RIP William F. Buckley Jr.

It's a sad day indeed. I don't even have the energy to go over to Huffington to see the hateful things they are most likely saying about him. No doubt the comments are closed over there, because that's how they hide what has actually been said. If you want you can look at the cached page on Google to see the comments.

RJ:

William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

I wish all of his loved ones the best.

Global Warming Is Officially Over, Suck It Greenies!

Like I've been saying for years now (along with several others), mankind did not cause global warming, and mankind has not curbed global warming either. If you listen to Al Gore and his ilk you know that, according to them, man has not done anything to improve the environment ... so don't let them try to take credit here.

No doubt there will be wide spread panic tomorrow in the greenie community to counter this evidence. Their tactic will likely include widespread suppression of the issue by ignoring it. One might think they would try to discredit this info, but they simply can't. The satellite data is nothing new at all, but the greenies ignored it several other times it was published. The greenies have also never responded to NASA's repeated attempts to explain that the sun is the cause of global warming not only here, but on virtually every other planet ... not humans. Why? The answer is simple ... they can't counter the argument, and if they ignore it the idiots out there will never know it even happened. They've also paid no attention to scientists telling everyone that the planet's temperature has fluctuated for the past 10,000 years naturally, and without our help. Hell, even the dinosaurs were the victims of global warming.

I've been celebrating all day now that I know that global warming is officially over.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

I guess the founder of the Weather Channel was right about global warming being a crock eh? This does explain why scientist have been so baffled, and humbled, by the current weather patterns being so cold.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

As it turns out, NASA was right after all. Gee, who'd have thunk it.

Rest assured my little greenie friends ... the article still spells out doom for our planet because apparently cold is worse than heat. Which means you still have a cause to fight for by simply reverting back to the 1970's mantra that the planet was headed for a deep freeze, and then when it begins to warm again you can restart the cause of global warming. So you see, there is plenty to keep you occupied with. Problem is if global warming is less of an issue than global cooling ... maybe global warming was never a really big deal to begin with.

The way I see it, we need to make some changes, and start recognizing some basic truths.

Even though the US is performing better than the Kyoto countries in reducing carbon emissions we have a golden opportunity to squash the competition by removing all of our climate change restrictions on private business. Furthermore, since we know that carbon credits are a huge scam, that is stealing millions of dollars from the world's populations, we should put an end to these illegal businesses. We should also make sure that Kyoto is properly investigated for causing economic hardships, and needlessly destroying the world's forests.

It is also time that we launch massive investigation into the scientific community to find out which scientist continued to lie and manipulate data about global warming in order to get funding. You should already know the huge amounts of money involved with supporting global warming arguments through funding (over $80 billion). While we are punishing those scientist who have lied about global warming in order to get money ... we should reward the majority of published scientist that were honest by saying man is not responsible, or that there was not enough evidence to say either way. Less than half of published scientist support man-made global warming, so the investigation should go fairly quick.

It's also time that we accept polar bears are not in danger, and in fact are increasing their populations. However, we must be concerned with sea otters. It's time to save the poor little sea otters!

We should also consider not blaming our innocent children for destroying the planet. They have enough on their plate, and they deserve to get a good night's sleep without having nightmares about dieing in the middle of the night because of global warming. At least 6th graders are smart enough to know that man isn't causing global warming. Can you say the same?

We can also buy ourselves some nice SUVs without feeling guilty, and we no longer have to worry about sports cars being outlawed. Why not start eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream again while driving your new SUV. Since we don't have to worry about global warming anymore ... ice cream is safe. Well, not entirely safe ... they still have hidden soy products to slowly kill children and men.

It's a good thing global warming ended when it did so we don't have to worry about mercury poisoning with the CFL bulbs that congress keeps trying to shove down our throat. Whew, that was a close call. Now we can hold off until the even more energy efficient, and perfectly safe, LED bulbs hit the market in mass.

There have been some serious budget issue with regards to global warming that we don't need to worry about anymore either. Those new emissions standards that may ruin America's auto industry won't be necessary any longer. The military and intelligence community can also continue to focus on defending the country and fighting the war on terror without worrying about conducting war games to test how global warming will affect national security.

John Travolta can also stick around on Earth to entertain us with his acting,which is quite good, rather than going to another planet.

One of the best parts of global warming ending is that the UN will finally address the real issues that are causing the genocide in Darfur. Rather than wasting their time trying to tie Darfur to nonsensical theories. The conflict in Darfur predates the United States, it was not caused by global warming.

So you see, there is some work to be done now that global warming is no more. The predators who have preyed upon gullible people need to be punished, and those who stuck up for us rewarded. Even if it's only a thank you, but some funding for their research would be nice. The American people stand to get a windfall in money that the government no longer needs for climate change programs. We can only wait to see how our government will spend that money, but rest assured we won't get it back. My only hope is that it goes for truly necessary programs like veterans assistance, or a super dooper death ray mounted in space to evaporate our enemies. At a bare minimum I hope the money we save, from these now unnecessary programs, will be enough to cover the massive costs of the social programs Hillary and Obama have proposed, because I fear one of them will be president and we don't have the money to cover those programs.

The 10 Worst NFL Uniforms, & The 5 Best.

There are several of these lists floating around online, and know doubt you've read a few yourself. Everyone has an opinion, and that is just what this is ... MY opinion. After reading list after list and disagreeing with other people's opinions ... I figured I would publish my own list. For the purpose of this post I will focus on the home uniforms mostly used by the teams. I also won't pay any attention to throwbacks or alternates because they are only used sparingly.

Please feel free to include your list in the comments below.

10 Worst NFL Uniforms

10: Detroit Lions


The Lions have made a vast improvement over their old unis with their current threads, but they still leave something to be desired. While not "ugly" they could use some further tweaking, and have the potential to be a world class uniform. It also may be time for an upgrade of the logo. It should be noted that the new black jersey is fantastic. Perhaps the Lions should look at adding a little more black highlights to compliment their blue.










9: Minnesota Vikings


Yet another victim of "better than before, but still not good enough." The Vikings are on the right track, but I have no idea what they can do to make those unis better. They may be the victim of their purple/yellow combo. At least the Ravens have a sinister purple/black scheme.













8: Buffalo Bills


Now this is a shame. The Bills have a great color scheme. It doesn't get much better than red, white, and blue after all. The problem is they don't put them together well. First of all, the solid dark works for many teams ... just not the Bills. Second, the helmet flat out sucks ass.














