If those things happen no one will remember the snafu,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “If, on the other hand, the Democrats managed to blow a good opportunity here, everyone will suffer, and that includes Dean.”

Thursday, April 24, 2008

So Long Wesley, and thanks for all the fish






Wesley Snipes gets 3 years in prison for.....tax fraud?

"We think it sends a real message," U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill said. "Again you have to pay your taxes. If you dispute the taxes you owe, contact the IRS and go through the formal process. To continually just say, 'I don't owe taxes, you must show me why I owe taxes,' it seemed his position was ludicrous."

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

in Honor of 'Earth Day'

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."

The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

ain't that precious!



Does anyone find it odd that whenever you see a 'somewhere in Texas a village is missing an idiot' bumper sticker, it is almost always followed by multiple others? It's as if to say 'hey! look at me! I hate the president, and I'm a feminist!'

I never put a political bumper sticker on my car. Why would I want the guy in the car next to me to know how I vote? That's just plain stupid.

I smiled as I passed the Corolla ( the usual car of poor moonbats,since they cannot afford a Prius) with the 'well behaved women rarely make history', because it occurs to me that 'loud, uppity women rarely become POTUS'


UPPITY WOMEN UNITE

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Sean Costello....RIP



goodbye, my friend...I'm crying right now.

The world lost a great talent today

I'm 'counting' ah ah ahhhhhhh!

Monday, April 14, 2008

ridiculous.




...so, 2 lovely ladies go to a wedding photographer, and request them to shoot thier "commitment ceremony", but when she declines, due to her religious beliefs, they file a complaint...

"...The couple that included Willock approached Elaine Huguenin and wanted the Huguenins to photograph a "commitment ceremony" the women wanted to hold.

"Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony," according to the law firm.

Willock then alleged she was a victim of "discrimination" because of her sexual orientation, and brought the complaint before the state agency.

In its ruling this week, the commission found: "Complainant, Vanessa Willock, proved her discrimination claim based on sexual orientation. The Complainant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent, Elane Photography, LLC, discriminated against her because of sexual orientation, in violation of … the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

The Christian couple was ordered to pay Willock $6,637.94."

Ok. First, this illustrated the outright stupidity of the photographers to turn away business...I have performed at a few of these, and let me tell you: flawless. Maybe these were 'pain in the ass complaining dykes', in which case I would understand just saying 'no thanks', or 'I'm booked', or anything but : 'God won't let me'!

But secondly, why would you demand or want these idiots to shoot your wedding? You are NOT Rosa Parks, ladies. You are NOT being denied service at a Woolworths lunch counter. A private company should be free to accept or decline gigs for any reason, any time.

Here's my prediction: if this is the kind of thinking these ladies share, they won't last....They will 'divorce' within 5 years.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

ouch



Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru action figures...


a collectible so wrong it must be right!

Saturday, April 12, 2008

HBO recount coming in May




I saw an ad for HBO's 'Recount' today....I like HBO films, and thier John Adams is superb. But I am wary that the whole thing will not be portrayed correctly...

Denis Leary as a Democratic pollster, Tom Wilkinson as Republican James Baker, Bob Balaban as the lead Bush/Cheney attorney, Ed Begley Jr. as the Democrats' lead attorney, and ... (dramatic pause) ... Laura Dern as former Secretary of State Katherine Harris. (An interesting choice. Wonkette wanted Glenn Close or Ellen Barkin; Radar Online suggested Sean Young or, um, Andy Dick.) Jay "Austin Powers" Roach will direct the drama, which will air ....you guessed it....during the heat of the 2008 presidential election.

I can only imagine how this will go. Laura as Katherine:

“Ok, Mr. Bush, I will take all the democrat ballots and throw them away. I made the butterfly ballot so difficult that only rocket scientists could figure it out. Now I am heading down to a black neighborhood to set up a police blockade so no black people can vote!”

Just a reminder, here are some 'truths' about Floriduh 2000 from John Lott:

1. THE MYTH OF THE FLAWED VOTING MACHINES & DEMOCRATIC DISENFRANCHISEMENT

Suppose spoiled or non-voted ballots really did indicate disenfranchisement, rather than voter preferences. Then, according to the precinct-level vote data compiled by USA Today and other newspapers, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African-American Republicans, and by a dramatic margin, too.

