our-crazy-society : Duthie On...

Never mind that this guy wasn't elected, but is only governor because his predecessor had to resign in shame, nevermind that neither Paterson nor Spitzer ran on a promise to legalize gay marriage, and most of all, never mind asking the citizens of New York what they want:

David Paterson has unilaterally declared New York a gay-marriage-friendly state:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

Even if you're a supporter of gay marriage...is this really the way you want it implemented? By fiat? In a way that's almost guaranteed to generate far more opposition than if it was done through democratic means? I don't support gay marriage, but if the voters of New York or California, or wherever chose to implement that, that's their right in a federalist system. But in California (and other states before it) it's judges making the decisions, and now in NY it's the governor. What about the people? Don't they get a say in whether or not we completely redefine one of the bedrock institutions of society? Guess not.

The Corner on National Review Online

There's so much wrong with this story that it's hard to know where to begin:

A powerful federal arts commission is urging that the sculpture of Martin Luther King Jr. proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin be reworked because it is too "confrontational" and reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts thinks "the colossal scale and Social Realist style of the proposed statue recalls a genre of political sculpture that has recently been pulled down in other countries," commission secretary Thomas Luebke said in a letter in April.

By law, no project like the memorial can go forward without approval from the commission, the federal agency that advises the government on public design and aesthetics in the capital.

A model of the statue has been built in China. The project's chief architect, Ed Jackson Jr., huddled with advisers this week in Ann Arbor, Mich., to discuss ways to address the commission's objections before sculpting of the granite statue begins.

One question I have is why we need a "U.S. Commisson of Fine Arts" in the first place. But more shocking and important is the question of what on earth the foundation building the King memorial is thinking by having the statue built in China by a sculptor with a lifelong stipend from the Chinese Communist government. Should it be surprising to anyone that such a sculpture done by a man living on the payroll of a totalitarian government would be "reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states?" Well, duh!

The issue, however, should be less about the aesthetics of the design, and more about the message that is sent when you have a monument to a man who was dedicated to freedom being created in a place that is one of the least free places on earth, by a man in the employ of a totalitarian government. Sculptor Lei Yixin may be a fine artist, and perhaps he secretly yearns for a free China as I'm sure many Chinese do. But according to the story he's "known for his monumental works of figures such as Mao Zedong..." To me, that should've been a red flag, so to speak.

Perhaps this commission is trying to remedy that situation through the only tools they have. But it seems to me that the Chinese communist government has already been handed a propaganda victory here. They can claim with great pride that their house sculptor was chosen to memorialize King, and that there's no way that would happen if the lies others keep telling about their human rights record were true.

Really sad...and where are the donors who put up the money for this memorial? Why aren't they outraged?

Unhappy With 'Confrontational' Image, U.S. Panel Wants King Statue Reworked

Good for The Daily Show for taking on more than just conservative targets:

How can you possibly out-parody the self-parody that is Code Pink? The final moment of the video is just hysterical, and so representative of the clue-free nature of this debate. Also watch for the lib answer to the question, "so if we got rid of the police, we wouldn't have crime? (around 3:50). Priceless."

I love this campaign spot, by Kerry's Republican opponent. He doesn't have a chance, but ya gotta like the guy's style:

The intrusion of the state into the family continues unabated:

As doctors struggle to eradicate polio worldwide, one of their biggest problems is persuading parents to vaccinate their children. In Belgium, authorities are resorting to an extreme measure: prison sentences.

Two sets of parents in Belgium were recently handed five month prison terms for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Each parent was also fined 4,100 euros ($8,000).

And if you don't think it can happen in the U.S., read on:

In the U.S. state of Maryland, prosecutors and school officials in one county threatened truancy charges against parents who failed to vaccinate their children. The measure sharply reduced the number of unvaccinated children although nobody has been charged.

I'm not necessarily an opponent of vaccinations in general. It's pretty clear that some vaccines make sense, and have done much to improve public health. But I do not support the state making the decision for parents. Ultimate responsibility for the health and welfare of children falls to the parents, not to the state.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law that mandates that girls must be vaccinated against human papilloma virus (HPV), on the dubious grounds that the vaccine will prevent many cases of cervical cancer. There are several problems with this, the most important being that HPV is not spread through casual contact, so should not be considered a health risk for schoolchildren. Those who demand mandatory vaccination against HPV seem to assume that all children will become sexually active before reaching an age where they can decide for themselves if the vaccine makes sense. There's also the fact, highlighted in this presentation prepared by an official of the Virginia Department of Health, that Merck, the maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, lobbied hard for the mandate.

