Freedom of Religion and the Social Contract

The events of the last week have brought to our attention the freedoms enunciated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and how other jurisdictions don't extend the same protections. The Left is now calling upon suppressing freedom of speech that is "offensive" to Muslims. The irony is that they have it exactly backwards. If anyone's freedom of speech/religion deserves to be abridged, it's the Muslims themselves.
The First Amendment says two things about religion:

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

I see these two as a package deal: The Episcopalians agreed not to try to be the official state religion in exchange for the Catholics not having Inquisitions to punish heretics, etc. To participate in religious liberty, your religion has to allow that same liberty to others. If you believe you have the right to use violence against those who disagree with you, then we have the right to use violence to stop you.

"Don't Redefine Rape" is Stupid.

One of the most ridiculous of the kneejerk reactions to Todd Akins' comments about rape and abortion has been the hysterical assertion that "Rape is rape!". Even otherwise intelligent people like Paul Ryan are saying it. Well, someone needs to deconstruct this inanity.

(For what it's worth, my own position on abortion manages to make everyone mad at me, but when it comes to government funding, I agree completely with the idea that it's wrong to force people to pay taxes that go to abortions, so the general idea of the law in question makes sense to me.)

I understand why Ryan's saying what he's saying; the hard-core pro-choice crowd has gone full-court press on the notion that in trying to legislate against spending our tax money on abortions other than in the case of rape, the pro-life side has tried to "redefine rape". Well, it sure seems like it's been defined to be a form of rape itself, based on the hysterical comments I keep reading and hearing.

But those who wish to participate in the political process need to be doing so as competent adults, and be willing to set aside childish emotional arguments to discuss the circumstances under which we're willing to use the power of the state, and incarcerate lawbreakers. There are clearly different kinds of "rape". Merriam-Webster has three nouns and a verb listed for the single word "rape", as well as compounds including other words. Let's take the one that seems to fit best:

1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3 : an outrageous violation

Compare to the Oxford dictionary definition:

verb
[with object]

1 (especially of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: the woman was raped at knifepoint

[no object]: he pleaded not guilty to burglary with intent to rape

2 spoil or destroy (a place): timber men doubt the government’s ability to ensure the forests are not raped

Notice the difference? The Oxford definition of the sex-crime sense of the unadorned verb "rape" is quite explicit about the element of force, while Merriam-Webster allows two different senses, and goes so far as to point out that the sense where consent cannot legally exist is "statutory rape". Sounds to me like some redefining's already been done.

And of course, with 50 different state (and DC/PR/VI/GU/AS) legislatures, at work, it's unlikely that the language defining "(forcible) rape" and "statutory rape" in any two of them are exactly identical. In recent years, we've added "acquaintence rape" and "date rape", as opposed to "stranger rape", and some states have seen fit to explicitly define a woman under the influence of certain drugs as no longer capable of legally forming consent. Under some legal codes, mentally-handicapped people, regardless of age, are considered incapable of consent. The definition of exactly who should be thus protected is, of course, another element to these laws.

These varying definitions of the capacity to form consent mean that two people who voluntarily engage in a sex act in one state may not be breaking any laws, but the same two people in another state might both be technically guilty of "statutorily raping" each other, if a judge rules they can be tried as adults. Even this depends on whether the legislators in any given state recognized how ridiculous it is to describe consensual acts between teens as them having raped each other.

So we have more than 50 different definitions of "forcible rape" and just as many definitions of "statutory rape" in the US alone. Congress couldn't write a law to restrict Federal funding of abortions to cases of rape while leaving the word undefined for the purposes of the law. Nor could it allow the word to be defined based on the state/territory jurisdiction in which the impregnation occurred, as that would apply non-uniform standards under which two women who became pregnant under identical situations, save for the location of the sexual congress, would be treated differently under the law. Any such law would immediately be challenged because it would pay for certain abortions in some states/territories but not others.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
If Congress is going to pass a law saying that we taxpayers aren't paying for abortions except in cases of rape, it must "(re)define rape" to do so. And every one of those state/territorial legislatures has defined, redefined, and re-redefined rape countless times over the decades.

It's a legislature's job to (re)define crimes.

BOGOsity

I don't think I can disagree with a word of this:

Particularly the recent trend of using "BOGO" for "Buy one, get one half off," which I call "bogus", is annoying in the extreme.


Oh, and as long as I have my Language Martinet hat on, it's "per se", not "per say". Really, folks, if you're trying to use fancy words to make yourself seem smarter, and you misspell them, your plan fails spectacularly.

