A valid point

Just saw a quick little post by Mark Steyn.  He mentions a comment from one of his readers, who makes an excellent point: 

 "When Obama says he'll 'restore America's reputation' what it really means is that people who hate America will be delighted by his election.  Why so many Americans don't see it that way astounds me."

Amen, Brother.  Amen.

Here's a Toughie

I wonder who they all think will win.  What would have the potential to be really shocking is if they took a vote on who they want to win.  I just bet that they all hope McCain wins.  Right?

Huh???

This is the weirdest sports story ever.  I've heard some strange things coming out of our athletic teams- trust me, I'm a Detroit sports fan- but this takes it.

I can't even pretend to imagine I can conceive what the hell could have been going through Bell's "mind".

A bear of small brains

Linked from today's WSJ Best of the Web.

My question, which wasn't addressed is this: Was it a Hunny Jar?

The day the earth changed?

Hopefully this is what it appears to be:  part of a growing trend of people beginning to notice what some of us have known for months (or years):  The Messiah is a complete and utter empty suit.

Of course, in fairness even one of my liberal friends thinks so (or did a few months ago.  Not sure anymore).  But he added a caveat:  When the messiah does say something concrete, and makes an actual point, beyond "hope and change", it tends to be scary.

I really think this guy is kind of a dumbass.  Some disagree that he's actually brilliant, but I don't see it.  He's a Chicago politician (in the worst sense of the word), and he's Black.  The former gets him elected, the latter guarantees a fawning audience everywhere liberals gather.

He's just a complete non-entity.  Worth nothing, does nothing, deserves nothing.  I hope he gets not just beaten, but destroyed in November.

A big old thanks to Ace for printing the image. And for posting the original article which I've linked to here. If you don't already read Ace, then get over there now!!!

Hard Hitting Journalism

This would be much funnier if it weren't so true.  Good job, Onion.

Dork Alert!!

Next to "Gun-Totin-Wacko", my favorite online identity is "Historygeek".  This post fits pretty well with that.

Thanks to Holy Taco.

Oh, and speaking of being a gun totin wacko, here's my latest Christmas list.   Thanks here to Gorilla Mask.

I'll be in my bunk.

I'd love to see everyone do this

Here's a great letter, which I found posted on imao.us

I'm not 100 percent sure it's genuine, but it should be.  I think it says pretty much everything that needs to be said, in a nice, succinct manner.

Thought for the Day, Part II

Here's a slightly less "important" thought, but it's one that occurred to me yesterday.  

A "Killer" is someone who "kills".  A "shooter" is someone who "shoots".  A "thinker" is someone who "thinks".

And yet, a "Pest" is someone who "pesters".

Isn't that backwards?

Think about it.

Thought for the Day, Part I

I first posted this on Grouchy Old Cripple, as a comment on a piece about the price of oil and it's effects.  Several people noted that it seems like a good point.  So here we go again:

The folks who argue that drilling in ANWR won't do much for the cost of oil seem to miss a point.  If we get all our oil from the Mideast, it must be shipped here.  There are transportation costs, of which one of the biggest is the tanker itself.

How much fuel does an oil tanker use?  These are massive vessels, carrying massively large loads.  I'm pretty sure they move at a relatively slow pace (much slower than a destroyer, for instance).

So if a tanker has to haul these gigantic cargos halfway around the world, plodding along at a slow pace, then they must be using fuel at a prodigious rate.

Now here's a thought exercise:  Compare the amount of fuel used to move a supertanker halfway around the world to the amount of fuel used to move a similar amount of fuel down a pipeline from ANWR to, say, Juneau.

Then, let's contemplate how many tankers there are on the oceans of the world.  It probably takes at least 10 tanker loads to fuel the US for a single day.  Toss in all the other countries that use oil- China for instance- and consider that my S.W.A.G. (scientific wild-ass guess) of 10 loads would require a convoy of 10 tankers sailing every day.  If it takes (another S.W.A.G. here) 15 days for a tanker to travel from the Persian Gulf to the US, then that means there are 150 tankers enroute to the US on any given day.  And by extension, another 150 enroute back to the Gulf.

