Katrina Illustrating Institutional Racism (But Not In the Traditional Way)

So with the two year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, that was the only news the other day. So what can we learn from the media and Katrina?

Well, first, black people are incompetent. No, this isn't my personal belief; this is what I learned from the media. See, if this hurricane had hit a white neighborhood, we wouldn't be hearing about it two years later. (I am too young to remember, but what was the coverage like for Andrew when it hit Florida?) According to the media, white people know how to clean up and move on, but black people have to wait for others to do stuff.

Second, the blame-game is a worthwhile past-time. How many times do we have to hear Blanco and Nagin blame each other and Bush before they decide to shut up and blame themselves?

Finally, the coverage shows that the only important things are bad events that happen with Democrats in local control. This ties in nicely with this week's news of the week, remembering Virginia Tech. See, neither event was really that earth shattering to people without a direct connection to the event itself. Yet, we are all supposed to jump up and spring into action to fix problems that everywhere else has been able to prevent. Guess what? When you build your house above sea level and away from the ocean, your house tends not to flood in a hurricane. Whoa! Epiphany right?

So, my hope is that we can finally get over anniversaries of bad stuff happening. I frankly don't care and I would rather find out what is happening now. Then again, I just wrote about current news being blown out of proportion so I guess I am screwed when it comes to news. Oh well. Guess that is why I avoid CNN and network news with a passion.

Sen. Craig and the Overblown "Crime"

So yeah, the liberal media is celebrating Sen. Craig (R-ID) getting arrested for propositioning a cop in a men's room. Except, exactly what did he do illegally? I mean, sure, prostitution is wrong, but this wasn't prostitution. Once again, a Republican sex crime missing the sex.

Now, you can believe what you want. Frankly, I don't give a crap. Sure, the guy is probably personally hypocritical, but in this instance, individual hypocrisy is permitted. See, I hate hypocrisy, but for all those claiming he is gay but acts anti-gay forget that he is also a representative of his state as a United States Senator. If the people of a state believe one thing and the Senator votes according to the citizens' beliefs rather than his own, that is personal hypocrisy, but shouldn't we be celebrating that? Shouldn't it be news that he looked his personal beliefs in the eye, realized his constituents disagreed with him and voted against his beliefs? I am willing to be understanding there. It is up to his constituents whether he deserves to be reelected, but at least he listens to the people right?

I guess what really pisses me off is not his action (like I said, I really don't care). I am annoyed by the media that is so anti-gay (yep, you read that right) that they will treat a gay man differently than a straight man. (Oh, whoops. Was I not supposed to make that connection?) See, either homosexuality is okay or it isn't. Seems the media doesn't really like gays as much as they claim to. (Does that sound like Craig saying he isn't gay?)

This so-called crime is not that big of a deal. I mean, let's be serious. Craig came onto a cop in a men's room. It ain't like he drove his car into a lake and left a woman to die in it. Why don't we ask that particular Senator to resign before we go after the men's room pick-up artist....

Segregation Now & Growing

So yeah, in this article, the author laments the growing segregation in public schools. Now, your first impression might be to think this is bad, but is it? And if it is, is the government the way to solve the problem?

See, the author starts criticizing the recent Supreme Court case that said schools could not choose student schools based on race. (For those smart enough to remember the Brown decision, it actually is pretty much a repeat of that decision, just from an opposite perspective.) See, in the case, a white student did not want to ride a bus across town simply because she was white; she wanted to go to school near her house. Forced integration disadvantaged all youths who had to travel far away from home simply to meet some quota at a school.

And amazingly, this case gives a major reason why schools tend to be more of one race or another. Ask a real estate agent who sells to families how often the school district is mentioned when trying to sell a home. People choose where to live based on many items, but local schools tends to be a big deciding factor, especially in cities. (As probably a matter of fact, forced integration can only really work in a city because it is hard to justify putting a bunch of white kids on one bus and a bunch of black kids on another and then driving an hour to integrate majority-white and majority-black schools. If parents choose to live in a neighborhood that is not diverse, why should the child be punished?