Generally, I think that pharmaceutical companies are making products that have a positive impact on our health and longevity. But allowing the state the power to mandate the use of particular drugs or vaccines has the potential to distort the incentives these companies operate on, giving them an incentive to use the state to force their products on the public, rather than have those products compete in the market on the basis of their effectiveness. That's a recipe for disaster, and something we should all be concerned about.

Parents may be jailed over vaccinations - Yahoo! News

This time, it's the U.S. Naval Academy, which is considering overhauling a traditional ritual contest in the name of "safety".

The Herndon Climb, which involves a "thousand first-year midshipmen struggl[ing] to conquer a 21-foot granite obelisk coated with 200 pounds of lard," has been a part of the academy for many years, but may now be revised "with...safety in mind."

As many of those interviewed for the story point out, it's rather absurd to obsess about the safety of a traditional contest in a school that prepares sailors to go to war. Oddly enough, no one other than the academy spokeswoman had anything approving to say about the move.

When even the Washington Post can't manage to find someone with something good to say about your politically correct idea, it's time to reconsider. Let's hope the Naval Academy does just that.

This is just plain outrageous:

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.

The idea that the AAP has any business routinely interfering in the relationship between parents and their kids, much less suggesting that doctors should put kids in the position of reporting on their parents perfectly legal behavior is breathtakingly arrogant. Unless there's some evidence of abuse or problematic behavior reported by the child, a doctor simply has no business asking such questions.

Any doctor who showed such a blatant disregard for proper boundaries would no longer be mine, or my child's. It's one thing to make an effort to protect children where there's some evidence of a threat. It's quite another to treat parents as though they are criminal threats until proven otherwise.

Doc, what’s up with snooping? - BostonHerald.com

That's one of the few words that comes close to describing this: 

Brave New World Watch   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Guardian: 

Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were "at ease" with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.

Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs, in the hope they will be able to extract valuable embryonic stem cells from them. The cells form the basic building blocks of the body and are expected to pave the way for revolutionary therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and even spinal cord injuries.

The consultation papers were released ahead of the authority's final decision on the matter, which will mark the end of almost a year of intense lobbying by scientists and a fervent campaign by organisations opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells.

Using animal eggs will allow researchers to push ahead unhindered by the shortage of human eggs. Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed after 14 days when they are no bigger than a pinhead, and cannot be implanted into the womb.

Opponents of the research and some religious groups say the work blurs the distinction between humans and animals, and creates embryos that are destined to be destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them.

How anyone can not grasp that creating hybrid human/animal embryos is stepping over a very clear ethical and moral line is beyond me. That they report that a majority are at ease with such research suggests to me that the folks who were surveyed were not told clearly what's being done.

And the reporting that the embryos must be destroyed and cannot be implanted completely misses the point, which is that experimenting with the essence of human life, for no better purpose than extracting stem cells, particularly when there has been more demonstrated progress and promise from adult stem cells, is nothing less than a horror.

The Corner on National Review Online

OK, they are letting him go...but they insist on a name change: 

Who remembers playing with G.I. Joe as a kid?

For those of us who grew up with normal childhoods, instead of the moonbat-infested, politically correct childhoods forced onto kids today, G.I. Joe was the action figure to have. It was originally started in the 60s as a WWII soldier, with soldiers from other countries (Germany, England, and believe it or not, France), but saw its most successful sales during the resurgance in the 80s, with the Real American Hero, or RAH line. There was also a cartoon and a comic book series to help market the toy. The G.I. Joe team fought the COBRA Command, a terrorist organization. The man who would become Cobra Commander swore to overthrow the government and take over the world, as all good antagonists do.

...

G.I. Joe was unabashedly patriotic. Many fans were, of course, excited to hear about the new movie to be released by Paramount.

But of course, in the liberal land of Hollyweird, a Real American Hero is just unacceptable. Nope, it's gotta be a global hero. G.I. Joe will be a global operation, not an American one, and G.I. Joe now stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity

Do these people have no shame at all?

G.I. Joe: "Real American Hero" no more (Wizbang)

Wow...this just completely turns reality on its head: 

Aug. 22, 2007. Elvira Arellano speaks to the Mexican Congress about her deportation from the United States. Elvira claims the U.S. broke that law first by 'allowing' illegal immigrants to pay taxes.

She may be a senora rather than a senor, but she still has major cojones.

LiveLeak.com - Elvira Arellano Says U.S. 'Broke The Law First'

OK, so perhaps I'm not as funny as the Dell Dude (assuming he was ever funny), but this one strikes me as an idea that only he could love.