How much fuel do those hypothetical 300 tankers use?  And since I suspect it's a considerable amount, how does that impact worldwide demand for oil?  And since we know that the transportation costs are passed along to the consumer, how much are we paying to move the oil from Point A to Point B?  And do the figures cited for how many barrels of oil are used per day (BPD, for the initiated) include this number?

I have a hunch that the answers are somewhat uncomfortable.  I suspect that we're seeing a lot of oil getting burned just for the sake of transit, and that it does have some impact on oil costs.  But if it were to be quantified, and shown to the American people, then they might get uppity ideas about finding closer sources and more efficient ways to move oil.

Which might bring us back to ANWR.  And we can't have that.  God knows we can't do anything to cause discomfort for the mosquitos there.

Think about it.

A WTF? Post

Here's a non-Ace post.  Gates of Vienna put this up the other day.  As a reader can see, I made my opinion clear right from the get-go.  And my opinion hasn't changed or mellowed in the least.  I still have no idea what the author was getting at.

Irony is pointless, methinks, without some kind of context.  And this moron slaps this garbage up (rather, gives it to GoV to slap up), and then runs and hides.  Notice that the author never shows up in the comments.  He just leaves it to Baron Bodissey to defend him.

In fairness, I seem to recall a couple other pieces by the same author, also posted by GoV.  And while they didn't offend me the way this one did, they were equally stupid.

Sadly, I sometimes feel that GoV has slipped dramatically the last few months.  The comments especially are often nothing more than a haven for the incredibly arrogant and stupid.

Yours truly excepted, of course.

And speaking of which...

Here we have more proof that Democrats are the lowest form of life in the universe.  They always go on about "counting every vote", "supporting the little guy" and all that other crap that might possibly have been true once.  But when it comes right down to it, they're as fascist as they accuse conservatives of being.

Look in the mirror, crap-birds.  You are the evil you warn us about.

Another one from Ace.  He and the Gang of Morons are on fire.  As always.

Stupid Democrat Tricks

I saw this story somewhere last night.  My first thought was that it was a joke.  But then I remembered that A) Democrats have no sense of humor, and B) Democrats have no shame.  So I knew it had to be true.

I'm floored.  It literally seems that, every time I think these pieces of crap have hit the lowest point possible, they manage to not only get lower, but by several orders of magnitude.

Hat tip once again to Ace and the Gang.

Why vote Democrat?

For a couple weeks now, I've been contemplating the ultimate question: Why would anyone vote for a Democrat? It really is a puzzle. The basic tenets of our liberal friends are ones that make no sense. A quick glance might be constructive, methinks.

Abortion. Most conservatives think that vacuuming out an embryo, so that the potential mother doesn't have to be inconvenienced is A Bad Thing. For a Democrat, of course, it's all about choice, and this embryo isn't a Real Person. Unless of course, a pregnant woman is murdered by her husband/boyfriend, in which case then he's guilty of murdering two people. The fact that this leads to additional jail time for the man is A Good Thing. So is the baby a person or not? Depends on who kills it. If a woman murders an unborn baby (or a doctor doing the dirty work for her) then the embryo is not alive. If a man kills it, along with the woman, then it's a dual murder.

High oil prices.  Again, as a conservative, I think that oil prices are too high.  Yes, I understand the whole concept of "supply and demand".  But I also understand that this means that, if demand is driving up prices, then one option is to increase supply.  Let me spell it out:  High demand+low supply=high prices.  On the other hand, High demand+high supply=lower prices.  Anyone that knows me will nod their head when I say I'm not terribly good at math, but even I can understand this one.  It ain't rocket science.