Vitriol, Hate, Spin

Posted with permission from the author:

I for one am tired of hearing about the "Vitriol" and "Hate" some say are used in todays discussions and speech about politics.

It seems that for some, a difference of OPINION and political views is enough to get one classified as a "HATER" or as someone who uses vitriolic speech.

We should be careful not to fall into this trap or mindset, labels are often thrown around to try and silence those that have an honest sincere disagreement with anothers views.

I would like to ask those that are using these terms and throwing these labels around, just what they want and expect from the MILLIONS of Americans who have concerns about our country and the direction it is going.

If you want to have an HONEST straightforward discussion/debate about the state of politics in this country, you MUST consider the views of both sides.
You must understand that there are MILLIONS of Americans who love their country, are extremely concerned about the welfare of their children, are and have been hard working tax paying citizens..... all they have is their VOICES and VOTES to try and keep the country that they love intact.

Consider WHAT they see and HOW they feel when:

They see the Health Care Bill rammed down their throats... with votes that were bought and paid for. When a Congresswoman is shown on national TV saying that " I didn't come cheap, I got a hospital for MY vote."

The speaker of the house laughs when asked about the constitution and answers "Are you serious??, Are you serious??"

When John Kerry says... "The American voter has historically been disinterested in the politics of our country...." and laments that now, the American voter has opened his eyes..... sad that some of us are awake and paying attention now.

When Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory Czar says that he believes children should be able to be aborted up to the age of TWO YEARS OLD because they are not self aware.... and that ANIMALS should have the right to sue humans and should have their day in court.

There are MANY examples of acts and statements that cause honest Americans to be concerned.

I would suggest that those that are so very quick to talk about vitriol and hate are those that would see our country ravaged and changed for the worse.

Maybe, just maybe, if we had an administration that followed our constitution
instead of looking at it as an impediment to their way of governing, we wouldn't have this "VITRIOL."

Maybe if the laws of our country were followed and the government DID it's job instead of being concerned about the things that it was not given the power to do, things would be better.

I don't know what the label throwers want.... maybe we should just shut up, sit down, and pay our taxes.... because apparently if we don't, we are haters.

I'm just tired of the smoke and mirrors, tired of of the labels and lies.

Just venting....... sorry for the RANT!!

Lunching with Leftists

The Bride of Monster suggested we eat at a Vietnamese restaurant for lunch today. We settled into our booth, perused the menu, and each ordered chicken phở. Directly behind me were a couple of leftists reassuring each other how smart they are and how stupid the TEA Party types are. TBoM could see I wasn't taking this well, and via various gestures and code words dissuaded me from responding to them directly. She wisely suggested that I could "blog about it" (she knows I have one of these blog thingies but probably doesn't even know the URL).

I was a good boy while listening to one of them talking about how bad standardized testing for school teachers is. I just smiled and thought about how standardized testing for drivers, florists, hair braiders, and countless other occupations is exactly the sort of regulation they elect people to impose on the market to protect consumers against shady operators. Why should school teachers be exempt from the apparatchiks?

They dismissed the fact that "the words 'separation of church and state' do not appear in the First Amendment" by also saying "neither do 'assault weapons' appear in the Second". Well, that's a fascinating observation there, but the language is hardly similar:

1. In the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is very specific, and the Supreme Court first used the '' wording in 1947's Everson v. Board of Education. Somehow, the First Amendment was on the books a century and a half before this phrase was found written in invisible ink between its lines.
2. By contrast "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is very broadly worded. It doesn't have to say "assault weapons", because they are a subset of "Arms". The Supreme Court has ruled that certain arms are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not "ordinary military equipment" (United States v. Miller). So-called "assault weapons" are demonized precisely because they are (or at least appear to be) "military".

They continued by discussing how the Constitution provided for slavery (although the word itself didn't appear in the text until the 13th Amendment abolishing it) and that it counted slaves as "40%" (corrected by the other one to 3/5ths) of a person as evidence of how racist the Framers must have been. I bit my tongue and didn't say anything to them about how the 3/5 compromise was cleverly designed by the anti-slavery side to reduce the power of the slave states in the House and Presidential elections, and to keep them inside the union rather than split into two, three, or even more separate confederations of states that would have easily been reconquered by Great Britain. The abolitionists were playing the long game; they knew that slavery was an economic dead end, and the free North would build a powerful industrial base with free men while the South stagnated. Time was on their side.