I was browsing around Dell's website today, checking out the cost of some new desktop hardware, just for curiosity, more than anything else, when I came upon what I can only describe as the enviro-nut section of the build process.

In the services section of the website (see the image below), you now have the ability to have Dell (for a fee, of course) plant a tree for you to offset the CO2 emissions of your new PC.

They call it "Select my Plant A Tree." I call it, "let's buy into enviro-voodoo."

But hey, I suppose if people want to give Dell an extra $2-4 to make themselves feel better about buying a new PC, who am I to object. Apart from the fact that there are growing concerns that offsets may, in fact, lead to higher emissions of CO2, in part by making people feel less guilty about consuming electricity and burning fossil fuels.

It's probably not enough to stop me buying a Dell...they make good machines, and after all, the "service" is optional.

But it would be nice if there was some corporation in America willing to stand up and say "wait a minute! How about we work from facts here!"

What's especially amusing about this, IMO, is the fact that it's not as though consumers are beating the doors down demanding this, at least not if the turnout and viewership for Live Earth was any indication. Instead, this seems to be yet another example of top-down elitism...our corporate betters trying to tell us how we should live.

Thanks all the same...I'd rather have the Dell without the guilt...or the offsets.

If only we had effective duct tape laws, this tragedy could have been avoided:

Robbery is a serious problem for retail stores across our region. But the employees of Shamrock Liquors in Ashland, Kentucky, can't stop laughing about what happened last Friday at the store along 13th street.

Police say Kasey Kazee walked in to the store with duct tape wrapped around his head to conceal his face.

What a sad case. Here's a tip, Kasey...if you're a moron you should avoid sticky substances, robbery, and above all, TV interviews.

I want to have some sympathy here, as I'm guessing he may really be a little on the slow side, but...nope. Just nothing there...it all evaporated when he paraded before the camera.

WSAZ - News

There's an funny line that goes something to the effect of "Gravity: It's not just a good idea...it's the law." While there's nothing funny about the story below, it does illustrate the fact that unintended consequences are as hard to escape as gravity:

TWO decades ago, in an effort to curb domestic violence, states began passing “mandatory arrest” laws. Police officers responding to a call for help would no longer need to determine whether one person was truly violent or out of control; every time someone reported abuse, the police would simply be required to make an arrest.

It seemed like a good tactic — at least to people who work with victims of domestic violence. (Police officers tended to be less enthusiastic, because they prefer to make arrests at their own discretion.) Arrests would immediately stop the violence and might discourage abusers from further acts of abuse.

But 20 years later, it seems the mandatory arrest laws are having an unintended, deadly side effect. The number of murders committed by intimate partners is now significantly higher in states with mandatory arrest laws than it is in other states.

Maybe if lawmakers were actually occasionally affected by the legislation they enacted (apart from profiting from it, that is), they might pay more attention to the law of unintended consequences. Oftentimes, these kinds of consequences are predictable to anyone who understands the basics of how incentives work, and takes the time to consider what incentives are set up by a given legislative act.

I remain convinced that one of the reasons that the founders of this country attempted to make it hard for Congress to pass legislation, and easy for the President to veto their efforts, is because they well understood the harm possible when people who wish to be seen as "doing good" don't bother to find out whether the actual outcome is anything like what they promised.

The Protection Battered Spouses Don’t Need - New York Times via The Corner

OK, so when you've failed to convince Rolling Stone that a favorite liberal solution is a good thing, you've got a real problem (WARNING: article contains some strong language):

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Of course, author Jeff Goodell, who goes on to describe ethanol hype as "dangerous, delusional bullshit" is right on target. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, less efficient, and has the nasty side effect of raising prices for everything that depends on corn, which includes dairy products, meat, and oh, yes, corn tortillas, which are a staple of poor Mexicans, who are likely to suffer greatly from this pork being larded out to American corn farmers.

Read the whole thing.

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles : Rolling Stone

Or so says Barak Obama, while fishing for support from a group whose name translates as "The Race". But of course, they're not racist...no:

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — Sen. Barack Obama told the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group yesterday that he earned their support for his presidential campaign by marching in last year's May 1 immigrant rallies and challenged them to learn whether others met that standard.

"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked," Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach. "I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences."

The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

Of course, his primary opponent, the former First Lady, was no better:

In remarks during a morning brunch, Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate.

