Rhymes With Right

November 23, 2007

More Hysterical Scienctific Warnings

It's not just the world we are destroying -- it is the entire freakin' universe!

Just by looking at it.

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.
The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.
They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)
New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.
The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.

Is it just me, or is this a call for humanity to stop scientific research? After all, we've shortened the life expectancy of the universe with our curiosity, and elsewhere in the article we are told that humanity is responsible for a loss of mass in the universe equal to about 20% of its expected mass. So we should stop studying the universe -- or better yet, voluntarily render ourselves extinct by species-wide suicide.

Can we get Al Gore and the IPCC to lead this movement?

Posted by: Greg at 06:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Of Faith And Politics

I've tried saying something like this in a dozen different ways. But I think that Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head with this comment about the religious beliefs of this year's crop of presidential candidates.

There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.
But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man whose made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it

For better of for worse, the moral beliefs of Americans have (and, I believe, always will) animate the political direction of this nation. And for the overwhelming majority of Americans, that moral sense is drawn from religion. That includes our political leader.

When we vote, I believe that most Americans want to elect someone who they believe has such a moral center, and a firm anchor upon which their morality is based. To the degree to which that means we want our candidates to be, at some level, "religious", I don't think it is inappropriate to inquire into whether or not that moral center exists.

But at the same time, presidential elections (and other elections, for that matter), are not and should not be referenda upon the religious faith of candidates. Does Joe Lieberman's Judaism make him more or less fit for office than Romney's Mormonism? The question is absurd -- all we need to know (as demonstrated by their lives and policies) is that each of these men hold fast to some sense of right and wrong that is in vague congruence with ours. Indeed, the notion that I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Mitt Romney because I find the teachings of the Methodist Church more authentically within the realm of Christian orthodoxy than those of the LDS Church strikes me as bizarre.

In 2008, America will elect a President, not a Pope, Patriarch, or Primate. We will elect someone to be commander-in-chief, not theologian-in-chief or pastor-in-chief. And while we will certainly expect an element of moral leadership from that individual, we cannot and should not expect moral perfection. of men and women who are candidates for the presidency rather than candidates for sainthood. What we must do is choose the individual we believe who will be best guided by their religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) to act in a manner that our religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) tell us is right for the country.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 5 kb.

Cruise Ship Sinking

My wife has always wanted to take a cruise to Antarctica. It is probably a dream that is out of our reach financially. And this certainly doesn't make me anymore enthusiastic about the possibility.

More than 150 passengers and crew took to lifeboats in Antarctic waters on Friday after their cruise ship hit an object and began taking on water through a hole in the hull, Britain's coast guard said. No injuries were reported.
It was believed that the passengers of the Explorer, a Liberian-flagged vessel, included at least 22 British citizens, and undetermined numbers of Americans and Canadians, the Coast Guard said.
The evacuees were boarding another cruise ship, the Endeavor, near the South Shetland Islands, and were expected to be transferred later to a larger ship, said Henry Purbrick, watch officer at the coast guard center in Falmouth, England.

Everyone is safe. Reports indicate that the ship may have hit an iceberg.

I'll refrain from making any Titanic jokes.

And I'll hope my wife will settle for a cruise in the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

CarAngel

Would you like to help out someone with that old vehicle you have sitting in the garage, the driveway, or the backyard? You know, the one that you keep saying you are going to fix up, but has instead become a long-term project that you know in your heart is not going to get completed?

Well, one option for you is to donate that vehicle to a charity that will use it (or the proceeds from its sale) to help others. That is what CarAngel is all about -- taking your donated vehicle and touching the lives of others for Christ through that donation.

Now let's say that you wish to donate a car in your area. Simply by visiting the CarAngel website, you can arrange for car donations in the area wehre you live. And once you donate the car and CarAngel disposes of it, they will post the information at their site and enable you to get the appropriate IRS paperwork for your taxes next spring.

What does CarAngel do? They partner with a number of other organizations to provide literacy training, food assistance, prison ministry and other charitable activities. They help with relief programs for children in other countries. CarAngel even offer Free Children's DVDs to help spread the Good News. Personally, I am really moved by the prison and jail ministry that the group does Â– they have sent books with a positive spiritual and motivational message to inmates and prison libraries around the country. What a wonderful gift Â– promoting literacy and self-improvement among individuals who need help turning their lives around!

There are lots of groups out there taking car donations. Why not select one with a Christian mission? Consider CarAngel when you make your donation of a car, RV, boat or other vehicle to a charitable organization. You will not be sorry that you did so.

Posted by: Greg at 04:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

NY Times -- Voice In the Wilderness Or Lost In The Woods?

The New York Times once again takes all of us backwards, Mexican-hating rubes (who think immigration laws ought to be enforced and immigration law-breakers deported rather than rewarded) to task for our Neanderthal ways.

The nation certainly sounds as if itÂ’s in an angry place on immigration.
A major Senate reform bill collapsed in rancor in June, and every effort to revive innocuous bits of it, like a bill to legalize exemplary high school graduates, has been crushed. Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York hatched a plan to let illegal immigrants earn driverÂ’s licenses Â— and steamrollered into the Valley of Death. Asked if she supported Mr. Spitzer, Senator Hillary Clinton tied herself in knots looking for the safest answer.
The Republican presidential candidates, meanwhile, are doggedly out-toughing one another Â— even Rudolph Giuliani, who once defended but now disowns the immigrants who pulled his hard-up city out of a ditch. A freshman Democratic representative, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, has submitted an enforcement bill bristling with border fencing and punishments. Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, for whom restricting immigration is the first, last and only issue, says he will not run again when his term expires next year. I have done all I can, he says, like some weary gunslinger covered in blood and dust.
The natural allies of immigrants have been cowed into mumbling or silent avoidance. The DemocratsÂ’ chief strategist, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, went so far as to declare immigration the latest Â“third rail of American politics.Â” This profile in squeamishness was on full display at the Democratic presidential debate last week in Las Vegas, when Wolf Blitzer pressed the candidates for yes-or-no answers on driverÂ’s licenses and Mrs. Clinton, to her great discredit, said no.
This yearÂ’s federal failure will not be undone until 2009 at the earliest, while states and local governments will continue doing their own thing, creating a mishmash of immigration policies, most of them harsh and shortsighted. But the wilderness of anger into which Mr. Tancredo helped lead America is not where the country has to be on this vitally important issue, nor where it truly is.

The problem, of course, with this editorial is that it presumes bad faith on the part of those who disagree with its open-borders orientation. Having dispensed with the notion that one's opponents have anything of value to say, the author of the editorial is then able to insist that there really is no other solution but the one proposed in the editorial.

The other problem, of course is that the folks in the editorial suites at the NYT don't have to deal with the real problems of illegal immigration on a daily basis. Those of us closer to the border do. The county I live in just spent $100 million on unreimbursed medical care for illegal immigrants -- about $25 for every man, woman, and child in the county Add in the costs of educating illegal immigrant kids, incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals, etc, and you can see where the local costs are astronomical. The impact on our lives of the flood of illegal immigrants is simply beyond the understanding of northeastern limousine liberals -- and that is why Americans along the border are demanding what the editors view as harsh and inhumane policies that in reality amount to nothing more than insistence that the laws of this country be enforced rather than changed to make the lives of the lawbreakers easier.

It has, of course, been a couple of generations since the New York Times spoke for anyone except the pampered elite (if it ever did). And given that it is so out of contact with what real Americans think, feel, and believe, I'm not surprised that it would take the positions it does. After all, who will water the gardens, mow the lawns, and clean the pools of those who think that the New York Times editorial page is latter-day scripture?