Earlier this year I published an article in the Journal of Legal Studies analyzing the USA Today data, and it shows that African-American Republicans who voted were 54 to 66 times more likely than the average African American to cast a non-voted ballot (either by not marking that race or voting for too many candidates). To put it another way: For every two additional black Republicans in the average precinct, there was one additional non-voted ballot. By comparison, it took an additional 125 African Americans (of any party affiliation) in the average precinct to produce the same result.

Some readers may be surprised that black Republicans even exist in Florida, but, in fact, there are 22,270 such registered voters — or about one for every 20 registered black Democrats. This is a large number when you consider that the election in the state was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. Since these Republicans were more than 50 times more likely to suffer non-voted ballots than other African Americans, the reasonable conclusion is that George W. Bush was penalized more by the losses of African-American votes than Al Gore.

Democrats have also claimed that low-income voters suffered non-voted ballots disproportionately. Yet, the data decisively reject this conclusion. For example, the poorest voters, those in households making less than $15,000 a year, had non-voted ballots at less than one-fifteenth the rate of voters in families making over $500,000.

It is difficult to believe that wealthy people were more confused by the ballot than poor people. Perhaps the rich or black Republicans simply did not like the choices for president and so did not vote on that part of the ballot. Perhaps there was tampering, but it is difficult to see how it could have been carried out and covered up. We may never know, but, clearly, the figures show that income and race were only one-third as important in explaining non-voted ballots as the methods and machines used in voting. For example, setting up the names in a straight line appears to produce many fewer problems than listing names on different pages or in separate columns.

2. THE MYTH THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE INCORRECTLY PLACED ON THE CONVICTED-FELONS LIST AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER GROUPS

The evidence on convicted felons comes from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's Majority Report, which states: "The chance of being placed on this list [the exclusion list] in error is greater if the voter is African-American." The evidence they provide indicates that African-Americans had a greater share of successful appeals. However, since African-Americans also constituted an even greater share of the list to begin with, whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously on the list (a 9.9-percent error rate for whites versus only a 5.1-percent error rate for blacks). The rate for Hispanics (8.7 percent) is also higher than for blacks. The Commission's own table thus proves the opposite of what they claim. A greater percentage of whites and Hispanics who were placed on the disqualifying list were originally placed there in error.

In any case, this evidence has nothing to do with whether people were in the end improperly prevented from voting, and there are no data presented on that point. The Majority Report's evidence only examines those who successfully appealed and says nothing about how many of those who didn't appeal could have successfully done so.

3. THE MYTH THAT GORE WOULD HAVE WON IF RECOUNT HAD ONLY BEEN ALLOWED
There were two news consortiums conducting massive recounts of Florida's ballots. One group was headed by USA Today and the Miami Herald. The other one was headed by eight newsgroups including the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Surprisingly, the two groups came to very similar conclusions. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001) on different recounts:

Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten the manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush.
Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards.

Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used.


Of course, Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount a la the last option, only county-by-county recounts. And of course neither Gore's campaign nor the Florida Supreme Court ever asked for such a recount.

4. DON'T FORGET THE EARLY MEDIA CALL

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.

Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

Using voting data for presidential elections from 1976 to 2000, my own own empirical estimates that attempted to control for a variety of factors affecting turnout imply that Bush received as many as 7,500 to 10,000 fewer votes than he would normally have expected. Little change appears to have occurred in the rate that non-Republicans voted.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

a sad day for Evan



I recall how about a decade ago, I sat with my brother in law and 'friends' in L.A. in some trendy restaurant, and explained to them that Hillary wanted to be president herself, and would destroy all in her path to reach that goal. I have been grinning inside with schadenfrueden all year long. But now, my chickens have come home.....to roost.

I've met Jesse Ventura, even interviewed him in the Mirage casino hotel in Vegas just a few years back...He was my political hero, along with Ron Paul. Now, even my party is dissapointing me. This is my political karma biting me in the ass for laughing at Hillary (and her supporters)!

Jesse ( or should I rightly say, Jim Janos )does bring up some good points in his book. But he is easily swayed. He heaps praise on Che Guevera. He practically fellates Fidel Castro, who welcomed him to Cuba in 2004. He explains that he 'kicked himself' for buying the 'governments' explanation of 9-11 after watching 'Loose Change', on the behalf of his teenaged son. Excuse me? Listen to the clips above,and tell me you really don't think he wants to believe the Govt is evil, and complicit in 9-11....This is waaaaaay worse then anything Hillary could ever do.