7: Oakland Raiders


This one is a little strange for me because I like black. I also like silver, and I like the two of them together. The Raiders just look unfinished to me. I wouldn't propose any major changes, but I'd add some details to give the Raiders a more finished look. I'd also make sure they change their logo.

I think it's about time the drastic logo change gets done. Seriously, does the Raiders logo accurately represent a raider, or the Raiders' attitude? Of course it doesn't. If you were at sea and the raider who was trying to rob you looked like the Raiders' logo you'd be less worried about them stabbing you in the stomach, and more worried about them stabbing you in the ass ... if you know what I mean. It's time to give the Black Hole a worthy logo.






6: Kansas City Chiefs


I'll admit that I have a problem with red helmets paired with red jerseys, and that's probably the main reason I've never liked the Chiefs uniforms. I really don't have anything more than that to add. I just don't care for them.















5: Tennessee Titans


Another case of I just don't like them. I didn't care for the oilers before them, and I don't care for the Titans now. I think it's the helmet ... which is hideous. I give mad props to the Titans though because they are one of the few teams that will invest in several different uniforms to keep it fresh. I wish all teams did that.














4: Indianapolis Colts


I've run into several other lists like this online that love the Colts' uniforms. My question is ... why? If there was ever a too minimalist approach to a sports uniform this is it. Yes the Colts unis are classic, and that should be respected. However, you can have a classic look while still having a modern uniform.

Their uniforms remind me of one thing ... pee wee football. This is exactly the uniform you get when you are a kid. It's time for the Colts to grow up.










3: San Fransisco 49ers


I have never been a fan of the 49ers' uniforms ... even when Montana was hitting Rice and making history. I despise the red/gold combo, but the white pants sometimes worn are a step in the right direction. Are the 49ers a professional football team, or a poorly wrapped Christmas present?












2: Miami Dolphins


The Dolphins uniforms should be San Fransisco's uniforms. It's hard to imagine a uniform that better represents fruit than these. At least Florida has a lot of citrus crops to take the fall as the inspiration for this utterly dismal design. I've seen other lists make fun of the Seahawks' sea foam color while ignoring the Dolphins far more offensive aqua. Nothing screams toughness like aqua.

Does anyone else find it odd that the Dolphins logo is tougher looking than the Raiders'?

I have good news for Dolphins fans, and the rest of us forced to burn our retinas on these eyesores ... there are rumors that the dolphins are going to change their unis this upcoming season. Many are speculating that they will announce this at the draft. Dear God let's hope so.




Finally, here it is ... the ugliest uniform in the NFL.


1: Cleveland Browns


I've noticed a strange correlation between the other lists online, and the Browns being listed as one of the best NFL uniforms. I smell a conspiracy among Browns fans. After decades of the Browns uniforms being universally acknowledged as the ugliest in the NFL, Browns fans are fighting back. Good for them, but that doesn't change the undeniable horridness of their uniforms.

To make matters worse, the Browns had a free pass for a do over when they moved to Baltimore. Hell, the first thing the Ravens did was shed the ugly unis of their past. When the fans of Cleveland demanded the Browns come back ... they succeeded. A perfect opportunity to design a new uniform that would be respected by fans around the league was squandered as the Cleveland Browns went back to the old and ugly uniforms of yesteryear. I can remember have many discussions with fellow fans who were also stunned that the Browns brought back the crap colored uniforms. The reason the Browns are number 1 for the ugliest uniform in the NFL is blatantly obvious ... they can only be described as repugnant.


There you have my 10 worst NFL uniforms list, but what about the 5 best? You'll find my list of the 5 best uniforms in the NFL below.

Top 5 NFL Uniforms

5: Atlanta Falcons


The Falcons have had a history of so so uniforms. They went with red ... they went with black ... finally, someone suggested to put red and black together while using white as a buffer between the two. This novel idea took the Falcons into the 21st century as far as uniforms go. Everything about the new threads is better than the past, and they look good when they take the field.













4: Seattle Seahawks


I've seen several list who hate the new Seahawks unis, but seriously ... come on! There are more than 8 colors in the world to use on a uniform, but anytime a team shows some originality people freak out. Not only are the Seahawks uniforms infinitely better than anything they've ever had, but they accurately represent the pacific northwest that the Seahawks call home.

The sea foam, green, white, and blue all complement each other to make a great looking original uniform. The Seahawks look sharp in a uniform that hasn't been ripped off from any other team, and that accurately represents their home ... few teams can say that.

3: Houston Texans


Now this team looks sharp! Finally an expansion team that got their uniforms right. I can't say enough about the Texans' uniforms ... the color combo, number of uniforms, stellar logo, and a perfect blend of modern and traditional style make them one of my hands down favorites in all of sports.

The Texans took their uniforms seriously when they entered the NFL, and it shows. Not only does it show in the colors, but the logo says a lot about how proud that organization is. Virtually all modern expansion teams have bad logos. Just look at the Ravens, Panthers, Titans and Jaguars to see what I mean. The Texans straight up look good!







2: Tampa Bay Buccaneers


Tampa Bay used to have the honor of ugliest uniforms with their old tangerine jerseys. People used to make fun of the Bucs because they looked like girls even though the tangerine is a hell of a lot more manly than aqua. A little while back Tampa got sick and tired of being the laughing stock of the NFL, and they went as far away from "fruity" as possible. Tampa Bay wanted their new look to strike fear in their opponents. They wanted to be the bully now, and they succeeded on both counts.

It was instantaneous that the Bucs became a new team the moment they got their new uniforms. Perhaps they had designed a uniform that intimidated their opponents. Of the two pirate teams in the NFL, only the Bucs truly represent the savage nature of a pirate. As with the Seahawks, the Bucs branched out from the traditional 8 colors for their uniforms, and went with a pewter. Some may say that the Bucs look like the 49ers (and we all know how much I hate the 49ers' uniforms), but if you think that ... you are a dink. The Bucs have a truly original uniform that accurately represents their mascot, and the historical heritage of the waters of their coast.

A pirate is not a pirate without a jolly roger flag, and the Bucs were wise to put on their helmets. Pirates need a symbol that lets everyone know that they mean business, and that they are truly vicious pirates ... not butt pirates (listen up Oakland). For originality, colors, accurate representation, and a menacing look ... the Bucs are second on my list.