Posted by: Greg at 03:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 6 kb.

Photo Gift Cards

gift cards can be a great thing to give for the holidays. There is just one problem -- when you go to use them, do you really remember who they came from? Besides, they are often so limiting -- your gift card usually has to be spent at one store.

But GiftCardLab.com has a neat way of dealing with both of these problems.

1) They offer you the chance to put any picture you want on the gift cards you give. That way you can show off your smiling face, the house, a favorite picture of you and the recipient -- or even the family dog!

2) Their gift cards are VISA debit cards, so that money can be spent by the recipient anywhere.

Think about it -- personalization and flexibility. What more could you ask for in a Christmas gift?

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 AM | Comments (291) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Where I'm Not

This year I will be sitting out Black Friday.

The Black Friday 2007 bargain frenzy kicked off just after midnight as throngs of shoppers shrugged off Thanksgiving Day fatigue to grab early bird sales on flatscreen TVs, clothes, jewelry and toys.
Electronics - especially high-definition plasma and LCD TVs, GPS navigation devices, Apple's iPhone and MP3 players - were expected to be among the most sought-after items.
At 4:45 a.m. ET, more than 150 people waited outside both a Circuit City and a Best Buy in New York for the 5 a.m. opening.
Many retailers offered "doorbuster deals," which are special sales offered only for the first few hours on Black Friday. Some chains, including Kohl's and J.C. Penney , opened at 4 a.m. nationwide.

Over the last couple of years, I've gone out to get new televisions and a DVD player, as well as a few other items. That was when Wal-Mart was putting its specials on at midnight, rather than waiting to start at 0500. But the reality is that the only attractive things I saw in the ads were unneeded (I don't need a flat-screen television or a new computer monitor) or not sufficiently important to go out for (do I REALLY want to fight the crowds for a $10 1GB flash drive?) to tempt me out. And it isn't about money or the economy. It is just about priorities.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

St. Augustine Artwalk

As a history teacher, I love places like St. Augustine. It has the feeling of someplace quite old Â– and it is, in fact, the oldest city in Florida. The Mission of Nombre de Dios was founded in 1565, and one of Napoleon's nephews even visited the 150 year-old walled houses of Old St. Augustine Village. I would just love to be able to spend an evening soaking up these historic sites in locations in a festive atmosphere!

St. Augustine hosts many special events during the year, including the St. Augustine Artwalk, which is a self-guided tour of the many artistic sites of the city on the first Firday of every month. Imagine the fun of a stroll through the scenic city, examining the many beautiful exhibits put on by the art galleries of St. Augustine, many of which are housed in historic buildings. A free shuttle is also available.

Here's how it works. Beginning at Rembrandtz Fine Gifts for Fun People, you can visit over 20 galleries to see the work of many fine artists who make the area their home. Artists like Peter O'Neill, Ray Brilli and Jean Troemel are often featured in these galleries, as are the works of many fine artists. If you enjoy art, history, and the beauty of a scenic town, this is certainly the event for you.

Posted by: Greg at 02:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrat Proposal Doesn't Require Complete Withdrawal, Just Ties President's Hands

And as such it is unacceptable to anyone with a brain -- and to anyone who wants ~~complete withdrawal~~ abject surrender, too.

The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come.
This reality Â— readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war Â— has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea.
For those who want troops out, "you've got more holes in here than Swiss cheese," said Tom Andrews, national director of the war protest group Win Without War and a former congressman from Maine.
The Democratic proposal would order troops to begin leaving Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins reversing this year's 30,000 troop buildup. The proposal also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008.
After that, troops remaining in Iraq would be restricted to three missions: counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets, including diplomats.

Now why is this proposal a bad one? Because it ties the hands of the President -- whether that president is named Bush, Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani, or Kucinich -- when it comes to assessing the national interest and deploying troops for the appropriate mission in the region.

And the problem is that the definition of what would be allowed is quite nebulous -- meaning that what is permitted is quite subjective.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy chief of staff for operations in Iraq, declined to estimate how many troops might be needed under the Democrats' plan but said it would be hard to accomplish any of those missions without a significant force.
"It's a combination of all of our resources and capabilities to be able to execute these missions the way that we are," Barbero said in a recent phone interview from Baghdad.
For example, Barbero said that "several thousand" troops are assigned to specialized anti-terrorism units focused on capturing high profile terrorist targets. But they often rely on the logistics, security and intelligence provided by conventional troops, he said.
"When a brigade is operating in a village, meeting with locals, asking questions, collecting human intelligence on these very same (terrorist) organizations, that intelligence comes back and is merged and fed into this counterterrorism unit," Barbero said. "So are they doing counterterrorism operations?
"It's all linked and simultaneous," he added. "You can't separate it cleanly like that."

In other words, it is not at all clear what is allowed and what is forbidden under the provisions of this politically-motivated proposal. And there are very realistic scenarios in which the missions that are permitted cannot be carried out because of the lack of supporting troops who make that mission possible.

The bill's restrictions are also unnecessary, given that the current plans for the mission in Iraq are already quite similar to what the legislation envisions. That makes it pointless and dangerous at the same time.

And let's be clear about one thing -- this bill is not about national security or military necessity. It is about politics. And that the Democrats are playing politics with the military is shameful -- and sadly, not unexpected.

More At Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

November 22, 2007

AAMCO Transmission

Years ago (almost thirty, if you must know), I drove a Datsun B210 (I did say nearly thirty years ago) with a 4-on-the-floor transmission. Man, I loved that car, and the joy of shifting from gear to gear. There's just something about manual transmission that is more manly than automatic transmission -- know what I mean?

Well anyway, I was headed home from school when a buddy pulled up along side of me, ready to race from light to light (hey -- I was 16). The light went green, I hit the gas and popped the clutch -- and nothing happened. I swear -- someone's grandma on a walker had more get-up-and-go than that little Datsun did. The transmission was shot

That's when I first got to know AAMCO. My Dad and I took that little brown car in that afternoon, and by the following evening I had her back, good as new, with a shiny new transmission that served me well until my parents sold her when I was in college. And ever since then, I have made a point of having my transmission checked and serviced by them, never by anyone else. That includes the preventative maintenance work. I know that in one of their shops, I will get good service from qualified mechanics at a good price.

Well, now they are running some specials for you at their website, as well as at the AAMCO coupon site.

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

A Thanksgiving Thought

So many folks have their thoughts, prayers, and memories up on their website.

I have only one that concerns me this day -- that from Thanksgiving 2006.

For those of you who read me at the time, you probably remember the trauma that was last Thanksgiving.

For those of you who did not, I share my post from the evening of November 23, 2006 -- and the updates that followed.

This Thanksgiving has not been one of turkey and trimmings -- this morning as I prepared "Big Bird" for the oven, my dear wife began vomiting blood. She is now resting somewhat comfortably in ICU with some sort of GI bleed.
I ask the prayers of any and all readers -- friend and foe -- for Paula's complete and speedy recovery. And I ask, too, for a prayer or two of thanksgiving that there are dedicated medical professionals available this day -- one which most of us take for granted as a day off for feasting and football -- to aid in her recovery.
And may God send his richest blessings down on each and every one of you who reads these words and responds to them, as I especially give thanks this day for the greatest worldly blessings he has given me -- my beloved.

I didn't share the information at the time, but the situation was, in fact, more dire than I let on. I was told by the folks at the hospital that a delay of even one hour of getting her to the hospital would have probably resulted in Paula's death from blood loss. When you consider the six units of blood she got in the first 36 hours in the hospital, you know how low she really was.