Also, Bob Barr? Really? For the Libertarian Party? This is the guy who railed against DC legalizing medical marijuana years ago. He was critical of Slick Willie and loved the 'defense of marriage' act, even though he was getting divorced under salacious circumstances at the time, and is a divorcee. He complains about Govt corruption, yet he was investigated by the FEC and fined for not being above board in 1996. This is the guy to be the face of my party? Not anymore. If he gets the post, I'm out. And I am taking my weed with me!

I still have questions about JFK. I read Bugliosi's 1800 page tome 'reclaiming history' which was a defense of the Warren Commission. I also saw JFK, Stone's movie.

To believe Bugliosi, the 'lone gunman' makes sense. To believe Stone, there was a bigger 'conspiracy'involved in JFK's assasination. I come down somewhere in the middle. It's clear to me, that the Warren Commission is not completely accurate~ and that does not mean Lyndon and the CIA under Bush Sr helped put a guy on the grassy knoll. It's also clear to me that Bugliosi is not objective, nor is Stone.

Jesse Ventura got his mental ass kicked by a couple douchebag radio shock jocks, and I cannot defend him anymore. I may have 'questions' about 9-11, but I'm willing to go along with Popular Mechanics about how the Towers Fell, no matter who 'funds' them...And it always seems that's where these arguments go. And those that want to believe that the Govt is implicit in 9-11 generally fall to the left of the political spectrum. Amd to see my hero, a guy I looked up to, fall to the dark side so easily is a bitter pill to swallow, indeed.


Here's Jesse getting PWNED by O and A:

http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/17899/page/show_video_number_17899.html

http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/17898/page/show_video_number_17898.html

http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/17897/page/show_video_number_17897.html

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

sigh.......





Damn....Jesse joined the 'truthers'. I bought his new book, but I am beggining to get discouraged. More to follow after I finish the book.

Also, this just in: naming your daughter's with 'stripper' names gets them 'famous'.

The suspects were identified as 17-year-old Mercades Nichols, 17-year-old Brittini Hardcastle, 14-year-old April Cooper, 16-year-old Cara Murphy, 17-year-old Britney Mayes and 15-year-old Kayla Hassell. Zachary Ashley, 17, and Stephen Schumaker, 18, were identified by deputies as the lookouts.

http://www.wftv.com/news/15817394/detail.html

Monday, April 7, 2008

Glenn Beck in his own words.






okay, these clips come from 2006....notice anything unusual here? Not for beck, who has made quite a living scaring the beejebus out of suckers since Y2K. I know, I bought into Y2K on the advice of one Glenn Beck...In 1999 I was working for Clear Channel, and friends I have in Tampa clued me in on this 'special radio host'.

Quite frankly, fool me once, shame on me....Fool me twice, well, I won't get fooled again! Beck wrongly predicted Y2K, and while he is quick to point out the 'Armegeddon Date' was not his theory, does it not appear like he want's it to happen? Honestly, it's not about left and right, it's about fraud.I liken this to those 9-11 nuts that want to believe the US Govt was complicit. You can see it in thier looney eyes, they want us to be the bad guy.

We've seen Beck on TV eating up every Word uttered by evangelical novelist Tim LeHay, creator of the bestselling, apocalyptic Left Behind series. Beck really sounded like he bought that Rapture scenario. Now he's buying this, plus he's got his Mormon End Times theory to believe in too. Is Beck utterly craven or does he just believe in everything so we don't have to?

Glenn Beck is not honorable- he's a fear-pandering, danger-exaggerating, intelligence-insulting liar who's hurting America, and doing it for the money. I still listen to his show on occasion, but I switch to Dennis Miller when he starts in on the economy or another 'end of the world scenario'.

It sucks that I have to go to another propaganda mill to get this video, but sometimes even a blind squirrel gets run over, too.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/27/gb.01.html

BECK: Hello, and welcome. This is a show that I`ve wanted to do for a while, but quite honestly, what stops me from doing it is people think I`m nuts.

I don`t know if it`s the end of days. I will tell you from what I know, there`s -- there`s a lot of things happening in the world that sure look awfully familiar.

Need I say more?

Ebony....and Ovaries!





If the GOP pulls this off and Condi runs as VP, I am going to laugh until I cry.

ABCNews’ Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.

“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.

“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”

Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.

“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.

“The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, 'I get it, that person could be president tomorrow,'" Senor added. "Condi Rice is an option.”

Saturday, April 5, 2008

money talks


Here are your choices:

John McCain: seems to be above board, until you consider his wife's beer $$$ has invested in his early campaigns....And his wife has some of her $$$ sheltered off shore.