Unfortunately, the author of this article decides to uphold the racist agenda. Non-white schools are not inferior because of race. (At the risk of getting Jesse "Hymie-town" Jackson on my case, could it be that majority black schools have higher crime? Maybe, but my solution still would be very, very different from Jackson's.) Races can't be mixed by force. On a side note, isn't it amazing that the same people who decry Iraq because the religions won't mix are usually the same ones who complain that the races don't mix here in America?

I say, let schools integrate by the people who live there. Actually, let's do one better. How about we get rid of the public in public schools? Let's have more private schools. (And for the racists of the bunch, studies show that private schools getting students from the crappy schools tend to do better, even if the students can't self-select, which eliminates the argument that private schools are better simply because they have all the good kids and the public school has all the troublemakers.)

By the way, I do have to laugh at the end of this article when it discusses Hispanics being "triple-segregated." Umm...yeah, it ain't the white parents complaining that Hispanics are being put into English-only classrooms. Whoops, there goes the whole anti-Hispanic discrimination angle. Now if only we could get the race relations people to sit down, close their eyes, realize they are not back in the 1840s, and approach life as if race didn't matter, because frankly, it doesn't. And no, the economy won't be hurt by all-black schools. It will be hurt by public schools and public school incompetence. And yes, I went to a public school and I am still trying to recover.

Discrimination and Inferences

So I happened to turn on this show on GSN and it was about discrimination. (Sorry, can't remember the title.) Basically, from what I gather from the section I was able to catch, this group of 5 people (the panel) sits in a room and decides which of 5 other people (the contestants) deserve to be given $25,000. In the first round, the panel only hears the contestants introduce themselves giving just name and address. Then, the panel decides to cut one person simply based on "First Impressions" (that was the title of the round). I wasn't able to catch much of the later rounds, but I believe in later rounds, the panel hears each contestants life story or why their reason why they deserve the money.

My comment is on the first section and deals with spin. See, an inference that the panel is discriminatory could be made after the first cut last night, depending on how it is related. For example, let me explain the first cut on the show I saw two different ways. Depending on my description, would you say the panel is discriminatory or chose a contestant to eliminate based on discrimination?

• A female contestant is asked to leave. She is a gay soldier, openly flaunting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
• A female contestant from New York City is asked to leave. While discussing the contestants, it was noted that she had a cocky, New York-style, even though she actually had a southern accent. Based on being from New York and the attitude that came across, she was chosen for elimination, even though there was another contestant from New York City.

Now, which version would make you think the panel hates gays? Now, both versions describe the same woman and both are accurate. However, does one leave more of a foul taste in your mouth?

See, this is a great example of spin. And based on which of my accounts you read, you could think the panel was discriminatory and hated gays, even though none of the panel actually knew she was gay when they voted her off.

So, what is the point of this show? I honestly don't know. However, it is great to see and be able to come up with my own spin, demonstrating how easy it actually is.

On a side note, there is one issue with this show. It is kinda ridiculous. See, the panel has to pick one of the five contestants to receive the money. So, if you were like me and picked a person from near where you live or used to live, you could look bad even though you were more interested in helping a could-be neighbor. (For example, one of the five was actually from where I used to have an apartment. No matter who the other 4 people were, I would have picked her. Now, would I have been called racist because I would choose the white woman over the black guy or the Hispanic guy? Can you see the problem with this show now?)

Then again, what if you feel no one deserves the money? If I felt that none of the five deserves $25,000 then how do I eliminate four of them? Maybe that is the point of the show. How would you decide which person to give the money to? On the other hand, is it really wrong if I would have decided to give money to a person who wasn't from the ghetto? See, I caught part of the background story round and one of the contestants was bemoaning how poor he was. Well, would I be looked down upon because I would choose to pick someone who could use the money in another way? See, I could be anti-poor or I could be pro-hard work. What will come across? Will spin make me seem like I hate the poor?

Be careful of social experiments on TV. Generally, they are poorly designed and have an agenda behind them. Actually, be careful of almost every reality show. Spin is a nasty thing and the only people better at spin than politicians and the media are reality TV editors. Remember that.