But it goes even further.  It isn't just that our leftist friends don't understand the basic economic facts here.  It's that the ones that do understand the facts, don't care.  There's a greater good here.  It's all about getting you to do the right thing.  If the price of gas goes up, that's A Good Thing.  Why?  Because it makes people drive less, thus cutting down on pollution, and presumably fighting global warming.

The bad news is, if people drive less, then tax revenues go down.  So we might have to increase taxes anyway.  But it's all for our own good, right?

Of course, there's another small matter here.  The people that are most affected are the ones that have the least amount of money.  Which tends not to be our liberal friends.  Interesting note:  if you make $10 and hour, and it costs $40 to fill your gas tank, then that's half a day's work.  Of course, you already pay about $3.50 an hour in taxes, which leaves you with about $6.50 for an hour's work.  So now, it's about six hours worth of work that you've done.  If you have to fill up your car once a week, then you're spending about 16% of your NET pay on gas.  Combine that with the (roughly) 35 % the government takes off the top, and you've lost half of your income.  

Now imagine that this poor soul is a single parent, trying to raise their child.  It's virtually impossible.  Of course, they can get a second job, but that would mean working all day every day, and not spending any time with their child.  Which isn't healthy for the child.  Or they can save money and gas by riding the bus.  For an hour or two each day.  Again, less time for the child.

 But have no fear- they'll give the parent money to pay for the child's daycare.  And her medical costs.  After all, that's the job of the government, right?  Now sure, it'll mean a tiny bit more money coming out of the parent's paycheck to pay for it all, but what the hell.  It's only money, and it's for a great cause.  And we have an obligation to help raise the child.

Oh, and of course, if the mother had made the right decision and killed her baby before it was born, well this wouldn't be a problem, now would it?

Of course, if you're well-off enough to be a Democrat, the numbers are different.  You probably make about $30 an hour, so that same tank of gas costs you about 2 hours work.  And since you have all that extra money that you aren't using for food and the like, you can likely afford a newer car.  Like a hybrid or something.  A car that gets better gas mileage than your $10/hr cohort gets from their 10 year old Prizm.  So in fact, our well-to-do Democrat would spend even less than $40 bucks a week on gas.  

Our Democrat friend also has enough money to keep his new car tuned up and running efficiently, unlike our first guy.  Which of course keeps the gas mileage even higher.

So our first guy is barely able to keep his car even running, thanks to the Democratic party and their "no drill, no refine, add on more taxes" policy.

Imagine how crappy it would be if they weren't the defenders of the poor.

National Security.   Here's a great idea:  Let's go to every psychotic dictator in the world, and ask them to "pretty please with a cherry on top" deign to have a "dialogue" with the president.  If it isn't too much trouble.  If they're an Islamic psycho, that's even better.  (Remember, Islam is the religion of peace, and if you deny that, they'll slit your throat while praising Allah).

Yeah, great plan.

Of course, we must also remember that they support the troops.  By calling them "children", "baby killers", "losers", "ignorant", "puppets" and so on.  And by using the media to tell terrorists and hostile countries what our strategy is.  How the hell do these jackasses sleep at night?

The Environment.  Oooh, this is a good one.  We mustn't drill for oil, because that's bad for the environment.  At least when the US does it.  If China and Cuba drill for oil just outside our borders, we'll ignore it.  And if Russia, Venezuela, or Iran drill for oil off their coasts, well, apparently it doesn't hurt the environment.  Because we know how much they care about the birdies, right?

Can 't build refineries, either.  Might cause pollution.  And we all know the horribly bad safety record of the nuclear power industry in our country.  Every month it seems there's yet another accident, killing hundreds of people while releasing yet another cloud of radioactive gas across the heartland of America.

But at least they favor the most efficient form of energy, wind.  Why, a few years back, there was a plan to build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.  A plan that was defeated by that evil empire of Republicans, led by that reactionary fascist Kennedy family.  Can't allow wind farms to cut into the profits on their oil stocks- er, to sully the view from their estate, and perhaps even interfere with their sailing.

Hypocritical bastards.