Hillary: The Clinton duo has made over 100 mil since leaving office. According to Politico, some of that $$$ was wrapped up in the Cayman Islands in 2006....

Barack: Rezko, anyone? Shady dealings there to be sure.

Ron Paul: still has 5 million on hand, after all those 'money bombs'. He ran a State race in a National contest, spent loads of cash, and got nowhere. What he does with what's left will determine what kind of guy he is. He could give the funds to

Bob Barr: who we know dearly here in Georgia as an old school crook. He had funds tied up with corrput politicians here like Bill Cambell ( airport contracts) and Skandalakis ( bribery). He is saying he wants to be a Libertarian now and run against

Ralph Nader: hero of the left since 2000, not so much, or

Cymthia McKinney: who's looooong history of political connection and corruption is to damn much to type.

ALL of these people want to tell you what to do with your money. But look at how they deal with theirs.

Pretty darned sorry, if you ask me.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oy Oy Oy!






so the new Aussie PM is getting heat for playing 'nicey nice' with our Beloved Leader.

If you know any real Down Under-ers, ask them how the guys treat thier women down there. Honestly. Then be surprised when you hear how they 'diss the chicks' down there, and alot of them look good.

One of my old buddies did a couple in the Navy and told me he knew a guy that went AWOL over an Aussie lass, and that they always singled out US military types. They knew they would treat them better then the inmates at home. No lie.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Texas "Pole Tax" Declared Unconstitutional


Texas "Pole Tax" Declared Unconstitutional

by Joseph Henchman


An excellent court decision out of Texas last week struck down the ridiculous "pole tax"—a $5 government-imposed charge to be admitted into strip clubs. The tax was enacted earlier this year, with the stated purpose of using the $44 million it would raise to pay for sexual assault support services and health insurance for low-income Texans.

The case, Texas Entertainment Association Inc. v. Combs, decided March 28 by Travis County District Judge Scott Jenkins, violated the First Amendment and did not effectively advance an interest that would justify the free speech violation. While the judge held that while the state presented some persuasive evidence that strip clubs and sexual assaults have some connection, "[t]here is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured, that any dancer is in fact uninsured, or that any uninsured dancer could qualify for assistance from the fund."

Because entering strip clubs is protected First Amendment activity, the state had to demonstrate that its restriction of that right was "narrowly tailored" to achieve a "compelling governmental interest." The law failed in this regard also: "[N]o evidence was presented to show that the amount of the tax is related in any way to the degree to which the taxed business activity contributes to the alleged secondary effects or to the financial cost of that contribution."

Unlike most tax cases, where judges simply sustain the law because there's some plausibly good reason justifying the law that legislators might have considered, whether they did or not, Judge Jenkins noted that legislators had not considered any evidence of a link between a tax on strip club entrance and health insurance or sexual assault prevention.

The judge's analysis resembles ours. This law is another example of legislators, to use the judge's words, "singling out business activity involving expression that, while politically unpopular," is still legal. The tax code shouldn't be a substitute for the criminal code. Few would object to preventing sexual assaults, but I would hope society would want to fund that program generally, and not with a punitive tax on some random disfavored activity.


Church!

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

dont let in the douche!



OK.Everyone see's the lane closure up ahead, and merges right. Except the 'douchebag'. They ride up to the arrow, and then cut in.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Old folks pissed at the FCC



here's an idea. You people of the 'greatest generation' ushered in TV. You screwed the boomers up real good with it. Why not stop bitching and whining while we pay for your medicine and lifetyle, and thank the Lord you will be watching Matlock with soon that you dont live in jolly old England, where you have to PAY a TAX for your TV!!

"...Debra Berlyn, a consultant for AARP, said there is also concern that older consumers might be vulnerable to sales pitches for new, expensive TVs instead of the cheaper converter-box option. AARP has reached out to organizations that make house calls such as Meals on Wheels to solicit volunteers to help seniors with the new equipment.

Sean Venable, 64, has already received his coupon for a converter box. But it expires after 90 days, and he's not sure if St. Mary's Court, his home, will have decided by then whether to hook up cable for the residents. "It's a catch-22," he said.

Tonie Navarin, 86, who lives alone in Arlington, ordered two coupons for converter boxes but is holding off on buying them.

"I may not even be alive by the time this thing happens!" Navarin said jokingly. "I hate to spend $800 on a new TV when these are perfectly good. I just don't think it's fair."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/30/AR2008033002136_2.html


Well, we now know where the Democrats sprang from...It's not FAIR!