Vox

Danger, Danger

see more song memes

Still Funny

Years later, still true:

(2) There are two organizations pushing for change in November--al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: "We're going to fix you, America." On the whole, the terrorists have a more straightforward plan for fixing things. They're going to blow themselves up. Although, come to think of it, Howard Dean did that.

More of Putting Words in the President's Mouth from PJ O'Rourke

Jabba ♥ Obama

Or, at least, he is very disappointed in Hillary. Make that disgusted.

Wow, how bad do you have to be as a lefty to make Michael Moore disgusted?

Art? Abortion as Art?

Well, it apparently passes for art in academia:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Sick. Sad. Wrong. Tragic.

Unbelievable

UPDATE: I had my doubts when I first read this, but was persuaded by the publication of the story in the official Yale news. Perhaps I should doubt that, as well, and realize that a campus publication is even less likely to fact check than a traditional big city paper of record. Newsbusters certainly isn't buying it.

UPDATE: Several hours after my last update, the major news sites were still listing this story as true - then quickly changed it to "creative fiction" There are facts that seem to remain - "The stomach-turning display will be showcased next week — complete with depictions of blood samples and videos purportedly from the terminated pregnancies." "Shvarts described her project to the Yale paper as a huge cube hanging from the ceiling and swathed in plastic sheeting smeared with her blood from the reported miscarriages. Videos taken of what the college student claimed were self-induced abortions in her bathtub will be projected both on the cube's sides and on the gallery walls." She still seems to consider abortion, or at least the idea of it, artistic.

I stand by my early reaction: Sick. Sad. Wrong. Tragic.

The story has managed something, Pro and Anti abortion groups alike expressed their outrage and concern.

UPDATE: She claims it isn't "creative fiction" as Yale claims, but in fact that she "conducted artificial inseminations and carried out what she characterized as self-induced miscarriage procedures"

Made For Each Other

Can't image why Ted Turner and Jane Fonda got divorced, they are like two peas in a pod. Two nutty, nutty peas.

No Equality

I just caught a bit on a news show (not sure which one) that was covering Obama's pastor speaking at a celebration for Maya Angelou, having been invited by the priest of the Catholic church. The priest said, with a straight face, "there's nothing that Pastor Wright said that Martin Luther King didn't say in the 60's"

Really? I have never heard of MLK saying anything ignorant and hateful like the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Did I miss those speeches in the archive?

In his search for equality, this priest is finding it where there is none - and I think Reverend King would be offended at the comparison.

DC vs Heller

From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court website Oyez.org has posted the audio to yesterday's argument in DC v. Heller in much-requested downloadable mp3 format here.  You can also listen and simultaneously follow along with the transcript using Oyez’s custom plugin here.

The level of information sharing is fantastic....

SCOTUS & Guns

Had a long post, lots of links and analysis, on the Supreme Court hearing arguments re: DC gun ban.

MT ate it. Arrghhh.

So, here is the bottom line.

The Second Amendment means I can have a bazooka in my closet if I want one. The framers made clear in their writings, and in the simple language they employed for the amendment, that they weren't talking about hunting and target shooting - they wanted to ensure our right to defend ourselves; together against other governments, individually against our own.

Let's hope that, unlike Kelo vs City of New London and Roe Vs Wade, they actually look to the document itself, not to foreign courts, political correctness, or personal bias.

UPDATE: Volokh
SCOTUSblog has a round up of articles more here and their analysis

Poll Position (updated again)

The AZ Republic claims, based on a Cronkite-Eight poll, that "a growing number of Arizonans favor stricter gun laws". However, this is also the polling agency that claims widespread voter support for gun control, abortion rights & "putting illegal immigrants on a path toward citizenship"

Those pronouncements strike me as just...well, wrong.

One would assume, with the connection to both ASU and KAET, it is a liberal leaning organization. One could infer from not only the results, but the issues they chose to cite (abortion and immigration in a story about pending gun legislation), that they are left leaning.

But...does anyone actually know anything about Cronkite-Eight , their methods and/or Dr Bruce Merrill?

UPDATE: I dashed off this post last night, and I wasn't very thorough (even for me) I have a feeling the results of these polls are 'cooked'

I wonder for instance if they elicit the preferred answer by the way they phrase the questions (e.g. "Are you in favor of removing all restrictions keeping a person from brandishing a gun in your child's classroom?") or by the demographic they target in the first place (e.g. Going to a Planned Parenthood office to ask about abortion 'rights')

I am not generally a believer in polls, per se, for all the reasons SAJU eloquently mentions in his comment, but I know it is possible for them to be more neutral - and ways to make them more 'useful'. I am wondering whether Cronkite-Eight has a reputation for making results more useful.

I used to work with the marketing database of a large computer company. My boss would say, "We have all the numbers, now we just need to find out what answer they want so we can write the correct query"

UPDATE: Espresso Pundit wrote about this, too.

Did We Say That? Oops

From Volokh who found it via Instapundit:

What Ferraro said is, at least partially, true. There are people supporting Obama because he is black - just as Clinton has gotten votes just because she is a woman.

And, I imagine, McCain has a lot of support based on his status as a war hero..Romney got the Mormon vote....

It happens, people!

However, the excuse Obama's campaign used for Michelle's "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" comment was "She meant because an African-American has a chance of winning the Presidency". Live by the sword....

Now That's Funny

Scary - but funny

Found it here after he sent me the link

We Are The Ones...They Are The Ones....?

From a comment over on Junkyard Blog:

I’m a little puzzled that these people are so taken with Obama’s, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” meme. When I first heard it I thought is was a quote from a Will Ferrell movie.

~ DLC

They're Coming For You

If someone out there has the technical ability - I would love to see a mash up of this video with this audio.