The only venom I've seen lately is from proponents of open borders (both Democrats and Republicans) accusing those who want to see our existing laws enforced of racism. I've said repeatedly, both publicly and privately, that I am in favor of immigration. And I have no problem whatsoever with hard-working immigrants, Hispanic or otherwise, who come to this country legally. But we must have control over who comes here, and have an orderly process. Simply allowing anyone who wants to to traipse across the border (or overstay a visa), and then every few years call a "do-over" with the latest amnesty is unworkable.

The reason we're in the mess we're in currently is because of the 1986 amnesty bill, which encouraged millions more to enter this country illegally, while we showed no will whatsoever to enforce the parts of the 1986 bill that were supposed to secure the border and make it harder to work illegally. That Obama and Clinton wanted to pass a bill that will do much the same as the 1986 amnesty -- give a free pass to millions who've broken our laws, and provide lip service to enforcement -- tells you everything you need to know about their motivation...they're looking for more votes, pure and simple, and they don't care if they have to import them illegally.

Obama solicits La Raza backing - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper via The Corner

What is it with Al Gore...I mean, I've come to expect that he does not live by the conservationist message he preaches to the rest of us peons, but you'd think he would be at least a tiny bit embarrassed by all the attention:

ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter's wedding in Beverly Hills.

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.

Of course, that would assume that Al Gore has any capacity for embarrassment, which seems unlikely.

UPDATE: According to this article, the Chilean sea bass in question was from "one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations." Duly noted. So on this particular charge of hypocrisy, it looks like Al may be off the hook, so to speak.

Gore's message loses bite | The Daily Telegraph

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty on the decision to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling overturning the D.C. handgun ban:

"We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents," Fenty said in a press release. "Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

Someone should remind Mayor Fenty of a couple of things...one, the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, making an outright ban rather difficult to defend, despite Fenty's assertion to the contrary, and two, the District's rather sorry record of protecting the city's residents from being murdered by...three guesses, and the first two don't count...handguns!

Of course, the timing of the appeal makes one wonder even more about the veracity of the recent Washington Post story I blogged about in which an upscale dinner party defended itself from an armed attacker with wine, cheese, and hugs.

Mayor To Appeal Gun Ban Ruling - News Story - WRC | Washington

This may be one of the most bizarre things I've ever read:

A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.

"Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.

Ah, but thankfully, there's a happy ending...after offering the would-be robber some of their fine wine ("Damn, that's good wine," the intruder is quoted as saying...who knew that armed thugs could also be wine connoisseurs?):

[t]he girl's father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.

Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants.

"I think I may have come to the wrong house," he said, looking around the patio of the home in the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue NE.

"I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"

Rowan, who lives in Falls Church and works part time at her children's school, stood up and wrapped her arms around him. Then it was Rabdau's turn. Then his wife's. The other two guests complied.

"That's really good wine," the man said, taking another sip. He had a final request: "Can we have a group hug?"

The five adults surrounded him, arms out.

With that, the man walked out with a crystal wine glass in hand, filled with Chateau Malescot. No one was hurt, and nothing was stolen.

Just makes you want to sing kumbaya, doesn't it?

While it's wonderful that the family made it through this safe and sound, it's also just plain lucky. The idea, supported by many on the comments thread of the article, that all the would-be robber needed was a little love, and that this incident somehow "proves" that nonviolence is a better answer than violence in the face of such an incident is naive at best, even assuming that the incident actually occurred as reported (several readers expressed skepticism, given the timing of this article and the ongoing debate on gun rights in the District of Columbia).

Of course, individuals are entitled to their own opinions as to the proper response to crime, but I believe that if someone points a gun at you or your loved one, you should respond as though that person fully intends to use it. To my mind, that means subduing or disarming that person by whatever means necessary. To do otherwise is to rely on the charity of someone who, by the very act of threatening you with a deadly weapon, has demonstrated that they are distinctly lacking in that grace.

In the end, these folks made it through safely, and they seem to have done the best they could with the situation, given that they were clearly unarmed (as they must be, if they were following DC law). But it could have turned out very differently...unless, of course, you're one of the folks who believe that inside every robber or killer is a little kid who just needs a hug.

A Gate-Crasher's Change of Heart - washingtonpost.com

Bob Novak:

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

So now that the columnist whose column began the whole sordid affair that has resulted in the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby has publicly acknowledged what we've all known to be the truth for months, namely that Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby, leaked Plame's name, and did so in a meeting that was scheduled before Joe Wilson's Times op-ed criticizing the administration appeared, can we expect the Left to drop the baseless assertion that Plame was outed by the Bush administration to punish Wilson?