After a while, their conversation turned to non-political matters, and my blood pressure settled down. Then the one closest to me stated as if it were an established fact that the TEA Party is motivated by racism. I turned around and said "I consider myself part of the TEA Party movement, and I am not motivated by racism." He tried to play it off like I was the @$$#013 by pointing out that he was talking to his friend, not to me, but I wasn't having any of it. Imagine Mel Gibson "talking to a friend" spouting negative stereotypes about Jews, with a Jew sitting back to back with him. Would anyone excuse such speech simply because Gibson wasn't talking to the Jew directly? I sure hope not.

Then he played the canard about how we didn't complain when Bush was POTUS, and since we were complaining now with a black POTUS... Raaacism! I told him that the people I know in the TEA Party movement did indeed complain when we felt Bush was betraying the principles he campaigned on. We opposed national health care when Hillary Clinton was pushing it.

That set off his friend, who said that ObamaCare isn't national health care, but a corporatist's dream. I tried to explain that the TP'ers I know don't really care that much for the big corporations buying favors from the government to shut down their competitors, and that ObamaCare would eventually lead to the nationalized health care he wants as it destroys the private health care industry, but he was too busy spitting out his hatred for me and anyone else who wants him or his sick relatives to die Die DIE! because we oppose national health care. And then he stormed out.

I didn't get to ask the guy who called us racists what he thought of the fact that most of us have spent the last few days defending a black liberal, that we're looking forward to seeing several new black faces in Congress next year.

At least TBoM didn't get upset that I reacted to that provocation. It's one thing to disagree on issues, but the charge of racism is so powerful that it must be confronted whenever it is raised. I won't sit idly by and let that charge be casually tossed out as if it were a proven fact. To let the charge go unanswered is to assent to its truth.[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Threely for this post http://3.ly/LunchWLeft

Pseudonymity: Mr. Beck, Meet Ms. Frisch

Yesterday, on his Fox News Network program, Glenn Beck talked about how people are turning into monsters. He thinks that the level of discourse on "blogs", driven by the anonymity that many such sites offer, is part of the problem. He called on those of us who operate on the Internet under pseudonyms to stop doing it. He wants us to write under our real names. I realized then that I had never dealt with the issue here.

When I first became connected to the Internet, I had two daughters still young enough to live at home, each of whom walked a few blocks to grade school, and later a few more blocks to middle school. The thought that some barking moonbat leftist might be sufficiently angered by my position on an issue to lash out against either of them, or to The Bride of Monster, chilled me to the bone.

So I decided that the best way to protect all three of them was to use the pseudonym "Monster", or some form of it. I soon found that username was taken on many sites, but "The Monster" generally was not. On Twitter, even that was taken, and I used a Latin expression that helps explain one reason I embrace this name: "Sum, ergo monstro.". (The English word "Monster" ultimately derives from the Latin verb "monstro", which means "show, point out, nominate, or appoint".)

My current employer is large enough to be politically correct. Since anyone who disagrees with Leftists is branded "racist", I fear that if someone knew my real name, they might try to get me fired for "hate speech". I'm sure I'm not the Lone Ranger here; not many of us in the Dextrosphere are tenured professors like Glenn Reynolds, who can't be fired for straying off the leftist plantation. I don't see why we should hand our enemies such a gift on a silver platter.

The wisdom of this policy has been demonstrated in the behavior of the infamous Deb Frisch, who was enjoined from having any contact with Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein after she repeatedly made über-creepy sexual comments about his then-infant son. By the strangest coincidence, right before Beck called for us all to use real names, she resumed her activities against Goldstein's family, making a profanity-laced call to his elderly mother.

Incredibly, the Maryland authorities (where Jeff's mom lives) won't take any action based on a single phone call, despite the existing restraining order, and the train of abuses that led to it. It looks like the only thing Jeff can do is hire a private attorney to pursue a civil action. He hasn't slept more than a couple of hours the last three days, and needs our help. If you can spare a few shekels, pop over there and hit the tip jar.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Condell: What do you know about Islam?

Smitty found this one via Jihad Watch:

United Breaks Guitars, part 2

Return with us to those thrilling days of ....... July 15th, 2009?

As you may recall when we last saw our hero, he was in the midst of a battle with United Airline over the mishandling of his Taylor guitar. Dave promised United that he would release 3 songs about the incident. We brought you the first song back on July 15th. Dave has now released song #2. So here it is for your listening pleasure...