(how creepy is that Obama video anyway? Wow)

Odd Sight

As I was driving to work today, I passed a small demonstration. A group of 20 people or so; waving flags, wearing burkas and other Muslim garb, carrying signs. Unfortunately, they must have been tired of carrying the signs, because most of them were just hanging down - the only one that was upright and legible said "Terrorism is not a religion" and some other stuff I couldn't read because she dropped her arm. There were two police cars riding along in the street - though there didn't seem to be any issues.

I haven't found anything online about the 'march' and I have no idea why they felt the need to send a message on 35th Ave between Northern & Glendale.

Anyone know about this?

Flame On

Saw this in a comment thread somewhere today and laughed out loud, maniacally - like Hillary

If you would just sit down with Hillary and drink a nice cup of warm BLOOD, you would see things her way . . . or burst into flames

Wish I'd have made a note of it so I could give you a link.

And Then There Were Two

(Thanks to Exurban League for the graphic)

Happy Birthday, Gipper

February 6, 1911 - President Ronald Reagan Born

Ronald Wilson Reagan is born in Tampico, Illinois. After serving as Governor of California, Reagan will assume the office of the President on January 20, 1981, and will survive an assassination attempt only 69 days later. Reagan will serve two terms as President, leaving office in January 1989. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California will be dedicated in 1991, and Reagan will pass away on June 5, 2004.

Did You Vote?

Hearing stuff like this a lot:

It was tough, too, for Mary Jordan, 43, a teacher's aide - so tough she said she didn't make up her mind until she was in the polling booth. Voting Republican, she went for Romney, the state's former governor, because of his business experience, while offering no one a glowing endorsement. "I think he's the least unlikable," she said. "I really didn't like any of them."

source

Democrat Contenders

It seems entirely plausible that the Democrats may win the Presidency. If that happens, we will have either the first black or the first female POTUS.

I hope it is the former.

I think that Obama is a true believer. I may not agree with his ideas (OK, I most definitely don't agree with his 'solutions') but I am under the impression that he believes his own rhetoric. It seems he truly thinks that the agenda he has put forth will make things "better" for America.

I think that Hillary is a true politician. I believe her ideas come from being a manipulative, power-hungry, slime-ball of a corrupt politician - just like her husband. I think she will stop at nothing to get her way and harm her enemies.

Though I would prefer our first black president have a name more like Thomas Sowell than Barak Hussein Obama - I would hate to have Hillary Clinton forever engraved on the history books as America's first female Commander in Chief.

Bonus: if Obama gets the nom, the Clinton machine will probably kick into gear to sabotage his chances - in order to give Hillary a better chance in 2012.

BTW: I wish Caroline Kennedy was right about Obama being like her father. It would be refreshing to have someone as conservative as JFK in the running...

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Election Dilemma

On a previous post about Why I Don't Vote Early, Special Agent Johnny Utah asked me to expand a bit. That question ties into a post I have been meaning to write, so here goes...

I don't like to vote early in case my candidate, in this case Thompson, drops out before my state's primary. I suppose because I want to cast my vote for the candidate that best represents my values - and is still in the race. I want my vote to be 'counted'...but as I think about it....

I have never had a problem voting for a candidate I believed in simply because the conventional wisdom suggested that they "couldn't win". I bristled as Hugh Hewitt chastised callers that "a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Giuliani" (as it turns out, he was wrong anyway, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain)

Unfortunately, this pool of pols leaves me completely uninspired. There is no one left in the running that I would be happy to see running the country, so a choice among them would be a matter of picking the least bad of three bad options.

Or, I could vote my heart and cast a ballot for Fred. I would know that my vote "counted" for something, even if that something was just a solitary voice whispering in the political void "give us real candidates, real conservatives, real choices"

However, I really don't want McCain to win. Really. With Huckabee still in the race pulling votes, that weakens Romney's odds. I am no fan of Romney, either, but I think his real world executive experience and understanding of economics and business make him a better choice. He has the brains to surround himself with a good team, where McCain sees himself as all the team he needs (if it were possible for him to appoint himself as Secretary of Everything and do away with the Cabinet, I think he would).

The pundits have all given Arizona to McCain already. My one vote for Fred probably would have no impact whatsoever. I just would hate to think that all of us who want to send a message to the party could have changed that outcome by voting for Romney, and didn't.

Thoughts?

Ann Coulter Goes Over The Edge

I agree that McCain is far from conservative, and that he is bad for the Republican party. However, to say he would be worse for the country than Hillary Clinton is taking it too far.

Since there is a grain of truth to it, though, I doubt she is simply illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Just trying to be controversial? Trying to get herself some extra publicity? Attempting to taint Hillary?

She really, actually believes it?

Sums It Up Nicely

Tony decided to catch up on the situation with Campaign 2008. For those of you who are still unsure of which way to vote, you may want to read his recap.

Location, Location, Location

I don't know if it speaks to their chances in the state, or their interest in it, but Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were both in Arizona this week.

She was at Cesar Chavez High School - in Laveen.

He was at Arizona State University - in Tempe.

CORRECTION: Obama apparently wasn't at the event at ASU. Even without the actual candidate, his campaign gets a better venue.

Why I Don't Vote Early

Now that Fred is gone, I don't know who I'll be backing...

Joke of the Day

Courtesy of Exurban Kevin.

Bill Clinton Has A Dream

"Fred Thompson is not your "bro" and he is going to tase you."

Fred Thompson's plan for the U.N. is to wait for a big conference and then melt down the entire headquarters, uniting leaders from all nations into a nice little paperweight for his desk.

Fred Thompson Facts from IMAO

(Hat Tip Exurban League)

Flogging

Romney didn't just win in Nevada, he kicked some serious @ss. It seems he got at least 51% of the vote.