Protesters, Cops, and Classical Liberalism

I just happened upon a story about a group of anti-war protesters who were arrested while marching down a street and yelling at cops. Now, I believe in the right to free assembly and free speech. And while I may disagree with almost every single protesting group, I will gladly let them speak. But there is another side to this story, a side most people tend to gloss over. In a number of cases, because people have the right to free assembly, cops arrest them for not having adequate permits. Of course, when the story is relayed in the news, permits are barely mentioned and rather it becomes "the police targeted us to shut up our message." It is unfortunate that the permits don't get more attention.

See, it isn't the message directly that leads to arrests; it is the lack of permits. And when groups like the ACLU come in, they fight in court against the lack of permits, but talk in public about the group's message. But what if permits got more play? What if the permits became a rallying point, rather than just a technical violation? Think about it. Why should it only be anti-war protesters who get to argue against needing permits? Why shouldn't the homeowner hiring a construction crew to cut down trees get the same ability to fight against needing a permit? Then again, why do we even need permits in the first place?

See, this ties in with a story from the Reason Foundation (HT: The Liberty Papers). Why do we have so many permits and licenses? Are they really necessary? And when a government organization denies a permit, isn't that an aspect of censorship? If the permit or license is needed before you can say something, isn't the lack of a permit the definition of censorship? (For a license, think of it this way. I could give you legal advice, well researched and the same message a licensed attorney would give, but because I don't have that license, I could be in legal trouble myself. Aren't my words being censored because of the government licensing process?)

So, what is the solution? Well, I am willing to help the anti-war crowd if they will help me. Let's abolish all permits and licenses. Let's get rid of all regulations and silly rules just designed to stop someone from doing something. A business owner does not need a handicap entrance if he is willing to piss off handicapped customers. Let the store owner take the risk and reap the reward. (Not being handicapped, I can't speak directly on this issue, but being male, I much rather shop at a store devoted to men rather than a women's store forced to cater to men.) Sure, some people might be hurt, but that is what civil courts are for, to settle damages. And honestly, don't most people make a first impression when they walk into a store? There are some stores in the mall even that I would never shop at, even though they are legitimate establishments. (For all the goth people out there, your stores scare the hell out of me.) See, the store itself is set up in such a way that non-targeted customers don't need to shop there. Those stores decide my business is not worth the hassle or the lost customers should they try to appease me.

So, here is my call. Eliminate government interference. Let businesses open and prosper and let wrongdoers be held accountable. We don't need a local building inspector (and do most people ever really trust a building inspector anyway?) Eliminate the government building inspector and I guarantee that real estate agents would be the first ones looking to hire private assurance services for buildings. (For a real world example, with the incompetence of many elderly care facilities, accountants and auditors actually have started providing assurance services, auditing the elderly care facility, and letting the older person's loved ones know the results, even though technically, the government is supposed to license elderly homes.) If I had to trust either a government building inspector or Jimbo, of Jimbo's Private Building Inspector Service, Jimbo gets my business. He has a reputation to maintain and if his inspection fails to spot a serious flaw, Jimbo is liable. Not so with the government inspector. Can't sue him. Who would you trust? A worthy question and an illuminating one. Who do you trust, the government or the open market?

Only $1, But Come On! Is It Really Needed?

So yeah, I went to the Post Office's website to change my address because I am moving and in order to "prevent fraud," the Post Office needed a credit/debit card. In order to verify I am who I say I am, they charge me $1. But is $1 really needed? I mean, PayPal was a heckuva lot easier. They actually gave me money when I confirmed my card. (In that instance, they put two deposits through, both for under a dollar.) Now sure, the Post Office won't want to give people money, but couldn't they charge like a penny or something? If the whole point is to prevent fraud and check the accuracy of a bank account as ID, wouldn't 1 cent be the same as 1 dollar?

Alas, I don't quite believe this is for "fraud" prevention. Call me cynical, but I just have this hunch that this is just a way to rip-off customers. The Post Office figured that this was an easy way to get more money out of people. Perhaps it wouldn't be that bad if we didn't have to use the Post Office, but since we are required, why should I have to pay $1 to change my address online? Aren't there better ways?