[Ed. note] Added link to part 1 so you don't have to look it up

Time to Revoke The Card

I'm done. The recent spate of people willing to play The Race Card against any and all opposition to The Won's policies have pushed me to the point where I just don't care anymore.

Jimmy Carter, Janeane Garofalo, and the Newsweek cover may be the most blatant, but there have been so many it's not worth listing them all. Once upon a time, the word "racist" meant something. I recently tried to clarify that definition. But now I'm not sure the word can ever again mean anything close to what it once meant.

There are two ways to examine what words mean. One is to look at the definition in the dictionary and see how it may apply. The other is to observe how the words are actually used. Based on the latter, I have come to the an inescapable conclusion.
The effective meaning of "racist" today is:
"You disagree with a leftist. Shut up!"

From now on, whenever someone says a person or behavior is "racist", I'm going to stop them, and insist that they make the case for it or retract it. No one gets to throw out an accusation of "racism" as if it were an established fact. If they refuse to back up the accusation, I will say "How dare you use that word without any proof that it applies!"

When someone is summarily accused, "convicted", and punished without a due process hearing in which they can defend themselves from the charge, there is a word often used to describe the process.

We call it a "lynching".

I'm not going to stand by and let it happen.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Whittle vs. The Narrative

I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.

But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)

So why are we here......again?

Got this from a friend. Don't know who sent it to him but I do know it's worthwhile...


OK, as we all know I'm not the big history buff type person, but... with the homeschool thing I have to learn this stuff, so... we're reading about the Declaration of Independence. We bought reproductions of the Declaration as well as some other historical documents when we were in DC last year. I went outside to smoke and brought the Declaration with me to read it. OMG folks! OK, I had a fairly decent education as a child but chose NOT to pay any attention to history, so I was essentially reading this for the first time...

As we all know, (even I knew this) it starts:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Then the often quoted:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Then... the part that we have obviously forgotten all about in the past 233 years.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This is so true! We sit in our own shit because it's warm and soft even though it stinks... (I know that was kinda crude, but true)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So, what we have to do is....
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The rest of the document goes on to detail the abuses by the King, then to declare the independence of the states as I'm sure everyone else knows about the document, but it was all news to me!!! So this is why we study history, so we're not doomed to repeat it, right?? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!

Am I insane, or is today a time in the course of human events that it is necessary for us to dissolve the political bonds that have connected us to another???

Clunking Insanity

My parents grew up in the Great Depression, and told us kids stories about how they had to scrimp and save to get by. General Mills would print dress patterns on flour sacks, which Grandma sewed into clothing for the girls after the flour was used in making food. Grandpa would save tires that were beyond repair, and cut out new soles for shoes, because they couldn't afford to buy new shoes just because a sole was worn out. I saw firsthand how my mother had learned those lessons, raising eight children on Dad's paycheck. We marinated in the idea that you just don't throw away something that still has any use in it.

Just yesterday, The Bride of Monster and I dropped by a new thrift store in our area, picked up some bargains, and helped out some good causes. We've always shopped that way. I bought my first computer modem from a second-hand shop. I've bought a lot of books, as well as some computer software, from Half Price Books. Between the two of us, we've only bought one brand-new car (and that was a subcompact). The rest have been used. We're probably fairly normal in that respect.

Watching what might be the only automobiles that some folks can afford to buy, instead be taken off the market and destroyed, just offends my sensibilities. How can destroying things that still work be a good thing?

Reading (Bills) is Fundamental

By now, everyone who pays attention to how the US Congress operates knows that many bills are passed into law without most Congressmen having actually read what they voted for. I was listening to KMBZ's Scott Parks explaining why Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO5), being one of the few members of Congress who is not a lawyer, might have to rely upon a staff member who is one, to read bills on his behalf and tell him what they mean.

I was gobsmacked. Cleaver has a Master of Divinity degree and is an ordained minister. That means he has more education than the average US citizen. If the laws enacted by Congress are impossible for such a man to understand, how can the rest of us, who must obey those laws, understand them well enough to do so? The entire point of a "government of laws, not of men" is that the law will be well known and understood by the people it governs, so that those people can live their lives free of the threat of force being imposed upon them.