Even though the other candidates virtually ignored the state, I would still have expected a stronger showing from them. As it stands, it appears there is a tie for second between......John McCain & Ron Paul (!?!) at 13%. Wow.

Blowback, Indeed

"Who says there's no justice in this world?"

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil rights-era agenda.

Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action only to be accused of racism knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item -- hate crimes legislation -- on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous pre-election ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate crime legislation?

The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them.

(Hat Tip Exurban Kevin)

See also: The perils of identity politics

The Anti-Soundbite Candidate

Well, that would seem to describe Fred, though perhaps only in comparison to all the soundbite-only candidates. He certainly has let fly with several good one-liners. The difference: Fred's soundbites are punctuation, not the entire platform.

From American Thinker:

But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantative candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.

Spreading the Word

My work here is done. ;-)

"He Is Very Tall"

Love this comment on Professor Bainbridge's post, Romney Is The Weakest Candidate:

Richard R. nailed it: McCain showed little difference (except the war) from Hillary in governance, and he was especially a train wreck on amnesty.

This careening, lurching ride towards Democrat Lite, (three-fourths the socialist calories with a much more bitter taste) led by McCain and Huckabee makes me feel as if I have been dropped into an alternative universe. Where did the conservatives go and why have they left?

[snip]

Conservatives, check yourselves. You have to rescue the Republican Party. There is only one candidate, and he is really tall.

Posted by Michael F on 01/14 at 10:54 PM

And this:

"[Romney] might make a VP candidate with Thompson. Since Thompson is weakest on organization, Romney could play the Cheney role.”

Romney would be a superb COO to Thompson as CEO. He could dig into the org. charts and budget, find all the duplication and waste, and restructure the federal government. But I want Thompson setting the guiding principles and policies.

Posted by SpecB on 01/14 at 10:22 PM

Familiarity Breeds Contempt...

...Arkansas breeds corruption.

It would appear that Huckabee has much in common with Clinton, aside from the state they governed, and none of it is good.

Of course, Salon can hardly be considered an unbiased source, but where there is this much smoke, there is probably fire. The author did come up with things to praise about the Huckabee record, most of which would fall into the "cons" category for me.

All in all, I don't get his standing in the polls. He does seem charismatic and able to come across as likable, he appears to have the best sense of humor, but there is no "there" there.

Is there?

Thompson 65%

	Fred Thompson Score: 65	Agree Iraq Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Marriage Death Penalty Gun Control Environment Education	Disagree Immigration Line-Item Veto Energy
-- Take the Quiz! --

No surprise there.
Just curious - why is Thompson the only candidate who didn't rate a consistent graphic from WQAD? All the others are labeled and such.

#2 and 3, McCain & Hunter: 60%..ok, a little surprise there, but I think they are using candidates stated positions rather than their record.

Paul: 53%
Huckabee: 45%
Romney: 41%
Guiliani: 39%

Obama & Clinton both hit me at 12%, and we ostensibly agreed on the same topics; line-item veto and death penalty. John Edwards was the very last in my list at just 7%.

(hat tip Exurban League)

Humorectomy

Listening to Laura Ingraham on my way to work this morning. Today she was incensed - incensed, I tell you! - that Mike Huckabee in particular, and all the candidates in general, are making the rounds of the TV talk shows.

Her take, "there are serious problems in the world and Huckabee is making jokes!" on The Colbert Report. How dare he not talk about the soldiers who were killed in Iraq, or the problems with Pakistan harboring terrorists. How dare he wax wittily about the campaign trail.

I have no problem with Huckabee campaigning on any reasonable show that will have him. (Though I am sick of hearing, "as the only candidate with a Theology degree" and I would be concerned if he was making his plea on Pat Robertson's show) When he is on a comedy show, he does well being funny. When the candidates do news shows, they can concentrate on plans for the economy and their stance on abortion. I appreciate that human beings are able to compartmentalize, and I would hate to imagine what a single-minded concentration on any of the prevailing issues of the day would do to a person's psyche.

I should qualify this by noting that Huckabee is the politician best suited to the Comedy Central route, as he seems to be the only candidate of either party with a natural sense of humor. The others, though fed with quips and one-liners by their staff, can't quite pull it off. I am thinking most specifically of McCain here, who insists on telling "jokes" that are rarely funny and never effectively delivered.

At the end of the show, she let it slip that Huckabee has declined to appear on her show. She seemed genuinely put out that he would choose Letterman, Leno & Colbert over her.

So, Laura, were you really upset about him making jokes or were you just upset that he wasn't making them on your show?

[ed note: I won't be voting for Huckabee in the primary, but in the general he is head & shoulders more appealing than Clinton, Obama, Edwards....]

Scandalicious

The National Enquirer was right about Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy (which they reported months ago). Do you suppose they have the inside info on John Edwards' mistress and her upcoming blessed event?

News To Me

According to Special Agent Johnny Utah, John McCain is "respected by members of Congress with whom he will have to work."

I didn't think there was anyone left who respected McCain in his current work. For his service in Vietnam, absolutely. As a Senator, over the past decade or so - not so much.

:-D

Doubts Removed

If you are still not convinced that the Clintons are behind the hostage drama, just examine his supposed "motive". His step-son claims he had been 'desperate' to get into a detox & rehab program for his problems with addiction. He promised the step-son he was "going to do something" to ensure he got the treatment he needed:

...and had told family members he wanted to get help but didn't have health insurance or money.

So, honest, hardworking folks are resorting to crime to make up for deficits in their health insurance - I wonder if Hilary has a plan for some sort of universal coverage.....