The best looking uniform in the NFL is ...


1: Chicago Bears


I'll admit I'm biased because I'm a die hard Bears fan, but I'm not biased like Browns fans in that I'm not delusional enough to say my team's uniforms are the best simply because they are my team. No, the Bears are universally acknowledged to have one of the best uniforms in the NFL, and even all of professional sports. Most lists have the Bears in the top 3. So it isn't a stretch at all to put them at number one.

Bear blue is not only original, but it is timeless as well. The Bears have found a way to maintain their traditional look throughout the decades while still keeping the team looking fresh and new. If only the Colts would pay attention to this process. The Bears' uniform has changed little over the years, but they have been great at "tweaking" their timeless look to keep up with modern style. This talent has kept the Bears' uniforms one of most liked by football fans for decades. I would like to see the Bears branch out a little in an alternate design, but I never want them to get rid of their classic look. It isn't just these great points that make the Bears' uniforms my favorite, but the fact that they honor "Papa Bear" himself George Stanley Halas on their sleeves by imprinting GSH. Now that is classy.

Cornell University Claims Whites Are Genetically Weaker Than Blacks

Since Blogger is sucking right now, and not allowing anyone to upload new layouts while simultaneously refusing to provide technical support on the matter, I haven't been blogging much the past couple of days.

I thoroughly expected the blogosphere to pick up on this story, but I guess they've been too focussed on Obama's fabrications, and Chelsea Clinton. Shockingly enough, the story isn't even a most read on Fox News' website. Why? I don't know, but I am remedying the situation now.

Cornell University has released a controversial study that will accomplish literally nothing more than sowing more discontent among the races, and serve as yet another recruiting tool for white supremacist groups. So let's all pat Cornell on the back, and bask in the racially charged anti-glory that is their latest contribution to useless science.

Fox News:

White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.

Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.

They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.

I know I'm supposed to conduct myself as an adult, but ... WTF!

This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?

Apparently the goal of these ongoing studies is to find out where the ancestors of global populations came from, and when they migrated to that area. There have also been other larger studies involving other races. I am again left wondering why Cornell's latest endeavor has such a small sample group when the other studies involved hundreds of subjects.

I doubt Cornell's goal was to inflame anyone, but the content of the study is being used to claim racism. If you need proof ... do a search of this topic and read the comments on the few blogs and forums that have addressed it. Some of the findings are pretty inflammatory towards whites, and other findings are not anything new ... thereby rendering this study utterly useless. I'm pretty sure Nicholas Wade covered a lot of the migratory issues in his book "Before the Dawn".

Here's the part where the study outlines the genetic inferiority of European cultures (i.e. whites):

But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.

So what exactly are these "bad" mutations? What would be a genetic imperfection in a perfectly healthy person with no ailments? Also, how do we know what perfect genetics are in order to map imperfections? What if those imperfections are actually evolution? If man indeed migrated to Europe from Africa they would have had to mutate in order to adapt. In other words ... they evolved in order to better survive. Since when is evolving a genetic imperfection?

Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code. I would assume that if two different races mated 200 years ago, it would affect the current subject's genetic makeup. Perhaps in the form of one of these "imperfections."

With all the discrepancies aside ... we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful, and most likely would have led to someone getting fired.

Perhaps you are thinking that I'm just race baiting here, but I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism. Do you remember the story of James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist for his part in the unravelling of DNA, and who once ran one of America's leading scientific research institutions, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was criticized roundly for saying that Africans were not as smart as westerners.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

For those of you who remember the story you will recall the constant mini-quotes about what Dr. Watson said, and calls of racism he endured. Dr. Watson had several speaking engagements canceled, he was criticized by his own institutions, suspended from his job, and ultimately was forced to resign his post as a result of the media firestorm about his findings on genetic studies. Keep in mind that this guy is probably the world's foremost expert on DNA.

Unfortunately the MSM didn't publish Dr. Watson's other statements that are pretty pertinent to the issue. He was quoted as saying that he had "hope" that "everyone is equal." Watson also stated that "there are many people of color who are very talented", but that never made it onto the news. The most important statement that Dr. Watson made in his writings is integral to what we are talking about with Cornell University.

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

In other words ... people who evolved in different geographical areas from one another did not evolve in an equal intellectual capacity.

Sound familiar?

Cornell University's study says the exact same thing as Dr. Watson's work suggested. There are only two differences between the two findings. One is that one of the studies illustrated the difference in physical genetics throughout man's evolution. While the other illustrates the intellectual evolution of man. The second difference is that the study showing blacks as superior has not been met with negative publicity in the mainstream. The one that showed whites as superior did.

Both studies outlined the theory that once man left Africa, and began its great migration to other parts of the world, humans became isolated from one another geographically. Thus, as a result of that isolation, humans evolved quite differently from one another ... both physically and mentally. Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites. Now that's fair and balanced scientific research. Why the same study with similar findings cost one man his job and reputation, but the other has been met with no negativity just illustrates what an ignorant, hypocritical, PC society we live in.

Blog Under Construction

The site will still be working, but the sidebar will be a little jacked up until Blogger fixes its uploader. It took a crap on me as I was in the middle of changing the template.

Success! US Missile Nails Satellite

Let the rest of the world tremble at our power!

Missle-tm
by luvnews

AP:

A Navy missile soaring 130 miles above the Pacific smashed a dying and potentially deadly U.S. spy satellite Wednesday and probably destroyed a tank carrying 1,000 pounds of toxic fuel, officials said.

Officials had expressed cautious optimism that the missile would hit the satellite, which was the size of a school bus. But they were less certain of hitting the smaller, more problematic fuel tank, whose contents posed what Bush administration officials deemed a potential health hazard to humans if it landed intact.

In a statement announcing that the Navy missile struck the satellite, the Pentagon said, "Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours." It made no mention of early indications, but a defense official close to the situation said later that officials monitoring the collision saw what appeared to be an explosion, indicating that the fuel tank was hit.

They are saying that the rest of the satellite should burn up upon reentry. There are a lot of America's enemies freaking out right about now.

Another "Non Hate Crime" Against A White Guy

Click Picture To Watch

Yet another video to be used for recruitment by white supremacists.