What am I thankful for this year? That I still have the woman I love with me. Nothing else really matters.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Another Contrarian View

Believe it or not, I'm going to support Gov. Granholm on this one.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has issued an order that bars discrimination against state workers based on their "gender identity or expression," which protects the rights of those who behave, dress or identify as members of the opposite sex.
The order adds gender identity to a list of other prohibited grounds for discrimination that include religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, marital status, politics, disability or genetic information.
"State employment practices and procedures that encourage nondiscriminatory and equal employment practices provide desirable models for the private sector and local governments," says the resolution, which Granholm signed Wednesday.

Government -- at any level -- should not be discriminating against citizens. Period. End of sentence, paragraph, and discussion.

That even includes against folks whose sense of self is so warped that they cannot figure out their gender or feel the need to have their genitalia mutilated.

Every citizen deserves equal treatment from the government.

That said, I oppose any attempt to impose such a non-discrimination policy on the private sector. Heck, I support the repeal of any law that imposes non-discrimination requirements on any private sector employer -- and that includes gender identity religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, marital status, politics, disability, genetic information or any other category you like (with the exception of those related to military service -- that has a national security aspect to it that makes such policies imperative).

Not, may I state for the record, that I support such discrimination by the private sector. I simply don't believe the government has a legitimate interest in interfering with the right to control one's property (a business) or association (which is one aspect of the employment relationship).

Besides, I want to know who the folks doing the discrimination are. In most instances, I will probably want to take my business elsewhere.

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 AM | Comments (189) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A Baby

And if you can't afford a baby, you should not be sexually active.

But young sluts on college campus are instead angry that their promiscuity is no longer being subsidized.

In health centers at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives because of a change in federal law.
The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.
The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.
Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new legislation by yearÂ’s end that would reverse the provision, which they say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the contraception they did in the past.

Want an example of the ditzy young floozies who are impacted by this change? Here's one.

Â“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesnÂ’t mean that youÂ’ll stop having sex,Â” said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12.
Ms. Ryan, 22, said she had considered switching to another contraceptive to save money, but was unsure which one to pick. She has ended up paying the higher price, but said she was concerned about her budget.
Â“I do less because of this Â— less shopping, less going out to eat,Â” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. Â“For students, this is very, very expensive.Â”

Let's see -- you'll go through 13 of these prescriptions a year. Multiply that by the $38 dollar price increase and we are talking less than $500 dollars a year -- about $1.35 a day, by my count. I suppose you could have one fewer bottle of soda a day, or perhaps not drop by Starbucks every day. Maybe you could do what people on a limited income have done for years -- eat out less, economize at the grocery store, and not buy as many luxuries. Heck, Katie -- maybe you could quit doing the horizontal mambo with your boyfriend, or start asking him to chip-in to cover the cost. After all, giving it away for free is not really morally superior to selling it -- and if you think that a buck-and-a-quarter makes you cheap, what does free make you (besides easy)?

Now some folks are waxing eloquent about forcing women to make a decision -- Â“For them this is like a choice Â— groceries or birth control.Â” But the last time I checked, one is a necessity and the other isn't. In the great scheme of things, the choice between food and f*cking is not a contest.

And then there is this absurd comment from New York Congressman Joseph Crowley.

Â“WeÂ’re talking about adults, responsible adults who want to do the responsible thing.Â”

Congressman, I hate to tell you, but you are wrong. Responsibility consists in taking responsibility for your decisions an being prepared to make hard choices. it does not consist in insisting that you want it all and demanding that someone else subsidize your sex life for you.

Here's a really crazy idea for these girls to consider -- if you can't afford the costs associated with having sex, maybe you need to not have sex.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Today, I give my deepest thanks that I am not as hateful as the right wing, and I am also thankful that I will not face Judgment Day having issued so many of my own judgments. Happy Thanksgiving, Greg.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 22 05:47:12 2007 (IU21y)

2 Gee, Dan, you sound rather like the Pharisee who offers thanks to God that he isn't a sinner like the tax collector. That was one of the most hypocritical, judgmental comments I've ever seen. By the way -- do you agree or disagree that college kids who can't afford the cost of birth control also can't afford the cost of a baby, and therefore shouldn't be engaging in the act that makes babies?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 22 06:02:06 2007 (1bm0v)

3 I think it is a ridiculous decision to reduce the availability of affordable contraception to those who seek it. I think it is an illustration that many in the "pro-life" ranks are not pro-life, but anti-sex. I think that those who sincerely believe that college students will stop having sex if we simply make it more expensive or risky are living in a dream world. I see what you're saying when you accuse me of being judgmental in being thankful that I'm not like you. The point of the story is not that the Pharisee is a bad guy - he's not. The issue is humility before God. I don't think you want to be judging me there, do you?

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 22 06:58:26 2007 (IU21y)

4 Actually, Dan, go back and look at what you wrote. Sounds to me like you are trumpeting exactly the same sort of self-righteousness as found in that Pharisee, proclaiming that you are so much a better person that you won't have the very sort of sins to answer for before God that your opponents will. By the way, if you read the article, you will find that there was no intent to deny birth control to anyone. Indeed, the provision in the Medicaid reform bill is described as "inadvertant". And by the way, I'm not anti-sex. But I am pro-responsibility, and I don't see a whole lot of responsibility on the part of these young women who are whining about what is, in the great scheme of things, an insignificant increase in the cost of their birth control. Look at Katie Ryan's comment there -- this is cutting into her shopping and dining out budget. We see where her priorities are, and the most important value is not taking responsibility for her sexual decisions. She wants someone else to pick up the tab for her recreational sex, someone else to pay for her "choice". No doubt she will lament the unavailability of taxpayer subsidized abortion if her contraceptive of choice fails -- and lament how high the cost of raising a child is if she keeps the kid and discovers that a child cuts into her shopping and dining out budget more than $500 a year, even with the government benefits she might be eligible for.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 22 07:31:16 2007 (1bm0v)

5 And Dan, you didn't answer my question -- do you agree or disagree that college kids who can't afford the cost of birth control also can't afford the cost of a baby, and therefore shouldn't be engaging in the act that makes babies?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 22 07:34:30 2007 (1bm0v)

6 I don't agree with the logic of your question. I don't think that anybody unmarried should be engaging in sex, but I am enough of a realist to know that college kids are going to do it, even if they aren't the offspring of rich parents who will pay for their contraception or abortions.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 22 07:55:05 2007 (IU21y)

7 In other words, Dan, you essentially agree with my point that this whole issue is not one of responsibility. They are not making responsible choices, nor are they behaving in a responsible manner. What they are doing is demanding that their irresponsibility be subsidized. Interestingly enough, you and I are both old enough to remember when there were consequences to such irresponsible behavior. And interestingly enough, we both have to admit that those consequences kept the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage and the rate of illegitimate births at a significantly lower rate than today. Maybe we would do well to bring back some of those consequences and social sanctions as a solution to the problems that seem to correlate with their elimination. So that maybe one school year I won't have to look down my roll sheet and see a half-dozen pregnant 10th grade girls and another four who are already mothers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 22 08:04:59 2007 (1bm0v)

8 Very nice site!

Posted by: John757 at Fri May 22 07:23:27 2009 (hw/lS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Pepperdine MBA

Pepperdine University has become a leading educational institution on the West Coast over the last 35 years as it has expanded from a small college to a major university. Today Pepperdine degrees are respected and recognized as a sign of a fine education characterized by rigorous programs that are concerned with ensuring that graduates are ready for excellence in their field of study.