Just as our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws (which criminalize past acts, which were legal when they were committed) and Bills of Attainder (which legislatively declare guilt, without benefit of a trial), I believe legislation beyond the reading comprehension required of those expected to obey it is unconstitutional. The constitution also protects the right to trial by jury, which at the time it was adopted would have implied a random selection of people of the community in which the crime is alleged to have taken place. The Framers were well aware of the jury in Zenger nullifying a law they considered unjust. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that a jury so empowered would also acquit someone charged with violating a confusing law.

Unfortunately, judges and prosecutors conspire to deprive jurors of their inherent power. Perhaps an amendment is in order. I'd prefer one explicitly enumerating jury nullification, but I'd take this as a consolation prize: No law may be enacted that is beyond the comprehension required of high-school graduates, except if it only applies to certain industries, in which case it might apply technical language that is common knowledge in those industries.

United Breaks Guitars

As a guitar player, this whole scenario gives me nightmares; which is why I don't fly with any of my guitars. [I don't fly United and try not to fly through O'Hare either, but that's beside the point.] But to have United show total indifference when their baggage handlers are the cause of a $3,500 Taylor guitar getting trashed makes my blood boil.

The full story can be found on the News page of Taylor's web site.

So, for your listening enjoyment, here is Canadian singer/songwriter Dave Carroll singing the first of three songs he has vowed to write and release about this event.



Dave says that he has been contacted by United and offered compensation. This is his online reply:

Has anyone see Alice lately?

'Cause I swear I've fallen down the rabbit hole....

Somehow I've gotten on the mailing list of the John W. Pope Civitas Institute, a North Carolina conservative organization who's vision is "of a North Carolina whose citizens enjoy liberty and prosperity derived from limited government, personal responsibility and civic engagement." I just got an email with the results of the June polling done by the Civitas Institute. Let's take a look, shall we?

The results fall fully in the "you can't make this stuff up" category. Question 1 asks "Do you feel things in North Carolina are generally headed in the right direction or have gotten off on the wrong track?" 54% of the respondents say "Wrong Track" vs. 33% for "Right Direction" and 13% "Not sure".

So the response to question 3 blows my mind. "If the election for state legislature were held today, would you be voting: Democrat, Republican, Neither, Not Sure". 41% said that they would vote Democrat! Hello?!? Who do you think is (and has been for way too long!) running the legislature in Raleigh? Santa Claus?

And it goes down hill from there. Question 4 asks "Opinion of Barack Obama: Favorable, Unfavorable, No Opinion". 61% said that they had a favorable opinion. Question 9: "Which party would do a better job of holding down taxes?" 45% said Republicans vs 31% Democrats. Question 10: "Which party would do a better job of creating jobs and growing the economy?" Hold on to your hats folks. 48% said the Democrats would do a better job vs 33% for the Republicans. How can you possibly reconcile the results of those two questions?

Questions 11,12 and 13: "Which party would do a better job of fighting corruption in government; improving public education and reducing health cost." The Demos win all three 48% to 38%, 41% to 25% and 46% to 30%. Oh, but look! The Republicans win "Which party will do a better job controlling illegal immigration by 42% to 31%. Wowsie Woo!

But what really frosts my cookies is the response to question 15: "Which political party, Democrat or Republican, does former governor Mike Easley belong to?" A full 19% of these (Hang on Don! Don't say anything rash!)...ahem...respondents say Easley was a Republican!! We haven't had a Republican governor in North Carolina since Jim Martin's term ended in 1993!!! WTF!!

Questions 18 through 25 ask about taxes and everyone thinks taxes are too high (Well that's a relief! I was beginning to wonder...). Question 26 asks "Do you think the public education system in NC is better or worse than other states?" 54% say worse (but we think the same bozos who've been running the show will do a better job of improving education???) I repeat: WTF?.

But as I dig deeper into the poll I began to understand. 43% say that they get their information about the NC legislature from........TV. A whopping 33% classify themselves as "Moderate". 47% of the respondents are......you guessed it: Democrat vs 36% Republican. The geographical area is telling as well: 22% are from Charlotte vs 19% from the Triad (Greensboro/High Point/Winston Salem), 19% from the Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Hippy H......uh Chapel Hill), 14% from Western NC, 14% from the Northeast and 13% from the Southeast.

So let's review: a majority of the poll respondents get their news from TV; view themselves as moderates; are Democrats and live in the Charlotte area (major metropolitan = liberal). Well shucks! That explains everything. This is the same bunch of know-nothing boobs that give us the "Hope and Change" guy that's currently getting himself bulldozed in Russia. BTW: hows that "Hope and Change" thing working out for you anyway?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
Edit: After some thought it appears to me that a line from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is a better fit: "Morons! I've got Morons on my team!"