Oh, and if you really want to be appalled, then go to one of the rallies against BusHitler, Cheney, the War, and all the other great evils of America.  And count the number of signs bearing the likeness of such environmental defenders as Kim Jong Il, Josef Stalin, and Fidel Castro.  Why these men are towers of strength when it comes to protecting the trees and fishes.  The enlightened policies of Kim, for instance, ensure that nobody in his democratic paradise touches any trees.  Not since they were all cut down for fuel, that is.  And the people there don't eat meat either.  Or much of anything else, for that matter.

But thank God Kim doesn't support the war in Iraq.  Hell, he even endorses the Messiah himself, Obama!

And by the way, for all you brilliant people out there, which do you suppose uses more oil- pumping oil down a pipeline from northern Alaska to the Panhandle, or moving a gigantic oil tanker from The Persian Gulf to Los Angeles?

I'll give you some time to think about that one.  Hope your head doesn't explode.

Electoral Politics.  Here's a goodie.  It's time to vote for Hope and Change.  And a change of hope.  And the hope that change will come, if we only hope enough.  And to change our hopes.

Come on now- what the hell does all of this really mean?  Hope and Change is a completely asinine platform.  It's pure unadulterated gibberish.  It means nothing.  NOTHING!!!

And even if it did have some significance, it would be bad.  Hitler promised the German people "change".  And boy, did he ever deliver.  Along with a healthy dose of "hope".  At least until the bombs started dropping on their cities, killing thousands of civilians.  To go along with the tens of thousand young men dying all across Europe.

But remember the key fact:  He did deliver on his promise of hope and change.

Who the hell decided that it was a good idea to vote for Obama for president?  And why the hell did they decide it?  He's a complete and utter nothing.  An empty suit, promising to fix every problem, if only you'll elect him.

And how will he fix every problem?  All together now- "With hope and change".

A side note.  I have one liberal friend that I can stand.  And once, when I commented on The Messiah being an empty suit, he replied that I was mostly correct, but that the occasional concrete idea put forth by this moron is dangerour and scary.  It's perhaps better that we not know what he has in mind, since his public pronouncements are terrifying enough.

But the good news is, he understands our pain- hell, he has to spend lots of money on organic arugula.  And on private schools and camps for his devil spawn.

Good thing his wife gets $300,000 a year for doing.... something.  Nobody's really sure what she does, but she must be good at it.  After all, she got a big promotion just a couple years ago.  Right after he was elected to the Senate.  A great time for the Holy Family, huh?

But don't fear.  He's gonna change the way politics are done in this country.  He's brilliant and can handle anything.  Look at how he's already cured the problem of race in this country, by giving his friend the "Reverend" Wright a great big national pulpit to preach.  Until he became a liability.  Then he had to go.

And by the way, why does this idiot make such a big issue of being "Black"?  He's half white.  And was raised by his white relatives.  So why is he so adamant about being identified with them?

Cuz it's convenient, baby.  A week or so ago, I had a chat with a lovely woman of mixed ethnicity.  She's working on her doctorate, and studying how multi-racial people self-identify. Essentially, she believes, the decision comes down to which race gives the greatest political advantages.  Or, to put it another way, which race allows one to play the victim card most effectively.

But onward.  So this jackass preaches about hope and change, and the media all wet themselves in adoration.  And they ignore his constant stream of stupid comments, while also waxing lyrically about what a great speaker he is.  Uh huh.

Of course, this year's election is one that we Conservatives have no stake in.  It's bad enough we have a hard-core socialist representing the Democratic Party.  But no, we also have a moderate Democrat representing the "Republican" Party.  This other idiot is so busy being the Maverick, that he doesn't even realize which party he belongs to.  He doesn't give a rat's ass about conservatives like me.  Because we don't know anything.  And we're wrong about what this country needs, dadgum it.  Trust in the Maverick!

Or the Messiah.  Doesn't matter.  Either of the M&M Boys will do.  They've got pretty much the same stances anyway.  And the ones that they differ on are essentially cosmetic anyway.