Among the programs for which Pepperdine University is noted is the School of Business, which is consistently ranked among the top programs in the country by folks as diverse as Forbes, US News and World Report, Leadership Excellence Magazine, Financial Times, and many others. Indeed, Financial Times listed the program as being among the top 50 in the world.

So if you are looking at MBA Programs as your next step towards success in your business career, PepperdineÂ’s Graziadio School of Business is one you ought to consider. They offer excellent programs for full-time students, part-time students, and business executives. Whether you are looking for a program where you are in-residence at the university or one that accommodates your full-time work schedule, Pepperdine University has a program that meet your needs available to you in California, many in the Los Angeles area, but some in other parts of California as well. So

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

A Contrarian View On The Flyng Imam Suit

As indicated above, I'm going to be a contrarian on yesterday's decision to allow the six "flying imams" to continue their suit against US Airways. While so many of my fellow conservatives think the judge should have dismissed the suit, I think it should -- indeed must -- continue to a decision by a jury.

Six Muslim imams arrested on a U.S. Airways jet in Minneapolis last November after a passenger raised suspicions about their pre-flight prayers and boarding activities won an early victory Tuesday in their federal lawsuit against the airline and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery's opinion and order rejected almost all of the defendants' arguments for dismissal. She said the question of whether airport officers had probable cause to arrest the men must be determined by the objective facts they had available at the time.
Over the past year, the case has triggered a firestorm of debate about security concerns vs. religious rights. The imams have argued that they were removed because of religious and ethnic bias. The airline says they were ejected solely because of security concerns raised by passengers and crew members.

Now let me explain why I think this is a good outcome. In time, this case is going to go before a group of twelve men and women who will have to determine whether or not the actions of the six were suspicious or not. And that decision will be based upon how those actions are COLLECTIVELY viewed, not how they are viewed in isolation from one another. So while no one of these actions can be seen as particularly damning, I fail to see how a jury can conclude that all of them taken together are anything other than suspicious and grounds for further investigation.

My only concern is that the judge may have indicated a bias in how she framed her decision.

It was that suit that Judge Montgomery allowed to proceed. In her 41-page decision, she said the imams "adequately stated a claim" that airport police may have "seized plaintiffs in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."
But we have to wonder if the judge would have so readily given the imams' suit the green light had she been a passenger or crew member on that plane.
Reports indicate that the men made anti-American statements, chanted "Allah, Allah, Allah" and used prayer rugs at the gate before the flight. On board, witnesses say the men left their assigned seats and placed themselves at strategic places within the cabin Â— two in the front, two in the middle, two in the rear. They also asked for seat-belt extensions, though a flight attendant didn't think they needed them, and refused pilot requests to submit to additional screening.
Montgomery, however, said it is "dubious" that a reasonable person would conclude from these facts that the imams were about to interfere with the crew or aircraft.

I'll agree that the imams have provided enough of a case to let their suit advance. However, her injection of her opinion (assuming, of course, that this one word excerpt accurate reflects its original context) regarding the conclusion drawn by airline and airport professionals at the time does strike me as troubling. If I were a lawyer in this case, I'd be filing a motion for a new judge, given the fact that the current one seems to have made up her mind about the proper outcome of the case.

But in the end, I still support this case going to court. Our court system should be open to those who believe they have a legitimate claim to bring, and judges should be reluctant to dismiss cases were there is a plausible argument presented by the plaintiff.

Besides -- imagine the fun that can be had deposing these guys, and requiring them to produce material on discovery.

More At Jawa Report, Power Line, LGF, Tel-Chai Nation, Villagers With Torches

Posted by: Greg at 04:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 719 words, total size 6 kb.

BackgammonMasters.com Rolls Out Live Customer Support

Have you ever been on a site and had things go all screwy on you? I know I have, and it is frustrating -- especially when it involves a financial transaction. You always wonder if there is any way of getting an immediate answer to your question -- maybe speaking to a live person to get help or tech support -- but you know that such help is usually not available.

Well, over at BackgammonMasters.com, they have introduced a new Live Customer Support feature that will help you get assistance with problems or concerns you may have while playing on their site. This feature is available on all of their games, including backgammon, poker, perudo and blackjack. So if you are playing blackjack and you have a question, you can now slip out into the electronic lobby and answer a few questions to see if the automated support system can help you out, or you can call for a live person to answer your questions about the your concern with the
blackjack game immediately.

Now as IÂ‘ve mentioned in the past, BackgammonMasters.com is an international site featuring games of skill available in twelve languages to accommodate players from around the world. And while the live customer support feature is currently available only in English, it will be rolled out in all languages once the feature has been fully tested.

Posted by: Greg at 03:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Saudi Government Determines Muslims Not Human

After all, they have disbarred a human rights lawyer for engaging in a series of actions that qualify as internationally recognized human rights.

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.
Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.
Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.
Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.
Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.
"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."

But the reality is that Lahem will not win, given the repeated insistence of the forces of Islam upon placing sharia dictates ahead of human rights. Time and again we have seen Islamic law trump such things as religious freedom and freedom of speech, both of which are recognized as basic human rights under international law. For that matter, this action by the Saudis grows out of a case in which a rape victim was sentenced to be whipped because of the attack -- and had her sentence more than doubled for publicly speaking out against such barbarism.

Such actions in the name of Islam do nothing to contribute to the image that its followers and apologists seek to present -- that of an enlightened, peaceful faith. Instead, it shows quite clearly that Islam has no respect for human rights, and that sharia law is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 5 kb.

November 21, 2007

The Mist

I hear that the latest Stephen King movie is out in the theaters -- The Mist. Now I've not had a chance to see it yet, more have I seen any of the reviews. But I am familiar with the story upon which it is based, and have dropped by the website for the film to see what they have to say about it. And, of course, I've seen the pervasive advertising campaign for The Mist by Stephen King on television.

Of course, the story does spend a lot of time dealing with how people are changed by threatening situations. Indeed, you can learn a lot about a person by seeing how they react when subjected to the stress of a crisis, one where their life or safety might be on the line. I learned that when I was 18, and faced a really difficult situation with a couple of my friends, one in which we could have been seriously hurt or killed.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

A Movement I Support

There really is no legitimate reason to prevent licensed gun owners -- especially those with concealed carry permits -- from taking their gun onto a college campus with them. These students recognize that, and are trying to do something about it.

Mike Guzman and thousands of other students say the best way to prevent campus bloodshed is more guns.
Guzman, an economics major at Texas State University-San Marcos, is among 8,000 students nationwide who have joined the nonpartisan Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing that students and faculty already licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with their textbooks.
"It's the basic right of self defense," said Guzman, a 23-year-old former Marine. "Here on campus, we don't have that right, that right of self defense."
Every state but Illinois and Wisconsin allows residents some form of concealed handgun carrying rights, with 36 states issuing permits to most everyone who meets licensing criteria. The precise standards vary from state to state, but most require an applicant to be at least 21 and to complete formal instruction on use of force.
Many states forbid license-holders from carrying weapons on school campuses, while in states where the decision is left to the universities, schools almost always prohibit it. Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure - including experimenting with drugs and alcohol - in their first years away from home.

But let's consider the reality here -- how many school shootings have been perpetrated by folks legally carrying legally owned guns? I may be wrong, but I believe the number falls somewhere between 1 and -1. And in every case, the person using the weapon to commit mayhem was in violation of the school's ~~gun-free campus~~ victim disarmament policy.

And I'm really struck by opponents of allowing guns on campus.

W. Gerald Massengill, the chairman of the independent panel that investigated the Virginia Tech shootings, said those concerns outweigh the argument that gun-carrying students could have reduced the number of fatalities inflicted by someone like Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.
"I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," said Massengill, a former head of the Virginia state police. "But our society has changed, and there are some environments where common sense tells us that it's just not a good idea to have guns available."