A little too convenient to my cynical mind

I Can't Help It

The reputation of the Clintons is such that I would not be surprised to hear the hostage situation in New Hampshire was staged to get her extra press - and show her handling a crisis.

Is it just me?

UPDATE: I received an email from a friend that said, "I'd like to think that I am not that cynical".

Me, too. But it's the Clintons, and their track record is heavy with tactics that make a girl cynical. I wouldn't even put it past them if there had been bloodshed.

Still Standing

Fred Thompson

Mike Huckabee

Mitt Romney

Duncan Hunter

Tom Tancredo

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Ron Paul

Same Old Song

The only thing that surprises me about this report is that Air America is still broadcasting.

Randi Rhodes faked a mugging - no surprise there.
Blame it on the "right wing hate machine" - of course.

OK, actually admitting it wasn't true seems a bit out of character, as well. But, really, Air America is still around?!?!?

The Conservative Case For Thompson

John Hawkins lays out a compelling case for Fred Thompson to be the conservative choice.

Oct 11, In Legal History

Candidate Calculator 2008

I kind of thought it would shake out this way:

Barry Manilow is A Wussy Boy

OK, that isn't exactly a newsflash. But he is way more wussy than I ever gave him credit for, so much so that he is afraid of a girl.

Is it some butch WWE wrestler type chick that has Barry quaking in his boots? Nope, it's this tiny little girly-girl.

She is a Conservative, though, so that might give her scary superpowers.....

UPDATE: Heard Dennis Miller talking about this on his radio show, he referred to the singer as "Barely Man Enough" - I think it fits. What is it about the left that, when they disagree with someone, they can't discuss it? Besides, let's face it, this wasn't Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, both 'entertainers' whose whole shtick is to agitate and who might rile him up for the pure fun of it - and who usually make their targets look pretty bad.

His appearance on The View was to involve a performance and discussing his new album. Unless the songlist contains an ode to partial-birth abortion, I don't imagine Hassleback would have been on the war path. She would have been charming, told him she always loved his music, can't wait to get the new album....blah, blah, blah

Maybe it is just a publicity stunt on his part to try and generate buzz, hoping that will translate into sales. Making yourself look like an idiot seems an odd choice for that, though.

Getting positive exposure on The View, on the other hand, would have nailed his target audience and probably gotten him a sale or two.

Honk if You're Tired of Bumper Stickers

Ward says it pretty well, nothing really to add.

The Case For Thompson

Can't disagree with much Professor Bainbridge has to say about a Thompson candidacy, and Turk lays out a fairly detailed case, as well.

R.I.P. - Boris Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin passed away Monday at the age of 76

Fun & Games

I found a new game over at the Beldar Blog ~

Spot the Tool

Maybe it's too easy...

Definition of an A$$

Eliot Stein - lowlife scum who claims that he just has "an incredible sense of humor"

As Cathy Seipp Lay Dying, Her Nemesis Took His Parting Shot on the Web

A sense of humor would imply doing something funny, not something cruel and twisted. I'd call him a pig, but that would be an insult to pigs everywhere.

Apparently, though, he has the mental & emotional development of a child. After working at a private LA school for only 4 months, he quit and:

On his last day, Stein came to school dressed in a tuxedo and, class by class, told all of his students that his leaving was the fault of one particular 10th-grade girl. By all accounts, Maia [Cathy Seipp's daughter]became an outcast at school.

Oh, and by the way, after unleashing his venom on Seipp as she lay dying, "Stein is absolutely unapologetic."

Discrimi-tunity

Who knew that protesting against Ladies Night put you on the same moral ground as Rosa Parks - and Jesus? Apparently, Steve Horner did, and he is planning on using that moral high ground to cash in......

Ladies Night - I can't believe he allowed himself to be filmed saying those things, but perhaps he plans to sue Comedy Central for making him look like the @$$ he is.

With Friends Like These

You can tell a lot about a person by the people he chooses to associate with.

John Edwards chooses poorly.

First there was his ill advised choice of official bloggers, now he goes back to old (equally sleazy) friend Fred Baron to shore up his position with other trial lawyers.

Blogging For The Breck Girl

John Edwards has hired himself a blogger-in-chief. Too bad he hired someone whose principles and legal acuity rival his, and who chooses profanity as a form of expression.

I can't do the story justice, but Overlawyered has it covered.

UPDATE: More from Overlawyered

AEI Internships

For you students out there looking for a summer internship opportunity, you may want to consider the American Enterprise Institute

Applications are available online

via Point of Law

Save Yourselves

It's too late to save Arizona, but perhaps the country still has a chance to stop an increase in the minimum wage.

Whiskey Tango

Foxtrot

A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district's decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

9/11 Commission

December 13, 2006 FOR YOUR INFORMATION On Friday, December 15th, a meeting will take place for Arizona’s citizens to weigh in as the Arizona 9-11 Memorial Commission determines its future actions. The meeting begins at 9 a.m. this Friday at the Attorney General’s office, 15 S. 15th Ave, Phoenix, in the basement of that building. Parking is at Wesley Bolin Plaza. For more information on the memorial and its inscriptions, go to http://az911memorial.com. If you choose to provide your input on the 9-11 Memorial, this can be done in 2 ways: Arrive before 9 a.m. on Friday, December 15 in order to put your name on the list to speak, as it is on a first-come, first served basis. Send an email with your opinion to info@az911memorial.com.  This email will go on the public record.

R.I.P. - Jeane Kirkpatrick

She was a great one, unflinching and straight-forward. As a young girl, I dreamed of a Jeane Kirkpatrick presidency. I believed she, rather than George Bush, was the perfect choice to follow Ronald Reagan into the Oval Office. Unfortunately, it was a path she did not choose to take.