Oh well. I have done what I could to avoid the Post Office as much as possible anyway. Eventually the Post Office's monopoly will be revoked, competition will flourish, and letters will travel for a lot lower price. You didn't think stamp prices were based on the Post Office actually requiring that much money do ya? The Post Office is the third largest employer, behind only the Dept. of Defense (aka the military) and Wal-Mart. Do we really need that many postal workers? Every time the price of a stamp goes up, email looks prettier and prettier. With national banks, money is easily sent. Packages can be sent by UPS or FedEx. What else do people normally ship? (For those people still sending cards, realize that if you actually do care about someone, it is the thought that counts right? A thoughtful e-card, while not able to sit on a desk, is still pretty dang caring and a heckuva lot cheaper. Those who would demand cards honestly don't care about the people trying to save money. Now who is being thoughtless?)

Apple and AT&T: Why?

So with the latest news that hackers have unlocked Apple's iPhone from only able to use AT&T raises a couple of questions for me. First, what is going to happen? Will Apple publish an update to stop this hack? (Basically, just forcing hackers to find another way, some of which are already out there in more complicated steps.) However, it is a second question I am most puzzled by. Why would Apple sign an exclusive deal with AT&T? What does Apple get out of it? I am sure there are some huge payments from AT&T, but was this the best strategy for Apple?

Here is what I am wondering. How many people want the iPhone, but hate AT&T or can't use its service? How many people would be willing to spend big bucks on the phone itself if they could use another carrier? See, when Apple was doing the math, they must have gotten some large dollar amount out of AT&T because I just don't see how restricting service would be that beneficial. Remember, this is Apple we are talking about. Their whole gimmick is that Apple works for the ordinary guy, the non-technical. Well, ordinary folks like having stuff that works without too many strings attached. I guess I just don't see this deal as really fitting into the Apple image. I mean, it would be different if Apple sold a phone that only worked on an Apple network (think the iPod/iTunes combo) in which case the network wouldn't be as expensive. That was the whole point of Apple's success with iTunes, providing a service for a lower price.

So, what will happen? Well, that depends on the contract between Apple and AT&T. If the contract doesn't specify that service updates to thwart hackers is required, Apple might just be better off ignoring the news. Let people buy a phone, download the hack, and use another network. (I would have added that this also would have invalidated warranties, but I don't believe iPhones even have warranties.)

Well, here is to hoping Apple decides next time to stick with its image of appealing to the average Joe and avoids adding unnecessary strings to customer purchases.

Anecdotal Evidence Can Still Be Pretty Strong

So yeah, while I read blog postings, occasionally people will relate stories from their own lives called anecdotal evidence. Now, this is generally criticized because it is not proof, just a one time thing. And because there are always exceptions, how do we know this wasn't one? How do we know what strength of proof the evidence is worth?

Well, I figure there are two main assumptions. 1) That the story is true. If it ain't true, then it can't be evidence. Easy enough. 2) The evidence must either confirm or deny some assertion. This is where it gets tricky. See, if I said the sky was blue because I was outside the other day and it was blue, you could go outside, see clouds, and call me a liar. Would your anecdotal evidence outweigh my assertion? Nope. This is where other evidence that can prove both of use correct comes in. However, should I say clouds don't exist, you could have anecdotal evidence of seeing a cloud and prove me wrong. It all depends on how the assertion is phrased.

So, here is an example from a blog I read. On the Carpe Diem blog, there was a story about a woman from Calgary up in Canada coming down to Great Falls, Minnesota in order to have her kids. (She had identical quadruplets.) See, she was sent from Calgary because the hospital there, under Canada's universal health care, didn't have enough neonatal beds. What is surprising is that Calgary is the third largest city in Canada, but the lady was sent instead to the 356th largest city in the U.S. Now, in the comments, someone criticized the story and the conclusion drawn from it that the U.S. health care system is better than Canada's. See, the story was anecdotal evidence.