Of course not...because this was never about the truth. It was about attempting to destroy the Bush administration at any cost. Never mind that the cost increasingly appears to be defeat in Iraq (a defeat that was not inevitable), if the democrats have their way, and possibly defeat in the war on terror. If that's the way it truly shakes out, the price Libby is paying for the left's obsessive Bush Derangement Syndrome is nothing compared to the price the country will likely pay in the future, in lives lost to Islamist terrorism.

CIA leak: Now it can be told :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

This, sent by a friend, is just a hoot:

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out.

OK, so let me get this straight...the globe is warming, and that's causing it to get colder and snow in Johannesburg? Anyone care to offer a scientific explanation of how that phenomenon works?

I think it's just the curse of the Goreacle. Wherever he goes, it gets cold and snows, particularly where he's going to pontificate about climate change. Perhaps, since he was in DC this week, the curse affected Jo-Burg instead, since it's still part of his big concert extravaganza.

But it couldn't be that the low turn-out had to do with people not being especially interested in being hectored about their carbon footprint by a bunch of celebs who's energy consumption easily dwarfs that of most average folks. Nah!

UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT

Gore goes on a tear in the usual vein at the DC Live Earth show:

"Some who don't understand what is now at stake tried to stop this event on the Mall," the former Democratic presidential candidate said in a thinly veiled hit on members of President George W. Bush's Republican party.

"But here we are," he said as an image of a bright Earth shined behind him. "And it wasn't the cavalry who came to our rescue, it was the American Indian."

Um...no, it wasn't. It was a bunch of libs at one of the Smithsonian museums...not the same thing, Al.

Oh, and you say you didn't know there was a DC Live Earth show? Well, apparently you're not alone:

A few hundred spectators turned out for the concert, which began at 10:30 am (1430 GMT).

I wonder how much carbon per attendee that works out to? Too darn funny.

Al Gore slams global warming doubters at Live Earth

Once again, anti-poverty-crusader John Edwards is in the news for his largesse on his locks...this time having spent as much as $1,250 for a single cut:

For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

The most obnoxious part of the whole haircut thing is Edwards' steadfast refusal to accept any responsibility for making decisions that seem rather incongruous for someone who's claimed eliminating poverty as one of his main campaign themes. For example, there's this from the story:

Asked for a comment, the Edwards campaign said this week that Edwards had arranged for the stylist to give him numerous cuts over the past four years. But it said that a personal assistant handled paying for the haircuts and that Edwards didn't realize how much they cost.

"Breaking news -- John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts."

So it's someone else's fault that the campaign spent enough on Edwards' hair to feed several families for a year? Please. Part of the reason that there's as much political fallout over this is because of statements like the above, which demonstrate that Edwards has no desire to accept responsibility for even small embarrassments...given that, why would anyone trust him with the responsibility of the Presidency?

Seems to me that Edwards could get a lot of mileage out of a few appearances at Hair Cuttery, or better yet, he should just show up at the local barber shop wherever he is when he needs a trim. Heck, it might even make him seem a bit more manly, using a barber instead of a stylist.

Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story - washingtonpost.com

You gotta figure Al's not thrilled with this, three days before the Live Earth carbon orgy:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Maybe, instead of trying to "save the earth" and tell all us rubes how to live our lives, AlGore should try spending a little more time being a father. Then perhaps Al III wouldn't feel quite such a strong need to act out. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that the above is a cry for help. It's easy to see the humor in this regarding Al II's crusading, but on some level you have to feel pity for Al III...it has to suck having a father who appears to be more concerned with the planet (or at least with his own political ambitions and reputation, since that's what this is all really about) than with his own son.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car | U.S. | Reuters

As an American of Scots descent who was married in a kilt, this makes me both angry and sad. How far one of the cradles of western civilization and freedom has fallen:

Kilt wearers could face prosecution if they do not have a licence for their sporran under new legislation which has been introduced in Scotland.

The laws are designed to protect endangered species like badgers and otters, whose fur used to be favoured by sporran makers.

What's really disturbing is the government officials who think nothing of threatening to take people's possessions if they do not obtain the new license, even though their possessions may be perfectly legal:

A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the new rules had been put in place to bring Scotland into line with existing European legislation designed to protect vulnerable species.

"The licence will allow people who possess artefacts made from these species in circumstances compliant with earlier laws to keep them," she said.

"This could be family heirlooms of various descriptions.

"Having a licence for such an artefact, proving it was obtained legally, will ensure they will not be prosecuted or have it taken from them under the new regulations."