Still she made her mark in the world. She made people think and, like Reagan, she made people believe.

Townhall has a round up of some of her writings and quotes.

From her speech at the 1984 GOP Convention, and very apropos today

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

Our Delicate Sensibilities

Prohibition II

Yep, what he said

Prohibition II: Good Grief
When government restricts Americans' choices, ostensibly for their own
good, someone is going to profit from the paternalism.

By George F. Will Newsweek Oct. 23, 2006 issue -

Perhaps Prohibition II is being launched because Prohibition I worked so well at getting rid of gin. Or maybe the point is to reassure social conservatives that Republicans remain resolved to purify Americans' behavior. Incorrigible cynics will say Prohibition II is being undertaken because someone stands to make money from interfering with other people making money.

For whatever reason, last Friday the president signed into law Prohibition II. You almost have to admire the government's plucky refusal to heed history's warnings about the probable futility of this adventure. This time the government is prohibiting Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks or credit-card companies to process payments to online gambling operations on a list the government will prepare.

Last year about 12 million Americans wagered $6 billion online. But after Congress, 32 minutes before adjourning, passed its ban, the stock of the largest online-gambling business, Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, which gets 85 percent of its $1 billion annual revenue from Americans, declined 58 percent in one day, wiping out about $5 billion in market value. The stock of a British company, World Gaming PLC, which gets about 95 percent of its revenue from Americans, plunged 88 percent. The industry, which has some 2,300 Web sites and did half of its business last year with Americans, has lost $8 billion in market value because of the new law. And you thought the 109th Congress did not accomplish anything.

Supporters of the new law say it merely strengthens enforcement; they claim that Internet gambling is illegal under the Wire Act enacted in 1961, before Al Gore, who was then 13, had invented the Internet. But not all courts agree. Supporters of the new law say online gambling sends billions of dollars overseas. But the way to keep the money here is to decriminalize the activity.

The number of online American gamblers, although just one sixth the number of Americans who visit real casinos annually, doubled in the last year. This competition alarms the nation's biggest gambling interests-state governments.

It is an iron law: When government uses laws, tariffs and regulations to restrict the choices of Americans, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to make money from the paternalism. One of the big winners from the government's action against online gambling will be the state governments that are America's most relentless promoters of gambling. Forty-eight states (all but Hawaii and Utah) have some form of legalized gambling. Forty-two states have lottery monopolies. Thirty-four states rake in part of the take from casino gambling, slot machines or video poker.

The new law actually legalizes online betting on horse racing, Internet state lotteries and some fantasy sports. The horse-racing industry is a powerful interest. The solidarity of the political class prevents the federal officials from interfering with state officials' lucrative gambling. And woe unto the politicians who get between a sports fan and his fun.

In the private sector, where realism prevails, casino operators are not hot for criminalizing Internet gambling. This is so for two reasons: It is not in their interest for government to wax censorious. And online gambling might whet the appetites of millions for the real casino experience.

Granted, some people gamble too much. And some people eat too many cheeseburgers. But who wants to live in a society that protects the weak-willed by criminalizing cheeseburgers? Besides, the problems-frequently exaggerated-of criminal involvement in gambling, and of underage and addictive gamblers, can be best dealt with by legalization and regulation utilizing new software solutions. Furthermore, taxation of online poker and other gambling could generate billions for governments.

Prohibition I was a porous wall between Americans and their martinis, giving rise to bad gin supplied by bad people. Prohibition II will provoke imaginative evasions as the market supplies what gamblers will demand-payment methods beyond the reach of Congress.

But governments and sundry busybodies seem affronted by the Internet, as they are by any unregulated sphere of life. The speech police are itching to bring bloggers under campaign-finance laws that control the quantity, content and timing of political discourse. And now, by banning a particular behavior-the entertainment some people choose, using their own money-government has advanced its mother-hen agenda of putting a saddle and bridle on the Internet.

Gone - In A Flash

Rumsfeld Out, Gates In

Oh, Sorry

I have been told I should be more gracious in the first day following the election, and congratulate the winners. Where's the fun in that?

Besides, in most cases, I don't think there were so many 'winners' as there were 'losers'

Also of note:
As Dennis Prager pointed out, in California, everything listed as a bond passed, and everything listed as a tax failed. Why do people think that bonds are not taxes, just because the payment of them is deferred? That means that CA managed to deny a tax increase on all tobacco products, while Arizonans implemented an .80 bump. (It was the "tax 'em all" Californians who came here, apparently) Arizonans now will vote for darn near any tax, especially on something unpopular (in this case cigarettes) to pay for something emotional (in this case "the children")

The Day After

The results are not all in, but it looks as if the people of Arizona, having suffered the influx of Californians for years, have finally lost their minds. Or maybe we really have become "the dumbest state in the nation".

Increased Minimum Wage: check
Napalitano still in office: check
Terry Goddard continues as AG: check
Ban smoking most everywhere: check
and on and on

In more hopeful national news, SCOTUS will be deciding on the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban today. I have never understood how anyone, even the ghouls at Planned Parenthood, could support that procedure. Unnecessary, and unbelievably gruesome.

Let's hope that in the past six years, the understanding of the procedure, the groundwork laid in Congress, and the change in the court have gotten us to a point where we, as a country, are able to say, to this barbarity at least, "no!"

A description of the procedure follows after the jump, for those of you unfamiliar with the full heinousness of it. It is graphic - you have been warned.

Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2–3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.

Election Day

The volunteers were also very friendly and cheerful & the parking was plentiful.

Go - vote!