There was apparently a dispute because of the small walk way in this store. We all know how that went down, but I'll leave it to your imagination. As this white guy was paying for his merchandise he was surrounded by a group of young black people. They were continuing to yell things at him while he was at the counter until he was finally sucker punched by a punk coward.

WCBSTV:

The unbelievable images show a shopper just trying to pay up at a corner deli, when out of nowhere he is laid out with a haymaker that conjures memories of a young Mike Tyson.

I don't know if it is more disturbing that the attack took place without any cries of this possibly being a hate crime, or the fact that the news seems so enamored with the way this guy was attacked. Why don't they use terms with a negative connotation like savage, cowardly, or vicious. Instead they use glorifying terms like comparing the attacker to a professional boxer, walloped, the pain, and fierce. Those are all terms we use for endearment ... not to describe a mugging. Which is exactly what this was ... a mugging.

The victim takes the brunt of the blow to the head and neck and goes sprawling to the floor. The assailant leaves, but some in his posse go over to the prone victim and take his money.

Absolutely disgusting that the media isn't portraying this for what it really is. A punk coward was too damn chicken to face this guy honorably, and decided to sneak around him to attack from behind. There wasn't any skill displayed here, and as a fighter I can say that with absolute moral authority. It was an amateur punch that was thrown sloppily. The only reason it was effective was that the victim didn't know it was coming, and it is easy to knock someone out when you attack them from behind and hit them on the side of the jawline. This attack hardly deserves to be compared with the skill of a former heavyweight champion.

Then there is this little tidbit which puts the worst of white racism on display as well. The difference is that they will call this racist, but they won't even investigate if the attack above was based on race.

What Do Muslims, Denmark, and Wikipedia Have In Common

A couple of days ago I answered the call to show jihadis that we honor freedom of speech by reprinting the Muhammad cartoons. There is still more rioting in Denmark now as a result of the cartoons.

It turns out that Denmark, and western publications, aren't the only victims of the jihadi effort to censor all references to the prophet Muhammad. Wikipedia also needs our support because they are under fire to remove all images of Muhammad ... to the tune of 180,000 complaints.

Guardian:

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopedia, though not on Arabic sites.

We have pulled out all the stops to defend the publications that had the courage to publish the cartoons, and now we have to stand up for Wikipedia.

Conspiracy Alert: Wal-Mart Is Responsible For Bad Economy

We've all heard them before. It is the big bad corporations who really secretly control everything on Earth. They have uber super secret resources, and membership to micro-manage the entire planet. If the economy is good ... it's a conspiracy by the big corporations to rape you in order to make more profit. If the economy is bad ... it's a conspiracy by the big corporations to rape you in order to make a profit. Guess who the big bad evil corporation is this time around? Well, aren't they always the evil ones?

Yahoo:

Defying the gloom that many retailers are feeling, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. expects a more profitable year selling to penny-pinching shoppers after its renewed focus on low prices paid off over the holidays with a 4 percent rise in fourth-quarter profit.

The world's largest retailer, emerging from a yearlong turnaround effort after sales stumbles in 2005 and 2006, said Tuesday that aggressive holiday discounts and improvements in its more than 4,000 U.S. stores boosted sales despite consumer worries.

I wonder how many of Wal-Mart's detractors will acknowledge that Wal-Mart is making sure that people have solid paying jobs, and inexpensive goods to ease the burden of a slowing economy.

Castro Is Fin

That long awaited day has finally come ... Castro is stepping aside.

Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro announced Tuesday he was stepping aside, ending five decades of ironclad rule marked by his brash defiance of the United States.

Citing poor health, Fidel Castro, 81, said he would not retain the presidency when the national assembly meets later this week, in a message published by the online version of the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma.

"I neither will aspire to, nor will I accept, the position of president of the Council of State and commander-in-chief," Castro wrote, almost 19 months after undergoing intestinal surgery and handing power temporarily to his brother Raul Castro.

"It would betray my conscience to take up a responsibility that requires mobility and total commitment that I am not in physical condition to offer," he said.

Castro did not say who he thought should be his successor. Any member of his inner circle is arguably a contender, although many Cuba-watchers believe Raul Castro, who has been serving as interim president, is the leading choice.

Hopefully we can all start vacationing in Cuba, and buy Cuban cigars (oh yeah) in the near future. It's still a little early for that though. Especially if Raul is in charge.

While Castro is not dead, he is not far off either. At least we still have something to look forward to. We also must not forget the great memories that Castro has given us ... like the one below.


Timeless.

And The Winner Is ... Blu Ray!

Just like I've been saying for a couple of years now. Clearly the better technology won this time around. I guess you could say this makes up for Beta Max.

Bottom line ... HD DVD got pwned bitches!

Freedom! Kosovo Independence Is Good For The World

As you know by now, Kosovo has declared its independence from Serbia. The internet is bustling with theories on if this is a good or bad thing. Even John Bolton is weighing in on the issue by saying it is no bueno. I myself couldn't be happier for the Kosovars, and I am much more optimistic than many out there.

Hotair asked the question earlier on if this was good or bad, but they missed some key points while remaining reserved in their optimism.

There are a few things we must keep in mind before we start making assumptions that Kosovo will become FOB al Qaeda. First and foremost is that the Kosovars love the United States. Let's not forget that it was the Christians who were the bad guys in that conflict, and the Muslims were fighting for their lives. While the Muslim world, including al Qaeda, left the Kosovars to die ... it was the US who was able to finally stop Milosevic and his Tigers from wiping them off the face of the earth. Bin Laden has even admitted that our aid to Kosovo led to his war with us. They have never forgotten this, and it is confirmed by everyone I speak with returning from their tour of duty there.

The western world, including the US, still has a serious military presence in Kosovo because we have been the ones defending it since the late 90's. While al Qaeda may attempt to move into Kosovo they will do it at great risk. Bin Laden has been trying to solidify a jihadi movement in Kosovo since at least 2000, but it has never really taken hold.

I would also like to point out that Kosovo could have named themselves the 'Islamic State of Kosovo,' but they didn't. They chose the 'Republic of Kosovo." I think that is significant, and deserves more attention. Something can also be said for only western countries officially recognizing Kosovo's independence. Especially since the US, who has long supported Kosovo independence, will be first in line with a whole host of diplomatic offers. At the end of the day though we can all agree that if Russia and China are opposed to it ... chances are it will benefit us.