I always love the "living Constitution" folks who want to explain how time and social changes are the basis for restricting our right to defend ourselves from violent criminals. One would think that after the massacre he investigated, common sense would tell Massengill that student safety could not be any more compromised than it was that day unless the victims had been required to wear targets to assist their murderer with his aim.

And then there is this comment from a leader a major gun-grabbing froup.

His view is echoed by Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who says campus safety concerns cannot be addressed by adding more guns to campuses.
"If there's more we need to do, we certainly need to do that, but introducing random access to firearms is not the solution," said Hamm. "You have more victims, not fewer victims."

I suppose that Hamm's comment would be relevant if we were talking about random access to firearms. The reality is that what is being proposed folks licensed to carry guns be allowed to carry guns just like they can in most places -- which has not increased the number of "victims" according to most studies of the issue, and which has reduced violent crime. Indeed, the ~~gun-free campus~~ victim disarmament policy at Virginia Tech certainly did a bang-up job of minimizing the number of victims there, didn't it? After all, students ad faculty members cowering in fear as a madman stalked them were obviously much better protected than they would have been if even one of them had been armed and capable of stopping the rabid animal seeking to end their lives.

There are, of course, other reasons for allowing students to exercise their statutory and constitutional right to carry firearms. Many colleges and universities are located in areas with higher crime rates. Why should students be put at risk from those random crimes. In addition, the policies interfere with the right of these students to carry their weapons elsewhere, rendering them unsafe away from campus as well as while attending classes. The time has come to treat the adult students on college campuses like adults.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, MyHTPC, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 857 words, total size 7 kb.

What The F*ck(abee)?

Good grief -- I just got done writing an update on the McClellan post from this morning when I read this.

Think Progress has a video up of former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. In it, Huckabee calls former Press Secretary Scott McClellanÂ’s revelation that Bush may have known about the leak / was involved in one way or another in the cover-up, etc., Â“stunning.Â” He also said: Â“They deserve to be thoroughly examined, investigated, and the truth brought to the American people.Â” Adding that Â“President Bush should personally respond to the charges.Â”

Too bad that both Huckabee )and Michael van der GaliÃ«n of The Van Der GaliÃ«n Gazette) fell into the same trap that the Left and the media did when this transparent publicity ploy was released yesterday. McClellan wasn't accusing Bush of anything untoward, as today's statement unambiguously states.

But then again, one really only had to read the words of the excerpt in an unbiased way to see that there was nothing there accusing the President of wrongdoing. Indeed, I'd argue that one would have had to have already been inclined to find presume wrongdoing to reach such a conclusion based upon the excerpt.

UPDATE: Looks like some folks are really invested in this -- wonder if we will get mea culpas now that the publisher has issued the clarification?

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

McClellan Excerpt A Nothing-Burger With A Side Order Of Hot Air

Everybody is talking about this tiny excerpt from Scott McClellan's upcoming book. Let's consider the three paragraphs and what they say -- and do not say.

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself.

First, let's note that this tells us absolutely nothing that we did not know 24 hours ago, namely that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were sources -- after Plame was outed by Richard Armitage -- of information about the lying Plame/Wilson couple.

What's more, we already knew that Bush, Cheney, and Andrew Card were involved in formulating a response to questions. So again, nothing new here.

And, of course, all five of those individuals were involved in formulating the responses to questions about the disclosure of information -- but we already knew that, too.

The question, left unanswered by the excerpt, is that of who knew what and when. Nothing in the excerpt comes close to answering that question. There is no claim that the President knew that what he said to McClellan was not correct. There is no claim that the President was attempting to mislead McClellan rather than having been misled by others.

Interestingly enough, we do have evidence that McClellan is NOT accusing the President of intentionally misleading him -- courtesy of Larry King and CNN.

KING: Scott, were you lied to?
MCCLELLAN: Well, Larry, I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given. Knowing what I know today, I would have never said that back then. As you heard me say in that clip, I said that those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. I did speak directly with them and I was careful about the way I phrased it at the time, even though I believed what they had told me to be the truth.

The excerpt from the book gives no indication that McClellan has changed his position since giving that interview in March. If one therefore interprets the excerpt consistent with what McClellan said in that interview, then it is just telling us that George W. Bush was misled by others, and that he directed his press secretary to pass on information that he believed to be true. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

In other words, this is excerpt is a big nothing-burger -- but one which the talking heads will try to use to generate lots of hot air during the slow news period between now and the Monday after Thanksgiving.

UPDATE: Told you so!

A 151-word excerpt from the memoir of Scott McClellan, chief spokesman to President Bush in 2006, was not meant to be as tantalizing as it sounded, according to the publisher of the book.

After a day of wide coverage and swift reactions on the Web, the publisher, Peter Osnos of PublicAffairs, told MSNBC that Mr. McClellan Â“did not intend to suggest Bush lied to himÂ” about two senior aidesÂ’ roles in leaking the identity of Valeria Plame Wilson, a C.I.A. operative, to the conservative columnist Robert Novak and others in 2003.

How does that square with the book excerpt, where Mr. McClellan wrote that Â“the President himselfÂ” was Â“involvedÂ” in his offering false information to the press about the leak? Mr. Osnos offered an explanation to Bloomberg News:

Â“He told him something that wasnÂ’t true, but the president didnÂ’t know it wasnÂ’t true,'Â’ Osnos said in a telephone interview. Â“The president told him what he thought to be the case.'Â’

When we wrote about this yesterday, that was clearly one of the possible outcomes, although one that will disappoint opponents of the president who were hoping for him to be directly tied to one of the biggest scandals of his administration.

Â“Sorry, suckers,Â” Greg Sargent wrote at The HorseÂ’s Mouth, Â“It looks like McClellan will actually exonerate Bush for his role in Plamegate.Â”

In other words, as I said to begin with, these it is all a nothing-burger with a side order of hot air.

MORE AT FullosseousFlapÂ’s Dental Blog, Macsmind, GayPatriot, Flopping Aces, Andrew Sullivan, Right Voices, Marooned In Marin, McClean County Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 05:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 893 words, total size 9 kb.

CAIR Complains

They don't like being labeled an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorism case.

And they have a Congressman in their pocket to fight for them.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is seeking help from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. to pressure the Justice Department to change the group's status as a co-conspirator in a terrorism case.
CAIR officials recently met with Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, and then wrote a letter asking him to lobby the new attorney general on behalf of the group, and to hold hearings.
CAIR is among several hundred Muslim groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in a recent federal terrorism trial in Dallas into activities by the Holy Land Foundation Inc., a group linked to funding the Palestinian Hamas terrorist group. The trial recently ended in a mistrial and prosecutors have said they plan to re-try the case.
Despite its uncertain outcome, the trial has produced a large amount of information and evidence identifying U.S. and foreign groups sympathetic to or direct supporters of international Islamist terrorists.
A 1991 internal memorandum from the radical Muslim Brotherhood identified 29 front groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), that are part of a covert program by the Brotherhood in the United States to subvert American society.

I actually have to agree with the terrorist-huggers at CAIR. Identifying them as unindicted co-conspirators is wrong. I urge the Attorney General to take immediate action to indict CAIR and its top officials for their work on behalf of global terrorism -- and treason, because that is what their efforts amount to.

UPDATE: The guys at PowerLine note a potential problem here.

Is there anyone who thinks that bringing political pressure to bear on the United States Attorney's Office to influence its handling of the Holy Land Foundation case might be...improper?