AZ Propositions - 102

Proposition 102 - No Punitive Damages for Illegal Aliens

I definitely agree that we should not be rewarding illegal behavior by allowing those that break the law to collect huge settlements in civil lawsuits. However, I don't believe we should be awarding enormous settlements to anyone in these type of suits. The system is out of control, and no one wins but the lawyers. Compensatory damages are one thing, punitive damages are quite another.

Proposition 102 seems to treat the symptom, while ignoring the cause. Does this proposition really do anything to quell the immigrant problem? Does it help to reduce nuisance suits?

Generally, when I am unsure on a ballot measure, I default to NO. On this one, I am leaning slightly towards YES.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: This one gets a NO

AZ Propositions - 103

Proposition 103 - English as the Official Language

Does this even need an analysis?

Please, it is an easy and obvious YES

AZ Propositions - 107

Proposition 107 - Protect Marriage Arizona

I have posted before about my opposition to gay marriage, and one of my arguments is financial. There is no reason to extend the Social Security system even farther, it is broken enough as is. I already have a problem with paying out to people who didn't pay in, I don't want to create a whole new class of survivors.

I wasn't sure this was a topic that required such drastic action as Prop 107, but they have thrown me some extra goodies with this one. The end of government support for domestic partners, hetero or homosexual. Bonus.

In the commercials against 107, they list such horrors as seniors having their SS benefits reduced. Good. There is a reason that the payout is reduced when you are married, staying unmarried to scam the system should not be rewarded. They talk of families losing their health care. That is just bull. Private companies still have the option of offering the benefits if they choose, but they will not be compelled to do so.

I have never supported domestic partner benefits. If you don't feel strongly enough about your relationship to make the commitment, why should your employer or the federal government?

All the things the gay marriage proponents claim to want can be achieved via other means; wills, powers of attorney, planning. Everything except Social Security survivorship benefits and automatic permanent U.S. resident status for spouses - oh, and the right to not testify against your spouse. I would like to keep those privileges from being abused.

This one gets a YES.

From the official site:

What the amendment does:

• Reaffirms the definition of marriage in the Arizona Constitution.
  
• Prohibits judges and politicians in Arizona from redefining marriage.
  
• Restricts all levels of government from using taxpayers' dollars to undermine the state's marriage policy by giving recognition or benefits to marriage counterfeits, like "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships."

What the amendment does not do:

• Does not prevent the state of Arizona from granting benefits on an equal basis.
  
• Does not interfere with benefits granted by private corporations to their employees.
  
• Does not void benefits granted in existing contracts.
  
• Does not prevent governmental bodies from the common practice of giving benefits to financial dependents.
  
• Does not prohibit or prevent individuals from establishing any hospital visitation or health care decision-making arrangement they see fit.
  
• Does not interfere with the individual choices of citizens as to the private and/or legal relationships they desire to enter into and maintain.

Some well reasoned arguments in the gay marriage debate from around the web, click through and read the full text.

Thomas Sowell:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Now before anyone says "sure Deb, but you haven't made a good case against gay marriage, you've just impugned the arguments for it" let me say that I think this is half the battle. The other half I'll let you get for yourself from your answer to this question: If it's "no big deal" to you--as a hetero or homosexual--whether marriage remains reserved for hetero couples, then why have marriage at all?

Insomnomaniac again:

Not only don't I see any acknowledgement of why our society instituted marriage in the first place, I don't see any honest acknowledgement that marriage was always, and is still, defined as one man and one woman. To listen to the rhetoric, you'd think there was this definition of marriage somewhere that read something like this: "When two humans decide they love each other a whole lot or just want to live together, share custody of some kids, make medical decisions for each other, bury the one who dies first and inherit that one's stuff without having to go through probate first, they get married."

Hypocrisy

Yes, Bono supports the forcible redistribution of wealth - as long as it's not his wealth.

A familiar paradox about leftist celebrities in the entertainment industry is that their embrace of progressivism almost never includes a wholehearted embrace of progressive taxation, i.e., the principle that the richer you get, the larger the percentage of your income you ought to pay in taxes.

AZ Elections

Gotta like what Karen has to say about Kyl/Pederson and Hayworth/Mitchell.

Ditto to her.

AZ Propositions - 300

Proposition 300

Why are my tax dollars being spent this way in the first place?

No, No, No

It is only reasonable to clarify that the tax dollars of our citizens and legal residents should not be used to support those who have chosen to violate our laws and our sovereignty.

It is indefensible that we should be charging students who come to Arizona for education from other states more than we charge students who have defied our laws by their illegal presence in our state.

The American sense of fairness dictates that we should not be subsidizing students who are here illegally in college level and adult education programs at the expense of the taxpayers of Arizona.

~ Don Goldwater

AZ Propositions - 207

Proposition 207 - Private Property Rights Protection Act

This one seems like a very good idea in light of the Kelo decision, but I am not sure this is the best solution. Anyone have compelling arguments pro or con for me?

AZ Propositions - 205

Proposition 205 - Your Right to Vote by Mail Act

You already have the right to vote by mail, however you also have the right to vote in person. This measure is an attempt to stop that - most likely to circumvent the ID requirement recently enacted.

That's right, all registered voters get their ballots in the mail, all votes are in the hands of the US Postal service. (with "a limited number of county- wide polling places" available)

Bad idea - NO.

UPDATE: Curious if SAJU is in support of this one, too, in order to 'increase voter participation'.

AZ Propositions - 202

Proposition 202 - Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act

This ill-conceived proposition not only increases the state minimum wage by $1.60 per hour, it sets a yearly increase automatically, as well.

All the arguments I have heard in favor of this go the same way - some variation of how people can't raise their families on $5.15 an hour. Well, they shouldn't even be trying. The minimum wage is nothing more than a starting point, and a bad one at that.