Perhaps we can start selling some new bumper stickers:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Sporran wearers may need licence

I'm not quite sure what to make of this:

NEW YORK (AP) - Poor residents will be rewarded for good behavior - like $300 for doing well on school tests, $150 for holding a job and $200 for visiting the doctor - under an experimental anti-poverty program that city officials detailed Monday.

The rewards have been used in other countries, including Brazil and Mexico, and have drawn widespread praise for changing behavior among the poor. Mayor Michael Bloomberg traveled to Mexico this spring to study the healthy lifestyle payments, also known as conditional cash transfers.

In New York, the two-year pilot program with about 14,000 participants will use private funds Bloomberg has raised because he did not want to spend government money on something that is highly experimental. More than $43 million has been raised toward the $53 million goal, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs said.

On the one hand, I have to congratulate perpetual busybody Nurse Bloomberg for not spending government funds on this experiment. And as a big believer in the power of incentives to shape behavior, I think experimenting with changing incentives is probably worth a try.

What I'm not so sure about is whether cash rewards are the appropriate way to change incentives. Part of the problem with persistent poverty has to do with existing government programs that provide cash-equivalent support, and often provide disincentives to work, marriage, and other behaviors that would tend to lead people out of poverty. Personally, I'd rather see us strive to remove the government-provided disincentives to responsible and productive behavior, rather than attempting to use cash rewards to offset their impact, as I think the former would be considerably more effective.

Source: My Way News - NYC Poor to Get Cash for Good Behavior

I put the "spoof" in quotes deliberately...someone should tell Hill that spoofs are supposed to be funny. Watch at your own risk...bad acting ahead:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1902.html

Unfunny. Tacky. Just plain bad.

As a couple of folks commented on the link above, it almost looks as though Bill and Hill may have been filmed separately...would be utterly appropriate somehow for this couple.

via Breitbart.tv

Please tell me this is a joke: 

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Bob Barker endorsed his friend Rosie O'Donnell as a possible successor on "The Price Is Right," although the newly retired host isn't sure CBS wants a woman to take over the game show.

"I believe they're going to have a meeting with Rosie," Barker said backstage Friday night at the Daytime Emmy Awards, where he won his 19th trophy.

So from attempting to bully and shout down the lone conservative on "The View", Rosie might move to "The Price is Right"? What's she going to do, say idiotic things like "Never in the history of 'The Price is Right has the big wheel landed on $1.00 twice in a row!" and accuse the contestants of being involved in a conspiracy?

I like Bob Barker, and his cameo in Happy Gilmore demonstrated that in addition to being a nice guy, he had a good sense of humor about himself. But if he's seriously endorsing Rosie O'Donnell as a host for "The Price is Right" I have to wonder whether senility is catching up with him. Ugh!

Source: Barker Says O'Donnell Could Replace Him

How else would one describe this:

Fairfax County middle school student Hal Beaulieu hopped up from his lunch table one day a few months ago, sat next to his girlfriend and slipped his arm around her shoulder. That landed him a trip to the school office.

Among his crimes: hugging.

All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"

I'm used to political correctness and foolish school policies, given how long I've lived in the proximity of the reality distortion field that is Washington, DC, but this policy may be one of the dumbest things I've heard in years. Read the whole thing, although you may risk lowering your IQ just by reading about school administrators who think this is a good idea.

Source: Va. School's No-Contact Rule Is a Touchy Subject - washingtonpost.com via Instapundit

OK, so I'm thinking perhaps the solution might be smarter employees?

SEATTLE – First, Washington State banned indoor public smoking.

Now, the City of Seattle may ban employees from making microwave popcorn.

No kidding.

A memo from the Fleets and Facilities Department addressed to "Employees at Civic Center Buildings" says there has been several evacuations in recent years due smoke alarms being tripped by burning popcorn.

If your employees aren't smart enough to pop microwave popcorn without setting off fire alarms, it might be time to trade up to a better class of employee. Of course, that would require firing the dumb employees, which isn't exactly a hallmark of most government entities.

So...I guess banning the popcorn, it is!

Source: City of Seattle may ban microwave popcorn | Top Stories | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Does the death penalty act as a deterrent? That's a hotly debated question, but a number of studies suggest that the answer is "yes":

Among the conclusions:

Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

Of course, opponents of the death penalty are bound and determined to discredit the findings, but what's so surprising about this? It's a simple fact that people modify their behavior based on incentives, both positive and negative. Unless you believe that all (or even most) murderers are completely unhinged (in which case they would not be subject to the death penalty anyway), they would respond to incentives, and the death penalty represents a pretty strong negative incentive towards murder. Another conclusion:

Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

And this makes perfect sense, when viewed from the perspective of incentives. The greater the likelihood of being caught and quickly brought to justice, the greater the disincentive towards murder. It's the same sort of calculation that results in drops in violent crime in states that enact concealed carry laws. When the potential cost of trying to carjack or mug someone may be your life, you're going to think twice about whether it's worth the risk.