But wait, is the criticism valid? Is the assertion misguided or not acceptable because the anecdotal evidence was not strong enough to make a determination either way? Well, it depends on the assertion. See, in this case, the U.S. better than Canada argument was in response to Michael Moore and his propaganda piece praising socialised medicine. According to Moore, socialized medicine is wonderful and everybody gets everything for free and live is perfect. So my question for you is this: does the story contradict Moore and is it strong enough to make an assertion contrary to Moore's? Well, to answer that, first off, yes, the story does contradict Moore. Socialized medicine is supposed to be better because no one will ever need anything that can't be provided. If I need an emergency MRI, I should be able to get it immediately without having to pay. Moore essentially makes the claim that everything is perfect, but just this one story proves that idea to be false. Socialized medicine can't have even one mistake like this. Otherwise, it ain't socialized. See, socialism means everybody is equal. There can't be a failure in the system for this lady, but not for everybody else. (I will come back to this in a second.)

So what about the second part? Is this strong enough to assert the U.S. system is better than Canada's? Well, in a way, yes. See, the blog post pointed out the difference in size between Calgary and Great Falls. Now, sure, there are some counter arguments that could be made, but the facts could easily be proved or disproved. For example, Great Falls could be the birth capital of the world or something like that with neonatal experts up the wazoo, even if it is a small town. (For example, Cleveland, Ohio is known for hip replacements so it would be likely that the doctors there would be better than most for that procedure.) However, this could be easily checked. On the other hand, Great Falls could be just have a normal hospital, just like every other city in the United States. This could also be pretty easily investigated for this story by seeing how many other cities would have 4 neonatal beds.

By finding other evidence, it lends more weight to the anecdotal story. However, because the argument being made is specific and absolute, even one counter-example can disprove the argument. In this way it is like the idea of false advertising. If a tire place says all its tires will run for 50,000 miles, finding a tire that only goes 48, 800 miles may not be statistically significant in research, but just this one example, this one tire, can blow the entire promise, leading to a false advertising charge. Absolutes are dangerous because one tiny example can doom them. Absolutes are always in danger from anecdotal evidence.

Now, I said I would come back to the idea that socialism means equality. I said that for this lady to have a problem, socialism demands that everybody have a problem. Alas, my statement is probably more true than Michael Moore would ever care to admit after a few drinks. See, Canada is known for long wait times and deaths due to line-disease. Line-disease is where standing in line makes a disease become deadly when it could have been easily treated had there been no line. However, Canada is not real socialized medicine. Nope, Canada has nobility treatments. If a famous politician needs health care, they get it immediately; no line. Thus, there isn't real equality. Rather, the rich get the very best health care now while the poor and middle class wait in line and wait in line and then have to, oh yeah, wait in line again.

Do Article Writers Recognize Irony?

So yeah, in this article, while trying to criticize Republicans, the author makes one very large blunder. Okay, so the head of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice is leaving. While trying to promote an agenda, the author discusses exactly what the civil rights division does. Only one problem. See, one of the examples given is slightly odd. Here is the statement.

The department's civil rights division enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination, including at work, at election polls and even at casinos.

Yeah, I wonder if you can spot the mistake. See, being from Michigan, I believe it was voted into our state constitution that in order to open a casino, voters need to approve construction. Except, wait for it. Yep, Indian casinos are exempt. If they want to build one on tribal land, no need to go to the local voters (which are not always just Indians) or to state voters. See, discrimination is actually written into the law.

You can see now why I find the example of the civil rights division going after casinos just slightly odd. If there is ever a place where discrimination is not only practiced, but is actually encouraged, it is at casinos.

So you have to wonder if the author noticed this discrepancy? Odds are no because the idiot was too busy trying to blame Republicans for filling spots in the division. (Ever notice how when it is a Republican president the appointed and direct hire decisions are criticized if they are filled by Republicans, but a Democrat president and Democrat appointees are perfectly acceptable?)

Oh well. At least articles like this point out how absurd the media is. What is the point of hearing propaganda when you are looking for news? I mean, if you are going to hear an agenda, wouldn't it just be easier to go to either a conservative or liberal news organization? Skip the middle man and go straight to the honest reporter. Be partisan is not wrong; being partisan while claiming you are objective is. Screw the lying wastes of time media and just pick your full-disclosure partisan reporter. That way you don't have to try to figure out the truth from the propaganda based on what the author might be trying to say. Better yet, read both liberal and conservative biased reporting and find the facts in the middle or so. Just make sure you don't go for the conspiracy nuts!