Why This Conservative Thinks Charles Barkley Is Right

Sir Charles has been catching some serious flak from the conservative blogosphere for his comments about conservatives being "fake Christians." If you haven't seen the interview with Blitzer ... you can watch it below before you continue reading this post.

fake christians
by luvnews

Frankly, conservatives should cut him some slack for saying he's voting Democrat because he doesn't like the direction Republicans are taking the country. Especially since many conservatives, and registered Republicans, feel the same way and are doing the same thing this next election to "prove a point", and that is exactly what they did the last congressional election. Conservatives were fed up with Republicans abandoning their principals, and they didn't like the direction Republicans were taking the country.

If you are familiar with Charles Barkley's political rants in the past ... you know damn well that Sir Charles holds many conservative beliefs, and has openly stated we wants to run for office as a Republican. He also holds many liberal beliefs as well ... many of these come from the disinformation the MSM has been putting out for years. In other words ... if I were to sit and talk with Barkley about those issues I could probably change his mind. If you were to classify his political affiliation .. he is a moderate who leans right ... as most Americans are.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that moderates are liberals in hiding, or cowards afraid to pick a side. I love Rush, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Most Americans have conservative values, but maintain at least a few liberal ideals. Hence ... most Americans are moderates who lean to the right.

Barkley makes his case against conservatives by stating he has no problem with gay marriage, and he is pro-choice. He addresses how hypocritical religious conservatives are, to him, because they often behave in a manner that is actually against the teachings of Christ and the bible. That's where Barkley makes his statement that is getting him in trouble with conservatives. He essentially said that these conservative Christians are "fake Christians" because they don't forgive others, and they judge other people harshly if they don't agree with their point of view. He is dead on accurate.

Unfortunately, Sir Charles ignorantly lumps the majority into the minority. When he stated that he gets sick every time he hears the word conservative ... he makes the mistake of attacking conservatives rather than religious zealots. He apparently doesn't draw a distinction between Republicans, conservatives, and the religious right. This is a grave error, and it has led to conservatives retaliating for being attacked. Even though Barkley wasn't knowingly attacking true conservatives at all.

One of the major mistakes that we conservatives continue to make is that we don't do enough to distinguish ourselves from Republicans. Nor have we taken the proper, and necessary, measures to separate ourselves from the religious right. By religious right I don't mean people who are religious, I mean bible thumping zealots who don't stand for conservative values, and are barely distinguishable from a cult. These groups of "Christians" are dangerous, and should be shunned by those of us who have authentic Judeo/Christian values.

It is important that you understand while reading this that I am not talking about all people of religion. I am only speaking of the fanatics. Those who blindly follow their faith the way they are told to follow it rather than how God and Jesus instructed. These people are, in fact, the biggest hypocrites in this country as Barkley accurately stated in his interview.

As a talk show host I have had many discussions of a religious nature, and have been extremely disturbed by many of my conversations with so called "Christian" listeners ... including priests, pastors, etc. I've not only been disturbed as a conservative, but as a Christian myself to the intolerance of others, elitism, hypocrisy, and downright vitriol that many of these callers convey to me.

One such example came when I had been discussing Islam in schools. There were some cases where teachers were teaching the Muslim religion to students in their class without parents knowing about it, and the many instances of schools accommodating Muslim students while refusing to extend the same courtesy to Christian students. Naturally, I was enraged that these events were taking place. It is not only against the law to teach religion in public schools, but we had a Muslim teacher indoctrinating their students in order to convert them to Islam. As to be expected, I fielded dozens of calls for over an hour from angry Christian parents who were railing on about how wrong it was to try to convert students in the classroom to a different religion than that of the child and their family. I naturally agreed with all of them because they were right. No outside force, especially a teacher, has any right to attempt to coax children away from their family's religion ... period.

Literally the next day I had another story with the same exact plot. A teacher was forcing a religion upon their students without the parents knowing about it, and many parents were rightfully upset with the teacher attempting to convert their children to the teacher's religion. To my utter horror I took call after call from listeners who were angry with me for attacking the teacher. I couldn't figure it out. It was the same exact story as the day before. You had a teacher who was forcing a specific religion upon their students against parents' wishes, and the parents were rightfully angry about it. There was literally no difference between the two stories ... except one. While the story the previous day was a Muslim teacher indoctrinating students ... the story this day was a Christian teacher indoctrinating students. To make matters worse, I took calls from several people who had called the previous day to express their outrage at a Muslim talking about Islam in class. Only now they were supporting the Christian talking about Christianity in class. Why would they be ok with one religion indoctrinating kids against parents' wishes, and opposed to the other? There is only one explanation. They are intolerant hypocrites.

Another issue where this hypocrisy reared its ugly head was only a couple of weeks ago. My co-host frequently says "oh my God." I do also, but to a lesser extent. I would like to point out that we are both Christians (her more so than me), and this was never done out of malice. However, a listener wrote a letter to our boss complaining about the use of that phrase. My boss responded by saying we didn't mean anything by it, and it is just the way we talk ... it's no big deal. By boss received an angry response containing a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS, and explanation points!!!!!!!!!! This guy was saying that it was a big deal, we needed to respect and abide by the ten commandments, and something about us being evil I think. In other words, this zealot was offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and demanded we be censored until we fell in line with the ten commandments. He did not tell me which version of the ten commandments he wanted me to abide by. Just so you know ... there are several versions more than the traditional two we are most familiar with. Clearly he has never read the bible or studied the teachings of Christ. Nor does he hold the Constitution in any regard, and he is clearly intolerant of other belief systems. If you don't agree as he does ... you must be silenced. That is the attitude Charles Barkley was talking about.

I felt I had a topic with this guy's letter so I read it on the air, and asked for feedback. I asked if the listeners were offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and I urged religious leaders to call in as well. While most of the calls were from sensible people, who identified themselves as Christians, defending Heather and myself ... some were not so understanding.

After taking several calls saying it was no big deal, and people should stop being so over sensitive ... I started getting calls from those over sensitive types. The first lady said that it offended her greatly to hear me use the lord's name in vain. She said that I should never say "oh my God" again because there are people who listen to my show who will be offended. So I should stop saying the phrase because I might offend someone. I then asked her if I should never talk about Mohammed again because that offends Muslims greatly. Her response illustrated just how hypocritical the overly religious can be. She said "she didn't care what Muslims thought." Oh really? "What is the difference between offending Christians, and offending Muslims," I asked. She had no answer for me, and continued to say that my saying "oh my God" offended her. I then asked why I should care about offending her if she didn't care about offending Muslims. She ran out of ways to deflect my question, and finally caved by saying that I should never talk about the prophet Mohammed. So now I've been censored twice!