Source: Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say, Hotly Debated Academic Analyses Claim Up To 18 Lives Saved Per Execution - CBS News via The Corner

As if the recently-deceased immigration bill wasn't bad enough, we've also got lunatic federal judges to deal with: 

A New York town will pay six illegal day laborers $550,000 and forbid its police department from checking suspects’ immigration status to settle a discrimination lawsuit that claims the men were harassed because they are Hispanic.

The case stems from a much-needed police crackdown on disruptive and violent loitering in a public park in Mamaroneck, a town of about 20,000 residents located some two dozen miles from New York City. Multiple complaints of hundreds of drunken men fighting, littering, urinating and defecating at the park’s makeshift day laborer hiring site led to police to shut it down.

A Latino rights group sued the town alleging that the illegal immigrants’ constitutional rights to assemble and exercise free speech were violated. The suit also accuses village officials of discriminating against the day laborers—all admitted illegal aliens who didn’t use their real name in court documents for fear of deportation---simply because they are Hispanic.

A White Plains federal judge named Colleen McMahon sided with the illegal immigrants ruling in November that police had deliberately harassed the day laborers because they were Hispanic. In her decision Judge McMahon actually wrote that “the fact that the day laborers were Latinos, and not whites, was, at least in part, a motivating factor in defendants' actions."

Sure, because there are such a vast number of white illegal immigrants hanging out at day laborer sites. And since when do criminals who have come here illegally have constitutional rights? Excuse me? One hopes that this case will be appealed, but there's no indication in the article of whether that's likely or not.

Source: Illegal Day Laborers Win Big Settlement In N.Y. via The Corner

Want to protect yourself when the cops can't? Here's what the mayor of New Haven, CT thinks of the idea: 

"In response to proposed armed civilian patrols, I believe that individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing their view of appropriate behavior in the neighborhood is a recipe for disaster."

This, in response to a local Rabbi organizing a neighborhood watch including members who will carry registered, concealed weapons. The arrogance of city officials in response is breathtaking, particularly since they've apparently already demonstrated that even with beefed up foot patrols by police, they are unable to prevent crime. But heaven forbid citizens should use their Constitutional rights to protect themselves and their neighbors...no, that's "a recipe for disaster."

Source: New Haven Independent: Edgewood's Packing via Instapundit

See below for a funny truck driver story with an amazing photo: 

Missed It By That Much

My favorite line:

“He told the officers he didn’t know where he was going.”

Right.

Source: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Missed It By That Much

I used to respect and admire Linda Chavez. Hers was a voice of reason on race and racial politics, among other subjects. I greatly enjoyed her book, An Unlikely Conservative, and found her story inspiring. But reading the following, I cannot believe my eyes:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

I find it hard to believe that she truly thinks this. Chavez has lost my respect by insulting me, and those folks like me, who believe that we should be enforcing our immigration laws. Not because we "don't like Mexicans" but because we believe in the rule of law, and we believe that unrestricted immigration in violation of our laws is bad for the country in many ways, both culturally, and economically.

I'm not sure why Chavez has suddenly lost her ability to see and speak clearly on race, and I'm not sure I care. I'm very tired of being called a racist for my desire to have the US government enforce and protect our borders.

And for the edification of Chavez and those like her, I make it a point to seek out and purchase goods made in Mexico, particularly higher-ticket items like consumer electronics, in the hope that by encouraging more trade, we can help Mexicans find higher-paying jobs at home, rather than risking their lives and breaking our laws crossing the border into the U.S. Seems to me that that would represent a nice win-win.

Source: Townhall.com::Latino Fear and Loathing::By Linda Chavez

Apparently now we're to be scared of the common soda. In addition to scares about benzene formed by the combination of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and sodium benzoate, apparently the sodium benzoate itself is dangerous:

...an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.

Of course, what's interesting is that the article notes that sodium benzoate "is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper." Perhaps the reporter is unaware that, like mold, the yeast Professor Piper used in his experiments is a fungus. Should we really be surprised that a substance used to prevent the growth of one kind of fungus in soft drinks could be damaging to another kind of fungus?

In the absence of more convincing evidence of damage to more complex organisms, particularly organisms that aren't a part of the same scientific kingdom, I think I'll keep my soda habit, thanks all the same.