Bah.  I could go on for hours, but why bother.  I've said enough.  In conclusion, the Democrats believe it's okay to kill babies.  They support high prices and high taxes, but only because they care about the poor.  They favor policies to protect the environment, but only so long as it doesn't affect them, and only so long as it forces us to hand over billions of dollars to other countries.  And they favor a strong defense, except for the part about supporting the military.

So here's the final thought:  Why would any rational person ever-EVER- support the Democrats, or ever vote for one of them?  My mind is literally incapable of understanding it.

Rot in hell, democrats.  Just piss off and rot in hell.

The stupidest person ever

I'm floored.  Today, as I drove to work, I passed a car with a couple bumper stickers on it.  The first one really caught my attention, the second one was worth a mere eye-roll.

Ready?  The first read:

Remember Katrina

Vote Democratic

And then:

We all live in New Orleans.

As I said, the second is a Kumbaya, "we are all one" piece of drivel.  But the first...

Good Lord, does this person have any clue what actually happened?  Leaving aside their likely view that the omnipotent BusHitler caused the hurricane, why would the events of Katrina encourage one to support the Dhimmicrats? 

Unless of course crap-for-brains believes in waste, inefficiency, abuse, fraud and general incompetence.  Then, of course, supporting the idiot mayor and the helpless damsel in the governor's office makes sense.

I am really, truly, genuinely staggered by this.  I simply can't believe that anyone-even a liberal- could be this moronic.

And this is from someone that thinks voting democratic should probably be a capital offense.

But that's a topic for another post...

An important link

Today being Monday, it's Mark Steyn Day at G-T-W. Time to read the latest writings from the ever-interesting Steyn.

But today is a frightening day. Mr. Steyn and a magazine which dared to print one of his very popular articles is being harassed by the Canadian government's most evil creation: The Human Rights Commission, a monster that exists in various forms in every province. The whole purpose of these commissions is to harass innocent people that dare to say things which are politically incorrect.

How bad is it? Consider this fact: Not once, has the person being investigated been found innocent. Every single hearing (and there have been over 30) has ended with somebody being found guilty of whatever "hate crime" they're accused of.

This is about free speech. Canada claims to allow it, but they're getting closer and closer to absolute censorship. This, my friends, is the future of the Western World, if the ObaMessiah and his liberal minions get their way. It's all about multi-culturalism, and protecting people from getting their little feelings hurt.

So here we are. And here's a link to an editorial from The National Review. Read it, and understand it. And let others know that Canada is sinking towards Fascism, all in the name of "liberalism".

Please God, Let this be a dream

"Thanks" to my coworker Ashley, for exposing me to this. Not sure if that's A Good Thing or not. For the moment, color me terrified.

Ironic? Yes. Surprising? No

From Right Wing News:

Anti-Gun Activist Knifed to Death
When liberals have accomplished their goal of effectively repealing the Second Amendment, we'll be more than ever at the mercy of the government, but at least we'll be safe from each other, right? Wrong, obviously.

In Britain, where moonbats aren't encumbered by the pesky Second Amendment, anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been found stabbed to death in her apartment. Too bad she didn't have a gun; she might have been able to defend herself.

Mrs. Regan started the Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny was shot. Her grandson has been arrested for stabbing her.

In a world with guns, 53-year-old grandmothers like Pat Regan have a chance. In a world with only knives, not so much. When knives are banned, and it comes down to fists and blunt objects, they'll really be in trouble.

Hat tip: Free Republic; on a tip from Cheetah. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Huh?

"We're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

What precisely does "long predicted might be associated with..." mean?

As far as I can tell, not a damn thing.

But then, when your name is Al Gore, you don't have to make any sense.

God I hate this jagoff.

Anybody you know?

From one of the funniest shows ever, Seattle's "Almost Live". The local station needs to get a clue and put this show out on dvd. But I guess the middle managers don't see what the benefits would be...