From there I took the obvious stance that I should not say a whole host of things because it may offend listeners. I can't insult liberals, commies, education, or anything else. Do you have any idea how many people I offend when talking about the war, or when I mention disgusting fat bodies? To hell with that garbage. I may as well quit being a talk show host.

I did receive several more calls from people who felt offended by the phrase "oh my God" (including my mother-in-law) ... none could offer me a reason why it was ok to offend some, but not others. Some even attacked my beliefs, and said as a Christian I was required to respect the ten commandments or I wasn't a "real Christian." Which is strange because Christ specifically forbade such insults. Still I was confident that if I could get a religious leader to call in they would defend me. Surely a priest, or pastor, would understand that God will not send you to hell for speaking such a phrase. After all, God is not God's name ... it's his title. How can I take the lord's name in vain if I'm not even saying his name? Finally, my prayers (get it) were answered, and a pastor called in. I don't know which Christian denomination he came from.

Now was my time to be vindicated! We common folk are easily lead astray by such nonsense, but a man of God would surely agree with me about the hypocrisy of it all. As it turns out ... we common folk are lead astray by those who are in positions of leadership in our religion. While this pastor was very nice ... everything he said had a message of intolerance of different beliefs whether he knew it or not. He said it was ok to offend Muslims because their God was a false God. Only his God was the real God, and therefore was the only one we need be concerned with offending. I countered with "with all do respect ... your God is not my God." To which he replied that there was only one God, and that was his God. "Funny," I replied. "My God says the same thing." We went back and forth like this for a few minutes, and while it was always friendly we made no headway. He simply was incapable of conceding that other belief systems should be equally as respected as his version of Christianity. Again, Charles Barkley's points have been made for him simply by allowing these "Christians" to speak on their own behalf.

These are the people that Sir Charles was talking about when he called the "fake Christians." So are they indeed fake Christians? That's a tough question that can be debated for centuries with no conclusion. No doubt there are horrible "fake Christians" who are nothing more than oxygen thieves on this planet (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church). However, these people I illustrated above are decent people. They are hypocrites yes, and intolerant, but still decent people who are entitle to their beliefs. So what would make them "fake?" Well, that can only be answered by personal opinion. Which is exactly what morals are in the first place ... nothing but an individual's personal opinion. To not respect and tolerate other people's beliefs who differ from yours is a violation of the teachings of Christ. Jesus told his disciples to go forth and spread his message, but he warned them to be respectful of others' beliefs. He did not want his disciples to insult and attack other people's beliefs. Clearly the Christians I've written about today do not adhere to that message at all. It's all about them, and their beliefs ... all others be damned. While that may not be enough to call them "fake Christians" ... an outsider like Barkley could easily interpret it that way. It is important to note that he isn't entirely mistaken either.

Some of you religious types are no doubt upset by the way I'm addressing this issue. To you, I say, that's why I don't go to church anymore. Man is no longer concerned with doing things the way that Jesus or God would want. Churches have become too much about getting as many people into their congregation as possible. This is done by fear, and by attacking other belief structures ... including other Christians.

You'll notice that many of the Christians who disagreed with me cited that their God was the one true God. The problem is that while Christians believe in one God ... it's not the same God. You heard me correctly ... Christians don't even worship the same God. History is chalk full of Christians separating from their church, and forming a new church, because they refused to believe that their God would be the deity portrayed to them by their old church. Some Christians believe Jesus IS God, and others that he is the son of God (I'm in the latter), some think God is compassionate, but still some other say God is a vengeful, mean-spirited, bigot.

So, you see, we Christians aren't unified on our God. Yet some of us feel the need to ally ourselves with other Christians to attack other religions simply because we are Christians. In doing this we ally ourselves with people who literally believe in a different God than we do, but we don't even realize it. Even though the Christian Gods share a singular history ... different Christian denominations believe in a completely different personality for their deity. In other words ... the Catholic God is different than the Baptist God. The only thing that unites Christians (other than the Christian value system) is that we believe Jesus was more than just a man or prophet.

Don't think for a second that I'm saying Christian denominations should not stick together when attacked by outsiders because we don't share the same interpretation of our God. The war on Christianity is very real, and we need to combat it. We just have to understand that Christianity does not have a singular belief system. Much like Sunni, Shia, and Wahabists don't share a unified view of Islam, but they are all still Muslim.

This is where we conservatives come in. We are caught in the middle of all this nonsense. Most of us are religious to an extent, but not bible thumpers. We are more tolerant that the religious right of those who are different, and we are far more intellectual than emotional than our zealot counterparts. Yet we continue to allow them to make the rules, and fight all of our battles for us. Guess what ... they are losing those battles. If true conservatives were to take over the abortion debate from the religious right ... it would be a done deal by now. The only reason we still have abortion is because we allow our side to play the religion card rather than using sound science to defeat the issue, and we are losing the debate. Every time religion is used in an abortion argument ... that person will lose. Why? Religion is irrelevant to the population when talking about political issues. They don't like having someone else's religion shoved down their throat.

What other issues has the religious right failed to have any success? How about homosexuality. I've talked about gay marriage dozens of times on my show, and I always get the same response from conservatives. They support civil unions with all the legal protections of marriage, but they don't want it called marriage. It's that simple of an issue. Unfortunately, the bible thumpers have made this an all or nothing issue that violates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution. When it comes to homosexuality in schools our extreme right friends have also failed. Rather than focus on science, studies, and family involvement they constantly make it a religious issue. All of this behavior only serves to paint Republicans, conservatives, and the average person of faith as bigoted, oppressive, cold-hearted monsters. All while accomplishing virtually nothing.

That type of perception among the population is what leads to people like Charles Barkley turning on true conservatism, and attacking us. Certainly Barkley is mistaken in who he is targeting for criticism, but ultimately it is our fault as conservatives for allowing the fringe extreme right to speak on our behalf. We are as guilty as Democrats for allowing liberals to take over their party. It's too late for them ... their party is already gone, but we have time. We conservatives call ourselves the silent majority, and we are just that ... silent.