To paraphrase JP Morgan when asked if he felt he should be able to pay his workers $.25 an hour, he said, "If I can find someone to do it for that much". I wholeheartedly agree that the market should decide this. Artificially increase the wage range, and you increase the cost of doing business. Not just the $1.60 an hour, but the additional burden of higher workers compensation rates, higher unemployment insurance rates, higher federal & state taxes, higher Medicare and social security contributions.... Increase the cost of labor and you will get less of it. Increase the cost of doing business and the cost of goods and services you buy increase as well. Suddenly, someone trying to support a family on $6.75 an hour has the same problem they did before.

I heard one of the proponents on the radio yesterday saying that the average person who would benefit from an increased minimum wage is 28 years old and has been in the job market for 12 years. WTF! If you are 28 years old with 12 years worth of experience, and you are still only making minimum wage - perhaps you aren't even worth that amount. You would have to be seriously challenged to be in that position.

I have young nephew who has a high school education, no special skills, no experience, the whole goth hair pierced face thing, and he has no problem getting jobs (repeatedly) for more than that. His latest position started at $8 an hour, has a benefits package that kicks in a few months down the road, offers advancement opportunities and regular pay increases. And you're telling me some 28 year old is trying to support a family on $5.15? Please.

There is no need to artificially increase the cost of labor. There is no reason to increase the hiring of illegal workers, which could easily be one of many unintended/unforeseen consequences.

Perhaps scariest of all is the language that allows "private lawsuits" to enforce the law, and blanket accessibility - "ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION MAY FILE AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION CHARGING THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS VIOLATED THIS ARTICLE AS TO ANY EMPLOYEE OR OTHER PERSON." Yeah, that isn't just begging for misuse and nuisance suits.

Prop 202 - NO, NO, NO!

AZ Propositions - 201/203/206

Proposition 201 - Smoke-Free Arizona Act
Proposition 206 - Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act

I hate that going dancing involves marinating in second-hand smoke. I would love to be able to go out to a bar that was smoke free. What a joy that would be! I soooo want to be able to vote for these, but I can't.

Because they are both wrong.

I can not stay true to my political beliefs, and vote for a measure (or measures) that tell a business owner what legal behavior they can and can not allow in their business. I can not support the free market on the one hand, when it is convenient for me, and then abandon those principles at the first chance for a smoke free evening. These are bad politics, they are bad business, they are expensive, they are bad.

These are being marketed as either/or measures - but they aren't. You don't have to pick the lesser evil, you can vote no on both. I will.

Proposition 203 - Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative

Another sin tax disguised as a program "for the children"

[snip] The issues in question aren't early childhood development services rather taxation and appropriation that violates and goes far beyond the principles of our representative democracy. Proposition 203 would increase in perpetuity the sales tax on tobacco products and allow an appointed unelected council to determine the expenditure of $150 million of state tax revenue without any legislative oversight and without any allowance for legislative adjustment of the taxes or the expenditures. [snip]

Barry M. Aarons

Voting "yes" on this tax is voting "yes" to creating a huge new bureaucracy to control taxpayer money, with the activity of this bureaucracy having no direct oversight from or accountability to the legislature or the Governor. This proposal establishes a statewide board and an unlimited number of unelected regional councils to distribute tax money to communities however they see fit without any direction from the officials we elected to represent taypayers' interests. This is a massive tax increase, and NONE of these tax dollars will be dedicated to our K-12 education system. And though all of this money will be collected from smokers, NONE of this money is dedicated to smoking prevention or cessation. [snip]

Theodore L. Jones & Charles R. Wenzler

AZ Propositions - 200

Proposition 200 - "ARIZONA VOTER REWARD ACT"

My stand - ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!!?

Please, we are going to bribe people, people who think the lottery is a reasonable retirement plan, to go to the polls. Not that they would actually have to have a clue about what they vote on, all they have to do is show up. They can just randomly mark their ballot and turn it in. Ridiculous.

Couldn't people just do that now? Absolutely, but we aren't bribing them to do it. With no incentive to show up, why would anyone bother unless they had an opinion.

Voting is a right, it is a privilege, it is one of our greatest chances to make a difference - but it is voluntary for a reason. Just as you have the right to vote, you have the right no to.

Shoot, you don't even have to get it right to be in the lottery. At least if they limited the drawing to the voters whose votes came closest to the election results, voters might be inclined to study which candidates and/or propositions made the most sense. Or they would just go with whatever the polls said.

No matter how you slice it, this is a stupid idea. When the only person who writes in to support it is the author, that should tell you something. Lets see what he has to say:

Some criticize "Voter Rewards" as being morally wrong. If that might be the case, we should look to the ultimate authority on morals and ethics. What does God say? Do what you are supposed to do and I will REWARD you with eternal life in heaven. What are we saying? Do what you are supposed to do, vote, and we will REWARD you with a chance to win a million dollars. If incentives are good enough for God, they are good enough for the voters of Arizona!

Arizona Propositions

For your consideration, the following is what the AFL-CIO sent to their members in Arizona. Yeah, they are a bunch of looneys - almost a guarantee that I will disagree with them on anything & everything.