Yeah -- wasn't one of the complaints of the Democrats that politics and the interests of politicians shouldn't be involved in decisions related to prosecutions and charges brought by the Justice Department. By the standards we heard during the last weeks of the Gonzales era at the Justice Department, isn't this effort not only improper, but a betrayal of the very nature of how that department is supposed to operate?

Posted by: Greg at 04:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Comcast Arrogance

Of all the absurd marketing strategies I've encountered in my life, this has to be the most arrogant.

Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the NFL Network demanding the channel's representatives stop encouraging fans to leave the cable provider.
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, the outspoken chairman of the league's NFL Network committee, has urged customers of Comcast and other large cable providers who don't carry the network on a basic tier to switch to satellite or other cable services that do.
The channel's IWantNFLNetwork.com website includes a box titled "MAKE THE SWITCH." Above a field to enter a zip code, the text reads, "Switch to a TV provider that will bring you NFL Network, not hold you hostage."
The letter, dated Monday, contends that such actions violate the contract between the network and Comcast.

The only problem is that Comcast is supposed to be carrying the NFL Network as a basic cable station, but has instead packaged it as a premium challenge. The NFL, seeking to serve the fans, is urging them to shop around for their product and purchase it where they get the best deal -- a strategy which will bring them more fans.

By the way, Comcast -- your service here in Houston has sucked so bad since you took over from TimeWarner that I'm considering a change anyway -- but the NFL Network issue will be a factor in my decision on which alternate provider to get my service from.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

K-12 Free Homeschool

It may come as a surprise to some folks, given that I am a public school teacher, but I am a firm believer that public schools are not the right answer for every student. Perhaps it is because I attended public, Episcopal, and Catholic schools while I was growing up, but I recognize that each of these settings -- along with many others -- are appropriate for different students. I certainly know that not every student in my classes belongs in a traditional classroom setting, and many need more individualized attention that they can get in a classroom setting. Add to that the fact that I have watched my cousin and her husband home school her nine children with fantastic results, and you will understand that I certainly don't fee threatened by parents who choose that route.

One issue that serves as an obstacle for some parents in choosing the home school option is the cost. I've seen many programs that are expensive. But today I ran across a K-12 Free Homeschool that offers a basic curriculum free of charge (except for a surprisingly small handling charge for materials). These are courses that can cost $250-$500 each from other suppliers.

Here's how it can be tuition-free. Various sponsors pay the costs for the program, and ask in return that families respond to questions, surveys and offers from those sponsors. There is no obligation to buy anything -- merely to provide honest feedback.

Of course, only the basic courses are free. Elective courses are available at a charge, as are the services of an online teacher to assist with instruction. Even then, the costs are reasonable, often less than these same services from commercial providers of home school material. If you would like to learn more, look at the K-12FreeHomeschool.org Course Catalog to find out more about the available courses. Please be aware that this program does have a strong Christian orientation.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 AM | Comments (292) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Huckabee Surge?

It looks like the Arkansas governor is making a race of it in Iowa.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, buoyed by strong support from Christian conservatives, has surged past three of his better-known presidential rivals and is now challenging former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the lead in the Iowa Republican caucuses, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
Huckabee has tripled his support in Iowa since late July, eclipsing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Huckabee now runs nearly evenly with Romney, the longtime Iowa front-runner.

Frankly, I would not have expected this one. Given his history of raising taxes (plus a natural inclination to distrust any Arkansas governor), I would not have expected him to get much traction at all, and I had thought that his recent rise in the polls is a temporary one. But with a quarter of Iowans polled supporting him, I have to wonder if his campaign is for real.

A Mormon and a baptist preacher on the GOP ticket in 2008 -- it has some real possibilities for defusing the religion issue.

Posted by: Greg at 02:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Christmas Cards Scholarship Contest

Folks, I can't believe that more students are not entering the first annual create-a-greeting-card $10,000 scholarship contest at The Gallery Collection. All you have to do is enter a photograph, artwork or computer graphic by January 15, 2008 and you have a chance to win this scholarship contest.

While you are there, you can look at the Christmas Cards, all occasion cards and holiday cards that they offer before you design, to give you an idea of the sorts of business greeting cards they publish. Oh, yes Â– make sure that you also visit The Gallery Collection to read the complete list of the official greeting cards scholarship contest rules and download the required application form.

Be creative! Enter the contest and do your best to win! Get your entry form filled out soon and design that special greeting card so you can have the chance to win a scholarship as well. Who knows Â– this may be the key to the college of your choice!

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrat Defeatism To Hurt DOD Civilian Employees, Local Economies First

Because when all is said and done, the Pentagon is prepared to spend its money on national security and winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as the Democrats seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for their partisan political benefit.

The military plans to furlough civilian employees and cut all Army and Marine Corps bases to bare-bones operations early next year because of a funding impasse with Congress, according to a memo provided to Politico.
Democratic leaders accused the Bush administration of using scare tactics, and said they will not be strong-armed into giving the White House a blank check on the war.
In the memo, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates instructs the secretaries and of the Army and Navy to Â“start appropriate planning to reduce operations at all Army bases by mid-February of next year and all USMC bases by mid-March of next year.Â”
The plan would leave Â“bases Â… all but shut down, only able to provide the most basic safety and security measures for those who reside there,Â” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday afternoon.
Â“The most immediate impact will be felt next month, just before Christmas, in fact, when we'll begin notifying roughly 200,000 civilians and contractors that we can no longer afford their services; and that, absent additional funding, they will be furloughed, or temporarily laid off, within a matter of weeks,Â” Morrell said.
Â“It is imperative that lawmakers reconsider this matter as soon as possible and send the president supplemental funding legislation, free from objectionable policy provisions, in order to insure that we can continue to support our troops and their families, as well as protect our nation's security.Â”
Gates said he wants enough planning done by mid-December so the department Â“can begin appropriate notification of government civilian employees to be furloughed consistent with labor agreements.Â”

Amusingly enough, Senate ~~Majority Leader~~ Minority Follower Harry Reid dares to suggest that it is the President who is playing politics with the military. His every effort over the last year has been aimed at ensuring that the war in Iraq is lost so that the Democrats have a campaign issue to run on in 2008 -- and despite the undeniable successes in Iraq he continues to claim that America has lost there.

Of course, the Democrats keep demanding a timetable for retreat and surrender. I guess that ensuring that the troops get the funding they need to win the war is too much to ask of those who view an American victory as a blow to their partisan interests. When will they stop adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort?

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

LED Lights For Christmas

There is a great article in today's USAToday all about how LED Christmas lights are becoming the way that many cities are saving money and energy by using LED Christmas lights on their trees and buildings!

How much are they saving? Well, one community is expecting to see electricity consumption for their holiday display to drop by at least one-third over last year -- and given that the cost of electricity has risen, you know that means that they are saving more than one-third on the amount of energy actually used.

And you will be seeing more of these lights this year -- Rockefeller Center will be using the LED lights, as will the National Christmas Tree in Washington, which will have a 1,000-foot red garland and 42-inch star topper featuring LED Christmas tree lights.

Are LEDs more expensive than regular lights? Yes -- but they are more durable than traditional bulbs, burn longer, and pay for themselves with the reduced energy cost in just a couple of years. More importantly, you are helping to cut back on pollution and working to achieve energy independence by using LEDs.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

More Thoughts On SCOTUS Gun Ban Case

Looking at longer articles on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal in District of Columbia v. Heller, I came across this curious, yet significant, detail.