Remember The Cop Who Put The 14 Year Old Kid In A Headlock? Yeah, His Spotless Record Is Not So Spotless.

I've been watching a bunch of idiots defending this officer because the kid was "mouthing off."  No ... the kid was asking legitimate questions that officers should be required to answer, and in some states are required to do so.  In any case, it is unnacceptable for an officer to man handle anyone that way, especially a minor, unless they are a threat.  

One of the arguments used by the nitwits to defend officer Rivieri is that he has a spotless record. Well, someone else has come forward with a year old video of the officer in question pushing him around as well.  I encourage you to watch it here.

Apparently officer Rivieri has one hell of a temper, and likes picking on anyone who doesn't walk in a strait line while having eyes forward.  Does that sound like any other historical police forces to any of you?

If You Send White Powder In The Mail Do You A) Get Charged With Terrorism B) Get Prison Time Or C) Get Probation?

If you answered A or B you didn't get the memo that common sense is dead.

Smoking Gun:

The California man convicted of sending threatening letters containing a white powder to public figures like David Letterman and Jon Stewart has been sentenced to probation and ordered to check into a halfway house, where he will be required to take medications recommended by doctors. Chad Castagana, 40, will remain in the Gateways Community Corrections Center for as long as staff at the Los Angeles facility deem appropriate, though his stay there cannot exceed his five-year probationary term, according to the below U.S. District Court order.

Sheriff Deputy Who Threw Cripple Onto Floor Wants Your Sympathy

What an f---ing bitch!  

If you don't know what's been happening with the two recent police videos ... I wrote about them here, but here is an interview with the victim that plays the assault over and over again. Sorry about the cheesy production stuff.


Now here is today's article on the matter, and the deputy playing the victim.

As outrage spread nationwide over a Hillsborough County jail inmate being tossed from his wheelchair onto the floor, the detention deputy at the center of the controversy has been getting nonstop phone calls, many racist in nature.

"It's not even just in Florida," said Beverly Crecy, the roommate of suspended Deputy Charlette Marshall-Jones.

"These calls are from out of state," she said, with tears in her eyes. "People calling her 'n---' and 'fat' and all kinds of stuff. Seven o'clock in the morning and all through the night."

Uh, she brought it upon herself. So don't give me this boo-hoo crap.

I have no idea if her assault was racially motivated, but I would like to point out that there were 4 black people standing around while one of them threw this white guy on the floor. Shortly after it happened a white coworker came into the camera's view. This is not evidence of a hate crime, but white supremacists will use this as evidence of such. Hence the n-word calls.  Plus, she is fat.

Scientists Baffled, Just Baffled That The Snow Keeps Falling ... Buuurrr

To quote Al 'Goracle' Gore:

Scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” ... scientists “don’t know. … They just don’t know.”

I know Al ... I know.

Denver Post:

Dry-winter forecasts were flat wrong this year for much of Colorado and the Southwest, and weather experts say they're struggling to understand why the snow just keeps falling.

Some forecasters blame climate change, and others point to the simple vicissitudes of weather. Regardless, almost everyone called for a dry-to-normal winter in Colorado and the Southwest — but today, the state's mountains are piled so thick with snow that state reservoirs could fill and floods could be widespread this spring.

"The polar jet stream has been on steroids. We don't understand this. It's pushing our limits, and it's humbling," said Klaus Wolter, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Baffling ... just baffling.

McCain Votes Against Ban On Waterboarding

While waterboarding is not torture, and I agree with his vote ... he has some explaining to do. Especially because of this exchange on waterboarding at the YouTube debate.


This appears to be a way for McCain to try to show the conservative base that he will listen to them, and is a true conservative. In other words, he's trying to shore up support so we don't stay home on his ass.

Think Progress:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

He voted no on the Intelligence Authorization Bill which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that bans waterboarding.

CNN Producer Fired For Blogging

Here's the thing, you are not allowed to embarrass your employer with a personal blog.  I walk this fine line with my company every day my blog is public.  If you work for a news outlet that has to maintain the appearance of being unbiased ... you can't have a personal blog on the side telling the public that you hate people of a certain political affiliation as this guy has done. As a blogger he knows that other bloggers will expose him for who he is. Which would be extremely embarrassing to his employer, and damage their credibility as a news source.

He doesn't see it that way.

Chez Pazienza, a senior producer for CNN’s “American Morning,” says the network fired him on Tuesday on the grounds that he violated its standards for journalists through his blog, Deus Ex Malcontent.

Mr. Pazienza announced that he had been fired through — what else — a blog post on Wednesday. “What was the reason for my abrupt and untimely dismissal?” he wrote. “You’re reading it. More to come soon.”

It continues ...

A few months ago, Mr. Pazienza was invited to start blogging on The Huffington Post, the group blog founded by Arianna Huffington.

Mr. Pazienza said he has never identified himself in his writing as a CNN producer or as a representative of CNN and has never written about what goes on at work. “I will write about the media in general and, at times, the very sorry state of it, including the TV news media,” he said. “I think I have the right to.”

I'll stop here to address his statements that he thinks he has a right to talk about the media in general. This may be true depending on his conduct policy given to him by CNN, but the moment you begin to show bias that may undermine your employer's credibility, you're in trouble. Writing for the Huffington Post does just that. If conservative bloggers chose to make a big deal of CNN having a producer of one of their programs writing for the Huffington Post ... CNN's reputation would be severely damaged. Given that CNN already has a bad reputation, and has been scrambling to repair it for several months now doesn't help this guys case.

It's not just his affiliation with the Huffington Post that was the problem. It was his venemous writings on his site that sealed his fate.

Deus Ex Malcontent makes no effort to hide its author’s strong views. “I wake up every morning baffled as to why America hasn’t thrown George Bush and Dick Cheney in prison.

He also criticized some other famous people such as Oprah. While I applaud his attacks on Oprah, there could issues with advertising by going after some of the people he wrote about. Nonetheless, CNN can't have one of their producers running around talking about imprisoning people without them knowing about it. Especially since they are in full fledged damage control mode over at CNN.

Mr. Pazienza acknowledges that he did not ask permission from CNN to blog, either on his own Web site or on The Huffington Post. He contends that the policy had not been made clear to employees and was overly vague. “It’s purposely set up so they can be subjective,” he said. “Does that mean I can’t post on a MySpace blog that my friends read? Does that mean I can’t post something online to my wife?” He added that he believed he had been dismissed because of his views.