Everything proves everything

I've been chewing on this one for a while.  Last week, I saw a post someplace- probably Ace again- that mentioned the latest "proof" of global warming.   I chewed on it, saw it again on Grouchy Old Cripple, chewed some more, and then decided to get writin'.

So here goes.  Last week, a new study came out from Germany, which reveals the exciting news that, while global warming is still occurring, it will take a holiday for the next decade or so.

Why, you ask?  Because the earth will compensate for our carbon dioxide excess.  Naturally, and without any help.

Now contemplate this for a moment.  The earth can adjust to offset increases in CO2, without any help.  The planet doesn't even need to buy carbon offsets from The Source Of All Knowledge, His Eminence AlGore.  It just does it!

The more I thought about this article and this study, the more it bothered me.  On an intellectual level.  What we're actually seeing here is an article in a scientific journal which has major issues, to say the least.  The logic of it all is astounding, and not in a good way.

So let's play a bit of an intellectual exercise here.  For the sake of argument, we'll assume the following:  1) The earth is warming. 2) The warming is caused by mankind.

Let's stress here that this is strictly an exercise.  I don't agree with either of these assumptions, for many reasons.

Okay, so the earth is warming.  What this latest study says is that, while the warming is occurring, it'll take a decade off- that the earth might actually cool for the next 10 years, despite the fact that our actions are continuing down the same path as before.

In other words, global warming is continuing, even if the globe is cooling.

Brilliant, no?  Disprove this one.  The theory says that global temperatures are increasing, and that it's caused by mankind.  If global temperatures rise, it proves global warming.  However, if they fall or stay the same, then it's okay, because the theory of global warming also predicts this.

It's called covering all bases.

So here's a recap:  If temperatures rise, it's because mankind is using too much CO2, and affecting the earth.  If temperatures fall, it's because the earth is compensating (somehow) for the fact that mankind is using too much CO2 and affecting the earth.

But if the earth can compensate for our (presumed) errors in the short term, then is it not possible that it can do the same over the longer term?  In other words, is it not possible that, as many have suggested, the earth itself (or nature) can survive and flourish despite our efforts?  That we are not the masters of nature that we think we are?  If the earth can adjust to stop temperatures from increasing for a decade, why not a century?  Or a millenia?  Or an Eon?  

It crossed my mind from the outset that this is a deliberate act, to buy time.  It's been shown recently that temperatures are not increasing, but falling from the (modern) peak year of (if I recall correctly) 1998.  But now this study will let people off the hook, and give the global warming fanatics another 10 years to come up with another study to prove that it's happening.

At some point, the world will be in the grips of an ice age, and global warming fans will be claiming that it's just a temporary thing, and that in another 8 years the world will be too hot for human life.

The whole thing strikes me as a brilliant bit of propaganda.  Skeptics have long maintained that we're not able to affect the weather over the entire world as much as global warming believers claim.  Now, the argument has been co-opted to "prove" global warming again.  If temperatures increase, it's the obvious proof of Warming.  But now, if they decrease, this latest study has taken that argument away from the Skeptics- after all, scientists predicted a short-term decrease.   And it still fits within the framework of global warming "proof".

But on a rational basis, it seems like nonsense.  To me at least.  For the next 10 years, any attempt by skeptics to argue, using empirical data, that the entire concept of "global warming" is junk, can be tossed aside, since we know that the cooling that we (presumably) would be experiencing is "predicted" by other data.  My guess is that sometime within the next 10 years there will be another new study that will disprove the latest argument of the skeptics.  

Not really, but so the media will inform us all.

The big issue here is rationality.  As this new study shows, everything "proves" global warming- and nothing that seems to disprove it actually does so.  If one scientist says that the occurrence of A proves that B is happening, great.  It might not actually "prove" B, but it gives us a baseline.  Now we're being told that the non-occurrence of A (or even better, what logicians call Not A) also "proves" B.  As does the occurrence of C, Not C, D and Not D, and so on.