The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute Â“violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.Â”

Now this could be a very significant in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it appears to be a very broad approach to the issue of how far the Second Amendment goes in protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, it could also be provide a cloak for limiting the case to the specific status of Washington, DC only as a federal enclave not a part of any state. I'm inclined to believe that the court will examine and decide based upon the former, not the latter, but there is always the possibility of again "sidestepping" the bigger issue until a similar suit comes out of a state.

Secondly, I'm disturbed by this quote from the city's mayor, which potentially shows a contempt for the Constitution virtually unknown in American history.

"It's the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected," Fenty said at a news conference with D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer and several D.C. Council members. "We should have the right to make our own decisions."

Were the District of Columbia a state, I'd have to call that a states rights argument. Indeed, it is rather similar to those arguments made by defenders of racial segregation, in that it appears to put majority rule above rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That argument was wrong in Mississippi in 1957, and it is wrong in the nation's capital in 2007. What's more, I'm sure Mayor Fenty knows that in his heart of hearts -- after all, he would not make that argument, for example, with regard to any of the rest of the Bill of Rights because he would be laughed out of court.

And then there is this original rationale for the law, one that is so absurd on its face that I cannot believe that it met the laugh test at the time it was adopted.

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Excuse me? Self-defense is not a legitimate use of a handgun? Heck, last time I visited the city every cop was carrying a handgun -- proof positive that the city itself does not believe the stated rationale for the handgun ban.

Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, the best course of action would be for the Supreme Court to construe the phrase "the right of the people" in precisely the way it does in cases involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights where it is used.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 5 kb.

November 20, 2007

FreezeIt Works!

When you love someone who suffers from chronic pain, you come to be quite familiar with prescription and over-the-counter remedies to help alleviate the pain and stiffness that make life almost unbearable for them. When you find such products, you cling to them and swear by them, because they help make life a little bit better for that loved one.

A few months ago I got some samples for a product called Freeze It, a fast-acting topical pain relief gel. I decided to try them out with my wife later that evening when she asked for the old stand-by (AKA "the blue stuff") for her sore back. I told her I'd like to try something new, and opened one of the samples of Freeze It Gel. Almost like a miracle, she started feeling relief in minutes, and within 15 minutes had a greater range of motion and less pain than at any point during the day. We have never found any product that helped her deal with the osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease that have been slowly crippling her over the last several years. Indeed, my darling wife immediately sent me out to buy her a supply, something that does not happen very often with new products. We are both sold on Freeze It, and have been using FreezeIt regularly Â– almost daily, in fact Â– to help provide her temporary relief from the pain associated with these permanent conditions, and have never failed to be satisfied with the results.

IÂ’m simply unable to rave on enough about this product. And rarely do I say that there is some product on the market that my wife and I absolutely cannot live without. But FreezeIt has made such a difference in her quality of life (and therefore my life) that I cannot say enough. Shopping trips, meals out, entertainment events Â– FreezeIt has helped make them more of a reality in the last few months than they have been in the last few years. I would have to day that we consider FreezeIt to be as important as any of her prescription medications. And quite frankly, winning a year's supply of Freeze It Gel continue that improvement in quality of life.

So if you suffer from back pain, joint pain, or sore muscles, check out FreezeIt. After all, if it has worked for us, it will certainly work for you

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

Guess We Don't Need Those Embryonic Stem Cells After All

Especially since not one significant medical advance has come through their use.

Researchers in Wisconsin and Japan have turned ordinary human skin cells into what are effectively embryonic stem cells without using embryos or women's eggs -- the two hitherto essential ingredients that have embroiled the medically promising field in a long political and ethical debate.
The unencumbered ability to turn adult cells into embryonic ones capable of morphing into virtually every kind of cell or tissue, described in two scientific journal articles released today, has been the ultimate goal of researchers for years. In theory, it would allow people to grow personalized replacement parts for their bodies from a few of their own skin cells, while giving researchers a uniquely powerful means of understanding and treating diseases.
Until now, only human egg cells and embryos, both difficult to obtain and laden with legal and ethical issues, had the mysterious power to turn ordinary cells into stem cells. And until this summer, the challenge of mimicking that process in the lab seemed almost insurmountable, leading many to wonder if stem cell research would ever wrest free of its political baggage.
As news of the success by two research teams spread by e-mail, scientists seemed almost giddy at the likelihood that their field, which for its entire life has been at the center of so much debate, may suddenly become like other areas of biomedical science: appreciated, eligible for federal funding and wide open for new waves of discovery.
"These are enormously important papers," said George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the work. Like others, he spoke with stunned elation reminiscent of scientists' reactions in 1997 to the cloning of Dolly the sheep from a skin cell, the first proof that adult mammal cells could have their genetic clocks turned back.

A couple of advantages come to mind.

1) There will no longer be a need o engage in morally dubious practices to get embryonic cells.

2) Unlimited and varied cell lines will be available for experimentation.

3) Cells used will match the recipient because they will be grown from the recipient's own cells, lowering the likelihood of rejection.

I'm curious Â– will liberals now agree that the wanton destruction of human life for purposes of medical experimentation is no longer morally appropriate when less repulsive methods are available, allowing for both scientific research and respect for the conscience of taxpayers?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | Comments (291) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Court To Hear Gun Case

It is really a very simple question Â– does the Second Amendment, which declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The clear historical context of the Second Amendment says that it does. So do the words of those who adopted it. And given the construction of the amendment, the right must be seen as an individual one, just like the similarly constructed "right of the people to peaceably assemble" and the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" clearly protect individual rights. The parallel structure makes this conclusion unavoidable Â– and even if there is room for reasonable limitations upon the exercise of these rights, the DC law goes far beyond it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Just A Reminder

If Ronald Reagan engaged in racist behavior for appealing to white southerners at the Neshoba County Fair, then so did another candidate who liberals like Paul Krugman and Bob Hebert always forget to mention.

Krugman and Herbert also forgot to chide 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for speaking atÂ…the Neshoba County Fair! The Massachusetts governor ignored Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner on the 24^th anniversary of their murders, which were committed about 12 miles away.

So, is Michael Dukakis a racist? You know, especially since, as Kevin Drum points out, he was there seeking to appeal to white Southern conservatives. Was Dukakis a racist Â– especially given his failure to note that he was speaking on the ACTUAL ANNIVERSARY of the discovery of the bodies of the slain civil rights workers. So if Reagan was engaging in a racist strategy, how can Dukakis not be so condemned Â– unless, of course, the critics are really engaged in a rank act of political hypocrisy with their application of a double standard. Especially since, as the New York Times itself noted at the time, the fair had nearly a century of history as a prime campaign spot for candidates Â– one which predated the murders and which continues into the present day.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

What's Up In Iowa?

Could a victory in that early state allow Obama to upset Hillary?

The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) draws support from 30 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, compared with 26 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.). New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson received 11 percent. The results are only marginally different from a Post-ABC poll in late July, but in a state likely to set the tone for the rest of the nominating process, there are significant signs of progress for Obama -- and harbingers of concern for Clinton.

Let's remember what happened in Iowa in 2004 Â– the victory by John Kerry shot down frontrunner Howard Dean and propelled the Massachusetts Senator to the nomination. How much momentum would a victory by Obama give the Illinois Senator Â– and how much harm would it do the current frontrunner? Could that early victory Â– combined with the front-loading of the nominating process, be the force that destroys the chances of the former First Lady to claim the office once held by her philandering husband? Only time will tell.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

What Policy Does This Violate?

Because I have no problem with license plates reading GETOSAMA.