Double Standard on Politicians' Kids

Well, David Letterman has offered up a pathetic explanation for his recent comments:

The late-night host had drawn particular fire from Palin and some pundits for a joke about one of Palin's daughters being impregnated by New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez during a trip to Yankee Stadium. Camp Palin apparently took the joke to be a crack against Palin's 14-year-old daughter Willow, who had recently attended a Yankees game, but Letterman insisted today that the real target was 18-year-old daughter Bristol.

Let's see if we can discern the rules here.

I'd like someone to diagram that joke any way that isn't calling Willow Bristol a whore. So, we've established that it's just fine to joke about a female politician being slutty, and her daughter being knocked up by a professional baseball player during the seventh inning, and the daughter is a whore. And that's OK because both the politician and her daughter are over 18.

Well, now. Let's set the Wayback Machine for February 2008, shall we? Chelsea Clinton was within a few weeks of her 28th birthday, and MSNBC's David Shuster commented on her participation in her mother's campaign.... He thought she was "sort of being pimped out" by the campaign. There are many interpretations of the phrase (Billy Mays and Vince Shlomi can be said to be "pimping" various products, or an actor appearing on Letterman's show might be "pimping" a movie role), but Hillary expressed her outrage at Shuster calling her daughter a whore. She received an apology from the head of NBC News, and Shuster was suspended from the air for two weeks.

Why is it OK to call Bristol Palin a whore, when she is nearly a decade younger than Chelsea Clinton was when Shuster made his remark?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Your Tax Dollars at Work - Pt. whatever

Click to biggerify.

These things absolutely infuriated me.
Leaving aside, for a moment, that the word "Race" is meaningless when applied to Homo Sapiens; consider these facts.

1. I am third generation red-neck Texan
2. My wife was born in Mexico
3. Her Grandmother was full-blood Incan (or the descendants, thereof)
4. Her Grandfather was a blond, blue-eyed Spaniard.
5. Both my Maternal Grandmother and Paternal Grandfather were born in "Indian Territory" so odds are better than even there's some "Native American" in there somewhere.

So what "Race" does this make my kids? Does one drop of "Hispanic" blood make them Hispanic like one drop of African blood used to make someone "Black"?

And this line just frosts my cookies. "If you decline to provide this information, please be aware that the USDE requires school districts to use observer identification as a last resort for collecting the data for federal reporting."

Whiskey!?!
Tango!?!
Hotel!?!

So why even bother to ask if you'll just make something up? So my lighter skinned kids get to be "White" while the darker ones get to be "Hispanic"? And just who, pray tell, is observing the observers?

She just can't stand prosperity.

Actually she doesn't act like she knows what prosperity is. But I figure it's just a matter of time until I get a visit from the Secret Service. So if I disappear some dark night, y'all come get me! See email below:

Madame Speaker,

Perhaps it's time you spent more time worrying about saving the people of the United States money and less time worrying about how you're going to fly. This is unacceptable! You work at our pleasure, not the other way around.

Don


REVEALED: PELOSI'S 'AIR RAGE'

By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
Nancy Pelosi

Last updated: 7:57 am
March 11, 2009
Posted: 3:17 am
March 11, 2009

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone from frequent flier to jet-aircraft connoisseur, with aides berating military officials to get the best planes, e-mails revealed yesterday.

Pelosi, who clashed with the military to get nonstop service when she flies home to California with police protection on government planes, revealed a particular fondness for Gulfstream's sleek G-5 - a plane glamorized in Hollywood films and rap videos.

"It is my understanding there are no G-5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are," a Pelosi aide wrote in an angry e-mail to the military.

MALKIN: 'AIR NANCY': PLANE OUTRAGEOUS

POWERS: LABOR'S LOVE LOST?

In another, the same aide wanted the plane for a House delegation when the fleet was being used for senators and Cabinet members.

"This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset speaker," the e-mail said.

The military was offering up an Air Force version of a Boeing 737.

The e-mails were obtained from the government by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

I call BS

Some 691,000 children went hungry in the U.S. sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday.

If by sometime you mean there were no Pop Tarts in the cupboard this morning. I'll cop to that.

If by struggling you mean, "What? I have to do something for food?" I'd believe that too.

With the plethora of government, private, and religious organizations in this country, if you or your kids go to bed hungry tonight...
It's your own damn fault.