Here are the props as written

- and here is the union list

Labor 2006 Proposition Positions - AFL-CIO

Prop. 100 Bailable Offenses
* NO Unnecessary cost to taxpayers

Prop. 101 Local Property Tax Levies
* NO Unnecessary TABOR-like government restrictions

Prop. 102 Standing in Civil Action
* NO Demonizes certain groups of people and victims of wrongdoing

Prop. 103 English as the official language
* NO Largely symbolic, divisive, and puts state safety and health at risk of being misunderstood
* could endanger workers

Prop. 104 Municipal Debts
* YES Allows municipalities to incur more debt for public safety& street projects

Prop. 105 State Trust Lands
* NO A ruse to distract voters from Prop. 106

Prop. 106 Conserving Arizona’s Future
* YES Protects valuable lands and benefits education & teachers

Prop. 107 - Protecting Marriage Arizona
* NO Denies bargained-for union health care benefits that have been previously negotiated

Prop. 200 Arizona Voter Reward Act
* YES Increases voter participation

Prop. 201 Smoke Free Arizona Act
* NEUTRAL No position

Prop. 202 Arizona Minimum Wage Coalition
* YES Increase Arizona’s Minimum Wage to$6.75/hour & adjusts it on an annual basis

Prop. 203 First Things First for AZ’s Children
* YES Supports and creates early childhood development programs

Prop. 204 Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act
* Neutral No Position

Prop. 205 Your Right To Vote
* YES Increases union member participation & influence in elections

Prop. 206 Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Committee
* Neutral No position

Prop. 207 Free Property Rights Protection Act
* NO Will freeze comprehensive zoning and environmental planning & cost taxpayers millions

Prop. 300 Public Program Eligibility
* NO Would require education officials to do federal government’s jobs at a cost to Arizona taxpayers

Prop. 301 Probation for Methamphetamine Offenses
* NEUTRAL No position

Prop. 302 State Legislature Salaries
* YES Increases opportunities for working families to hold public office.

Limbaugh/Fox

The E! channel, in covering their top 10 stories of the week, said that Rush Limbaugh's comments have left "many people shaking their heads"
Seriously, I couldn't have made that up.

Then, in response to Limbaugh's statement that Fox is allowing the Democrats to exploit his illness, the host said "and the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" Um....what? That is an awfully big leap for her to make, and I can't find any logical reason for it. Anyone?

As to the ad, but ignoring the actual issue. I do think it is entirely possible that Fox made sure that his symptoms were at their worst. Whether that was going off of his meds, or taking an extreme dose, he has admitted to taking that tack before so it is entirely reasonable to expect he would do it in this instance. However, considering that he was specifically cast in the ad to show the disease he faces, and all that involves, I don't think showing all the shaking is wrong. To not admit that you did tweak your meds for that effect is completely disingenuous, but to show the effects is reasonable.

The actual issue: There is no indication that embryonic stem cell research is anywhere near to yielding a cure, or even a treatment, for Parkinson's disease - or any others. I have posted my feelings on it before here and here and here. I find the ad offensive on those grounds, not because his symptoms were full blown.

As to Limbaugh: I heard him yesterday when he said, "either he is off his medication or he is acting" Today he says, "I never said he was faking" Hmmm, that is cutting the syntactical bologna a little thin. Isn't acting just faking?

Ode To America

It is interesting to look back at how we responded to the 9/11 attacks, and how that reaction was perceived overseas. Reading this editorial from Romania makes me proud of how our nation came together, and sad about how far from that we have come.

Editorial from a Romanian newspaper September 24th, 2001

Why are Americans so united? They don't resemble one another even if you paint them! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations. Some of them are nearly extinct, others are incompatible with one another, and in matters of religious beliefs, not even God can count how many they are. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart.

Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed on the streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand. After the first moments of panic, they raised the flag on the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colours of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a minister or the president was passing. On every occasion they started singing their traditional song: "God Bless America!".

Silent as a rock, I watched the charity concert broadcast on Saturday once, twice, three times, on different tv channels. There were Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Robert de Niro, Julia Roberts, Cassius Clay, Jack Nicholson, Bruce Springsteen, Silvester Stalone, James Wood, and many others whom no film or producers could ever bring together. The American's solidarity spirit turned them into a choir. Actually, choir is not the word. What you could hear was the heavy artillery of the American soul. What neither George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Colin Powell could say without facing the risk of stumbling over words and sounds, was being heard in a great and unmistakable way in this charity concert. I don't know how it happened that all this obsessive singing of America didn't sound croaky, nationalist, or ostentatious! It made you green with envy because you weren't able to sing for your country without running the risk of being considered chauvinist, ridiculous, or suspected of who-knows-what mean interests.

I watched the live broadcast and the rerun of its rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who fought with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that would have killed other hundreds of thousands of people. How on earth were they able to bow before a fellow human? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit which nothing can buy.

What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases which risk of sounding like commonplaces. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.

Only freedom can work such miracles!

~ Cornel Nistorescu

John Kyl Ad

Jim Pederson is spending his money on an ad for John Kyl. Sure, the sentiment is over simplified in some ways and exaggerated in others, but it adds up to a great reason to support Kyle.

Perception or Reality

When did Henry Kissinger come to be regarded by so many as "the great satan", and why?

Gun Control

...means bracing a large caliber weapon with both hands.

I have always felt the argument over the Second Amendment was foolish. It is very clear as I read it and, as I read it, if I want to have a bazooka in my closet I can.

To suggest that we allow people to have only those guns that they would reasonably use for hunting is absurd, and certainly doesn't solve the problem - even if all the bad guys suddenly cared about the gun ownership laws. There have been some bad people who have done major damage with hunting rifles and shotguns.

Once again Rosie O'Donnell is on her soapbox, declaring of the Second Amendment "Well, it’s not really a right."

So, apparently, that part where it says "..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" was a misprint. At least in Rosieland.

(via Perez Hilton, BTW)

PS: just found this comment in the Perez thread "when the constitution was formed the right to bear arms served a purpose as we still had a standing militia with no formal training/organized military- we dont need that anymore thanks to Bush's exorbitant budget for the military"[sic]
LOL - the debate has been going on for decades, but it's all Bush's fault - it was bound to get there eventually.

Voters' Cliff Notes

Wondering how to vote on the ballot propositions, but having t