Retired New York City police officer Arno Herwerth hit a major roadblock this week when he tried to dress up his ride in patriotic style.
Arno, a 21- year veteran of the NYPD, wanted to add vanity license plates reading "GETOSAMA" to the 1993 Ford Aerostar he had already hand-painted red, white and blue. But New York's DMV red-lighted the anti-Usama bin Laden plates, banning them under an agency regulation that prohibits anything "obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic or other group or patently offensive."

Obscene? No.

Lewd? No.

Lascivious? Again, no.

Defamatory to an ethnic group? Well, only to Terrorist-Americans Â– and they are not an ethnic group.

Patently offensive? Only if you love terrorists and support the 9/11 attack.

Give the man his license plates and registration Â– and quit being politically incorrect weenies.

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

November 19, 2007

Debate Sites Set

And corrupt Louisiana Democrats are already complaining that they didn't get their piece of the pie when the sites were decided.

The Commission on Presidential Debates has picked Oxford, Miss.; St. Louis; Nashville; and Hempstead, N.Y., as the sites of the presidential and vice-presidential debates in the general election campaign next year.
New Orleans took offense at its omission, with a leader of one Louisiana advocacy group saying she had been told that the city had not recovered sufficiently from Hurricane Katrina to act as host of such an event. New Orleans was one of 16 finalists and has attracted major conventions since the hurricane devastated much of the city more than two years ago.

And, of course, those who continue to pimp Hurricane Katrina are upset that New Orleans did not get a debate.

The omission of New Orleans drew a sharp reaction from Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who said the commission had Â“lost sight of the public interest it was chartered to serve.Â”
Anne Milling, founder of the advocacy group Women of the Storm, said Paul G. Kirk Jr., the commissionÂ’s Democratic co-chairman, had told her that New Orleans was Â“not readyÂ” to be host of a debate, although, she said, the city surpassed all logistical requirements.
Â“Politics trumped the correct moral decision,Â” Ms. Milling said. Â“Supposedly, many people said that they would not be comfortable coming here,Â” because New Orleans stands as a rebuke to the federal governmentÂ’s response to the hurricane.

What a load of crap. I've never understood anyone's interest in going to the right armpit of America (Detroit is the left armpit) for any reason whatsoever. And that was before Katrina.

Personally, I think there were better choices for these debates.

America's four largest cities are each in a different section of the country.

Hold one debate each in New York, LA, Chicago, and Houston. No one can doubt the availability of facilities for each city. We'd have one on each coast, one in the Midwest, and one in the South. What more could be asked for?

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

How It Ought To Be

It is time that this policy becomes the standard nationwide.

''It doesn't matter if you're trying to pay off funeral expenses, or take care of a sick family member," explained U.S. Magistrate Diana SaldaÃ±a, referring to the plight of another immigrant. ''When you cross the Rio Grande, you're going to be spending time in prison if the Border Patrol finds you Â— that's the bottom line."

There are legal ways to get into this country. Those who choose not to use them deserve to be rounded up, jailed, and deported -- and denied readmittance. They have already proved their contempt for our nation's laws, and are not welcome here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Kennedy Calls For Rape Of Justice At Supreme Court

Senator Teddy the Hutt (D-Dead Girlfriend In The Passenger Seat) has a solution to the "problem" of Supreme Court decisions he dislikes -- require appointees to the Supreme Court (and, presumably, lower courts) to make a blood oath to rule in a liberal manner without reading the briefs, hearing the arguments, or knowing the facts of specific cases.

We know from their past decisions how all of the current justices interpret Roe v. Wade, yet they are not precluded from sitting on future cases involving abortion. Why shouldn't we also learn how Supreme Court nominees view that decision and other important cases? If all nominees were expected to answer these questions, the White House would no longer seek out "stealth" nominees whose views are largely unknown.
To protect the independence and autonomy of the courts, questions addressed to specific pending or future cases should be avoided. But there is no good reason for nominees to refuse to state how they would have voted in cases the Supreme Court has already decided. The facts, briefs, and oral arguments from those cases are all a matter of public record. Questions about decided cases should be at the heart of confirmation hearings, because they provide the most concrete information available about what kind of justice the nominee will be. Judges decide real cases. To be able to evaluate nominees in a meaningful way, the Senate and the public need to know how a nominee is likely to decide them.

Of course, in Kennedy's eyes, refusal to adhere to a liberal interpretation would render one unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, thereby negating the outcome of presidential elections that produce winners of a differing political philosophy. And it also guarantees "respect" for decisions that are wrongly decided -- for just as surely as support for Roe would be a litmus test today, I have no doubt that in 1950 we would have seen support for Plessy v. Ferguson -- by that time a precedent that was a full half-century old -- as mandatory for confirmation in the eyes of the Democrat majority in the US Senate. While that certainly would have avoided the myriad disruptions of American life caused by the overturning of that decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it also would have continued a manifestly unjust system of racial segregation.

Of course, Kennedy also wants to overturn long-standing principles of executive privilege, attorney-client confidentiality and the like in his effort to pack the Court with liberal ideologues. In his contempt for the Constitution, he would overturn two centuries of confirmation practices and seek to elevate ideology over competence as the standard for confirmation. Rather than remove partisanship and the politics of destruction from the confirmation process, Kennedy would make them permanent features, so that his actions in the Bork and Thomas confirmation processes would become the standard by which all future confirmations would be carried out.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Students Whine Over Merited Suspension

The girls came up with a cheer deemed unacceptable by their sponsor, as it included mooning the crowd.

The girls performed the routine anyway.

The principal suspended the insubordinate cheerleaders.

Seems about right to me Â– if not letting them off easy

But not to the girls.

Six cheerleaders are fighting suspensions after they flashed football fans a message on their underpants.
Vice Principal Ken Goeken ordered the girls to serve suspensions Tuesday and Wednesday for defying their coach and going ahead with a special cheer they choreographed for the last day of the football season. At the end of the cheer, the girls bent over, lifted their skirts and showed the crowd the words "Indians No. 1" on their bloomers.
The girls, who missed reading scenes from William Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and fear their grades will suffer, are asking to make up coursework and instead be banned from cheering at an upcoming basketball game.

IÂ’ve got a better idea. Keep the suspension Â– and toss the girls from the cheerleading squad for their insubordination. After all, they have shown that they cannot be trusted to appropriately represent the school. They have also shown that they are unwilling to follow the legitimate decisions of their cheerleading sponsor. Why should they remain on the squad at all?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Allie Is Wired, third world county, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 4 kb.

Using The Truth To Lie

I always love it when one makes a factual statement in order to tell a lie. It proves that they are believe their audience is stupid. Take this example from Newsday columnist Sheryl McCarthy.

Nothing about Bill Clinton's sexcapades was ever found to be illegal. All the commotion was over whether he lied about it.

Yeah, he merely obstructed justice to prevent complete investigation, lied to the American public, and accepted disbarment in order to avoid becoming the first former president to stand trial for crimes committed while in office. Hardly the picture McCarthy wants to paint, of a Clinton who did nothing wrong. And, of course, she overlooks the fact that perjury is a felony Â– you know, something that is illegal.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

504kb generated in CPU 0.2218, elapsed 0.5888 seconds.
68 queries taking 0.5188 seconds, 1323 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

November 23, 2007

November 22, 2007

November 21, 2007

November 20, 2007

November 19, 2007

Search Thingy

Categories

GOP Bloggers Blogroll

Live Liberty And Property Blogroll

101st Fighting Keyboardists

Texas Connection BlogRoll

Republican Attack Squad

Web Links

Counters and Stuff

Archives

Recent Comments

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Administrative Stuff

About Me

Support This Site

Advertising Disclosure

Munuvians