It's no longer possible to make an argument against global warming.  Not because there are no rational points to be made, but simply because it isn't allowed.  And because any argument that does slip through the cracks is met with a "no you're wrong" approach which we're then told "proves" the argument wrong.  Not to mention that the skeptic is of course being paid to deny global warming.

When rational, honest to God scientists tell you that you simply can't argue against a conclusion anymore, and that there's no room for skepticism, then I smell a rat.

My final thought is this:  If everything "proves" global warming is happening, then nothing "proves" it.  You can't have it every way.

*************

We now return to my normal attitude, where the assumption of global warming is regarded as a load of crap.

At long last, an update

Wow. Three solid months without a thing to say. Actually, that isn't true: I had things to say, just lacked the energy and interest to say them. Too much ground to cover, so I'll keep it short and sweet.

Bush sorta sucks. McCain kinda sucks. Clinton sucks. Obama really sucks. Carter sucks far worse than even Obama. Iran sucks. North Korea sucks. So do Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Sadr, Matt Millen, and most everybody else. The ex-wife of one friend sucks. The soon-to-be-ex-wife of another friend sucks even more (and not in the good way). The "friend" who kept telling me how much she wanted to see me and then blew me off sucks. Microsoft and Sony suck.

Hope I haven't missed anybody.

Just remember. When in doubt, assume they suck.

Here's hoping I'll be back soon.

Tic-Tac-Toe, two travesties in a row

Once again, this week we "celebrate" a couple of the biggest travesties in the history of the US. First, we have Michael King Day, and then we have the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

"Michael King Day?" I hear you cry. "What do you mean by that?" Well, you can look it up. Michael King was a plagiarist, adulterer, and possibly a Communist stooge, who was killed in Memphis some years back. Thanks to the imagination of his father, he's better known as "Martin Luther King". But his legal name remained Michael.

It's long been known that his doctoral dissertation was largely plagiarized. According to Boston University, where he "earned" his PhD, revoking the degree that he earned only by violating academic standards in the most basic way "would serve no purpose".

Great. I'll try to remember that if I ever decide to work on a PhD. Cheat, because if you get caught, revoking the degree would serve no purpose.

Of course, it appears that using other people's work without attribution was the secret to King's success. Hell, it's even possible that his "I have a dream" speech was plagiarized. Along with most of his academic work.

Quite the heroic image, no? An intellectual who showed no real sign of intellect, other than the ability to copy the works of others directly from their sources.

And his womanizing was apparently pretty blatant. There are allegations from fairly reliable sources that he was into orgies, possibly (like his self-proclaimed successor Jesse Jackson) using funds from his religious groups to buy the women. Now we all know that temptation exists, especially for a charismatic, famous man. And yes, I understand that it could be hard to resist, and that one can even claim that he's fighting his own weak character as a sinner. Great. But the point is, he failed miserably. Doesn't speak all that well of him, does it? Especially when you compare his failings to that of other religious leaders. Like the popes of the past couple centuries. They take an oath of celibacy, and live up to it. King took an oath of marriage, and couldn't handle that. Who would you say was a better man?

He also worked with a number of people that had connections to the Communist Party. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and prattle on about Commies, the Red Menace and all that. But it's been pretty well established by now that the Communist Party in the US was taking orders from Moscow, and spying against the US. And King knowingly associated with people that were involved there. It's even possible that some of his marches and actions were completely supported by the Communist Party.

And this man deserves a unique honor, by being granted his own holiday? What a crock!

Next we have another great anniversary for the week. Today, January 22, is the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Certainly one of the two worst decisions in the history of the US Supreme Court (the other, for the record, being Dred Scott).

In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution grants women the right to abortion. Interesting, for two reasons. First off, if you actually read the Constitution, it clearly states (in the 10th amendment) the following: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not a legal scholar, so perhaps I'm missing something here. The way I read it, unless the Constitution specifically grants the US government authority on a topic, it's none of their damn business. And I've read the Constitution several times. Try as I might, I've yet to see the word "abortion" appear in it. I've also never seen any mention of "a woman's right to choose", or any other code words.