Source: Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health - Independent Online Edition > Health

Why, when it's directed at a business, rather than the government. This, from defense attorney Terri Wood, on behalf of her client, Earth Liberation Front eco-terrorist and arsonist Stanislas Meyerhoff:

Prior to sentencing, Wood asked for leniency, arguing that most of the fires were not acts of terrorism because they were set at businesses, not government facilities.

That's a novel definition of terrorism, IMO. Wikipedia, for example, makes no mention of the business vs. government exception in its definition. Likewise dictionary.com doesn't support this distinction.

I'm happy to see that these folks are being prosecuted aggressively, but I think it's a shame that Meyerhoff did not receive the maximum sentence. Domestic or not, these kinds of tactics need to be punished severely. 13 years for being involved in more than 20 arsons seems pretty darn light to me.

Source: Seattle Times via Instapundit

"But", one of Brumshagen's carpenter colleagues said of the model Ark, "I am not so sure that it will float."

So ends this ridiculous Reuters story about a group of environmental activists who are apparently rebuilding Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. The activists (the news story doesn't mention whether they're actually believers in the Bible, or whether they're simply exploiting the story for their own ends) are attempting to highlight the purported danger of rising seas from global climate change by their carpentry efforts.

Of course, there are a few problems. One is the fact, not highlighted in the article, that even at the most extreme estimates of the IPCC, sea levels will only rise around 69cm (less than 2-1/4 feet, for those of you who don't do metric), which means that it would likely be several centuries before their ark would be borne off by the rising waters. If, that is, it could float (see above), which is another potential problem.

And, of course, being symbolic, their ark isn't meant to bear anyone anywhere, so it's not full-size, which would require a good deal more effort than they're willing to undertake. But since the goal seems to be to feel good about themselves by chastising the world's politicians, it seems they've already won:

"A boatbuilding master said they would not have the courage to do this given the short period of time," said German carpenter Rainer Brumshagen. "But I had the feeling that it could work."

"It all feels very good with the energy people are bringing here, uniting those from different countries to work together."

I wonder how much carbon is being released in the process of felling trees, processing the lumber, hauling it up the mountain, and constructing this monument to liberal political indulgence...just askin', is all.

Source: Article | Reuters

That's the only thing I can think of to explain his statement that he "wasn't personally involved" in his recently-reported $400 haircut. Apparently other people arrange these things, and then somehow his hair gets cut without his personal involvement. You just can't make this stuff up.

I have no problem whatsoever with Edwards paying whatever he chooses for a haircut. But it's fascinating watching him blame others for the cost of his haircut, since it highlights how utterly inconsistent his lifestyle is with his "two Americas" rhetoric and his tiresome lectures about what the rest of us should be doing about poverty.

via Politico.com, via The Corner

Ever the pedant, Andrew Stuttaford reminds Andy McCarthy, who had posted some commentary about Koranic support for wife-beating, that:

Nevertheless, it's worth remembering that there's plenty of savagery to be found in the Old Testament too. What really matters is not what was said or written back in the Dark Ages (or, in the case of the Bible, even earlier), but how those words are interpreted now, if, indeed, at all.

I'll let McCarthy's response speak for itself:

Yes, Andrew.  And I'll address that, too, the minute we have a global terror campaign motivated by an interpretation of the Old Testament.

Indeed.

McGreevey seeking to become Episcopal priest.

Has this man no shame at all? And what is up with the Episcopal church? Have they now decided that it's so important to thumb their nose at any notion of propriety that having McGreevey as a priest doesn't strike anyone as a bad idea? It's stuff like this that drove me out of the Episcopal church.

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, though I'm not yet 40, but isn't there something a bit strange about a waiter who thinks that it's OK to plop down at the table with you while taking your order?

This happened to me last night while I was out with my family at a Cheesecake Factory restaurant, so it's not like it was some crazy theme restaurant, or a local diner where we were regulars. And as it happened, apart from his difficulty recognizing boundaries, our waiter was attentive, funny, and very helpful.

According to my mother, who was dining with us, this is becoming somewhat of a trend, with some restaurants actually encouraging their waitstaff to do this. How appalling. It's not that I need to see a waiter or waitress as being lesser than me, or anything like that. But when I'm paying them to provide a service, I expect a certain amount of respect and decorum, and I think that's reasonable to expect. They're not my pals, and we're not hanging out around the house.

I did inquire of the management whether they had a policy of encouraging waitstaff to sit down with customers, and the manager assured me that they did not. So it seems like our waiter was just freelancing. I hope the management makes clear that's not a good idea, because he would do better without such antics.