Here is where he completely missed the point, or didn't read his employee handbook. It doesn't matter if he thinks it was not made clear to him. As someone who works for one of the big media corporations I knew I had to ask permission to have a blog. At the time it was a Myspace page like this guy is talking about. When you work for these companies they make sure you understand what you need permission for. My boss told me what I can and can not write about. If I violate that ... I get fired.

He tries to take it too far by talking about personal posts to his wife and friends. That will not get him fired because it is personal, and won't embarrass CNN. His calling for Bush and Cheney to be imprisoned will draw negative attention to CNN, and that can't stand. He's right that he was dismissed because of his views, but it had nothing to do with how he believes. It's because he put them in aggressive writings that could harm CNN, and he should have known better.

FEMA Will "Relocate" Katrina Victims Instead Of Kicking Them Out On The Street Like They Deserve

I'm getting sick and tired of coddling these "victims." Katrina was a tragedy, and no one is denying that. However, it was a tragedy that happened in August of 2005 ... two and a half years ago! Not only should every one of these people be back in the work force, and at a bare minimum renting apartments of their own, but there is countless cases of fraud being committed by these "victims." It is not them but us, the taxpayer, who are the real victims here.

The reason there is formaldehyde in these trailers is because they are not meant to be lived in for extended periods of time. Everyone involved knows this and has chosen to ignore it in an effort to sacrifice themselves, and their children's health so they don't have to work. Then they can sue the government for more money. This is a classic case of sacrificing longevity for wealth and comfort.

FEMA is not off the hook here either. They are so worried about the public's negative perception of them that they are refusing to do what is right. Which would be to revoke all benefits Katrina victims are currently receiving, and forcing them to return to society by kicking them out of the trailers. This is a two-fold benefit. Not only will they be forced to become productive members of society again, but their health will improve because they are out of those temporary stay trailers. I've written about the trailer issue before.

Here's the latest assault on your emotions by the MSM.

Authorities say they will step up efforts to move hurricane victims out of more than 35,000 trailers now that tests indicate possibly high levels of formaldehyde contamination.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Paulison made the announcement Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control has said fumes from 519 tested trailer and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi were on average about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

In some trailers, the levels were more than 50 times the customary exposure levels, raising fears that residents could contract respiratory problems.

FEMA -- which supplied the trailers -- should move people out quickly, with priority given to families with children, elderly people or anyone with asthma or other chronic conditions, said Mike McGeehin, director of a CDC division that focuses on environmental hazards.

"We do not want people exposed to this for very much longer," McGeehin said.

I agree that they should be moved. I just think they should be moved out onto the street. Two and a half years is more than enough time to pull your life together, and the proof is in the majority who actually have. The few that remain behind are nothing but leeches upon society who think they deserve welfare for the rest of their lives because Katrina got their feet wet. Perhaps the toxins in the trailers were sent by mother nature to make sure the weak are weeded out.

Casey's Rules For Valentines Day

Meet my puppy Ranger

Casey's Valentines Day Rules To Live By

• Ladies, having sex with your partner is NOT a Valentines present. Even if you wear his favorite outfit, and do whatever he wants. This is insulting, and is the most flagrant of Valentines Day fouls. You are obligated to perform sexual favors (if of age) for your man ... the opposite is true for you guys as well. If men have to get you presents ... you have to get them presents. Now pony up cheap ass!
• Men, taking your partner out to dinner is NOT a Valentines present. You are supposed to be the MAN in the relationship. It is your duty to take your lady out to a nice dinner. When I say nice I mean someplace you have to actually dress up a little bit. Don't be a cheap ass!
• If you think your partner will do one of the two scams above ... it is completely appropriate to withhold giving your present to them until they pony up. If they think sex or dinner is a present, and don't get you anything else ... keep their present and return it tomorrow while looking for a new partner.
• Yes, flowers are considered a present. If you get a dozen roses ... don't you dare bitch about it. They are expensive (if you get good ones). Again, don't be a cheap ass!
• No, a card is not considered a present. If you think it is ... you are a cheap ass, quit it!
• Men, do not buy your ladies a big box of chocolates or candy. Small boxes are ok, but big boxes will only serve to encourage her to become fat and ugly. On this, you can be a cheap ass.
• Ladies, if your guy buys you lingerie it is considered a present for the both of you. No it does not absolve you of your present to him. Some women think lingerie is only a present for the man, and doesn't count. These women are selfish bitches, and should be discarded as soon as possible for younger, hotter, more agile models.
• Men, never EVER give a woman jewelery unless she is family or your fianc'ee. Some women will not like this rule because they like jewelery. However, I have spoken with several women about this and they agree with me. Only grandmas, moms, fianc'ees, and wives deserve jewelery. All others are unworthy. If you've been dating a woman for 5 years or more but never got engaged ... you are a cheap ass, stop it!
• Ladies, if you say you don't want anything for Valentines but your man's company, do not bitch when he doesn't get you anything. You are a lying, manipulative bitch who got exactly what she deserved.
• Men, if your lady tells you she doesn't want anything for Valentines, understand she is lying. The ball is now in your court. You can make her very happy by getting her something, or if you are ready to end the relationship ... get her nothing. When she gets angry, make sure you tell her how much of a lying, manipulative bitch she is before kicking her ass out onto the street.
• Ladies, Valentines Day is NOT your holiday. Saint Valentine was a guy. Valentines Day is a day to celebrate the relationship, and show admiration for your partner. It is not a day to show appreciation for you only. Make sure you remember that, and live by the rules. If you do you'll always get spoiled on Valentines Day.
• Men, you have been the victim for too long of this lie that you should spoil your lady, without expecting anything in return, because Valentines Day is all about the woman. It is not, and it's time to fight back. The only way to do so is to openly confront the selfish bitches who perpetuate this myth, and prey upon us men. Give these women no quarter, and cast them out of your lives. The women who understand the rules should be spoiled,pampered, and treated as the trophies they are. Put them up on a pedestal, admire them, brag about them, love and cherish them, and once in a while polish them up a bit to make them shine.

Call To Action, Reprint Mohammed Cartoons

Michelle has a call to action to remember the cartoon fiasco two years ago, and to remind everyone of who the cowards were that refused to print the cartoons. She has asked us to print our favorite Mohammed cartoon on our blogs (I chose a whole sheet).