So as far as I can tell, abortion is a matter for the States. The Supreme Court didn't even have the legal basis to examine the question- it's not a Federal matter. But they took on the case, and then, Lo and Behold! discovered this previously unknown and unmentioned right was there all along. See, look, there it is in black and white.

Except of course that it isn't there. I never read the Constitution before Roe v Wade, and as mentioned, have yet to find the topic in there since. So clearly I don't possess the necessary tools to discover and decide on such weighty issues.

But I do know what the Constitution says about changing the document, or "amending" it. There's a strict procedure to be followed, and it involves a lot more than 7 guys suddenly noticing something that wasn't there a moment before.

I have mixed feelings about abortion anyway. I personally oppose it, but unless I'm directly involved, I don't see that it's any of my business. There are compelling- to me at least- arguments against it on many levels, but no matter. My biggest complaint is that I don't see why I should be forced to pay for abortions for women, by means of my tax dollars. I also think that, unless there's a Constitutional Amendment, the legality of the procedure should be a matter for each state. If one doesn't agree with how their particular state rules on the matter, then it's perfectly acceptable (and allowable) to move to another. Problem solved.

In my case, I don't think I care that much about it. I'd probably stay where I was, and deal with the issue or not.

So what we have is an issue where the highest court in the US decided to violate the highest law in the US (which they are supposed to be the ultimate authorities on) in order to legislate something which the majority of the people were opposed to, as a means of circumventing Congress (which actually has the role of legislating) and the States, which are also involved in the process of amending the Constitution.

How many errors or violations of Law did the Supreme Court commit, according to my description above? By my count, the correct answer is "more than enough to be impeached for abuse of power".

Yet here we are, 35 years later, still bound by this asinine decision. And not only does one political party make it the centerpiece of their platform, but they actually try to make compliance with this piece of judicial garbage a requirement for someone to become a Supreme Court Justice.

(Of course, I could go on at length about the stupidity of this attitude. After all, isn't a judge supposed to listen to all the facts and then make a decision? Yet here, the Democrats want a nominee to promise they'll cast the proper vote, based on a purely theoretical question. Imagine a potential juror stating that, in a murder trial for which he might be chosen, he would find the defendant guilty, regardless of the circumstances. Even worse, imagine him announcing that he would cast such a vote in a trial 20 years down the road. Absurd, no? But yet, the left insists that there's nothing wrong with this type of demand.)

To sum up then, it's a great week for American history. A week where we honor the patron saint of plagiarism and adultery, and then follow it up with a celebration of (possibly) the most disgusting display of tyranny in the history of the US Constitution. A moment when a group of 7 men decided that the US needed to go in a different direction, and it was up to them to decide how things should be.

In my mind, I imagine Burger, the Chief Justice at the time of Roe nodding to his allies and announcing, in his best Captain Picard voice "Make it so". And thus, out of nothingness, a Constitutional Right was born.

Michael King would be proud.

Fair is fair

According to an article I found on Yahoo, a scientist has found a possible explanation for syphilis. It might have been brought back to Europe by Columbus and his merry men.

If true, this ought to bring an end to all the whining about how terrible Columbus was to the Indians. He brought them smallpox and civilization. They (presumably) gave him venereal disease, gold, and chocolate.

Civilization and disease versus hedonistic sensual delights. Quite a trade-off, no?

I suppose I could make a comment about American Indian culture leading to rap "music", but it would be too easy.

Bravo!!

Thanks to a link from GoV, I found an article by the terrific George Macdonald Frasier, creator of the Flashman series.

Here's a link to it. In it, the author rails against political correctness and liberal politicians. In fact, he also rails against conservative politicians, with good reason.

Read it, know it, live it.

And not just this article, but the entire Flashman series, and his wonderful Pyrates.