Smoking, Movie Censoring...Great Article, Wrong Villain

So in this great post, the author takes on Disney for its idiotic no smoking in movies idea. With a great reference to the movie Thank You For Smoking, this is a great post. However, there is one problem, though maybe the author didn't quite know it. See, the author blames the on-screen smoking ban asks, "Or is this just more political conservatism run amuck?" A correction is needed depending on the definition of "conservatism." If that word means conservative or Republican, the wrong side is being criticized. It isn't conservatives who want to ban smoking in movies. That is liberals or Democrats. You can tell because if it has a moral element, e.g. nudity or violence, then it comes from Republicans. If it is a "we are better than you and you won't do that activity" attitude, then it comes from Democrats. Another way to tell is to look at other smoking bans. From New York City to no-nothing towns in California, smoking bans are favorites of pansy liberals.

However, if by conservatism the author means old-fashioned thinking, then maybe it isn't a problem. Either way, the author is probably libertarian, at least that is what it sounds like. And being honest, I think that is why I liked this blog posting.

Ahh, When Religion Gets Busted

Well, the Religion of the Environment ran into a problem yesterday, one that has long confronted every other religion. The problem? What happens when your beliefs get exposed as hypocrisy by science?

See, it turns out that some moose up in Norway contribute to global warming. According to this article, a moose lets out 100 kilograms of methane gas a year. Whoa, big problem. Methane is worse than CO2.

So where is the problem you ask? Well, if global warming is man-made, then where do moose fit in? A moose ain't a man, now is it? (Wait! Forget I asked that before PETA shows up and tries to argue that a moose is human. I mean, it must be right because it contributes to global warming?)

Well, the Religion of the Environment will just have to figure out how to spin this story, just as the Catholic Church had to learn how Jesus and God could be the same, but different. Beliefs are beliefs because they have no proof. And as Algore readily shows, the Religion of the Environment is very short on proof of any kind.

Wouldn't it be nice if for once we could NOT be involved in a holy war? So the Muslim extremists call it a fatwa when they condemn the West. What does Algore call it? Has he named his version of a fatwa yet? Cause I mean, he does have a lot in common with Muslim extremists in that they both want to destroy the way of life of the Western world. Now that could make a great conspiracy theory. Hehe. I wonder if I can turn my ultra-literal mind off for a bit to flesh that theory out. Be mighty interesting, don't ya think?

Stealing? No, Not Really.

So yeah, I just read a short blurb on the IMDB about actor Mario Lopez who is accused of stealing flowers from a show. Only one teeny tiny problem. At the end of the blurb, they quote the show presenter. Here is what he said.

Mario Lopez was also booked, and he took the flowers with him when he left! He outright asked a stagehand, 'Can I take these for my girlfriend?' and the poor kid was like, 'Sure, I guess.' He basically took my props as a gift for someone else!

Umm, yeah, if that story is true, it ain't stealing. See, from what it sounds like, the stage hand gave him permission to take it. Now we come to the tricky part. Does the stagehand work for the building or for this guy? If he works for the building, maybe this guy is right. (I still don't buy his accusation though. If anything, blame the stagehand for speaking out of place.) However, if the stagehand works for this, then this isn't stealing, just a simple mistake, one that the show presenter would have to live with.

However, either way, I wouldn't entirely call this stealing. See, to me stealing means the ol' 5-finger discount. Asking somebody if you can take something and them saying yes, pretty much removes the stealing aspect. (Of course, it depends on who you ask, but let's keep this simple.) The stagehand probably didn't have permission to give these away, but that isn't Lopez's fault. Even if this would be considered stealing, the presenter already has been quoted absolving Lopez of blame.

See, common sense would be a much needed thing in a courtroom. I am sure some idiot lawyer could sue Lopez, but I would hope the judge would be smart enough to toss the case.

Reading Books: An Update

So yeah, I just had a post about people's reading habits and then I see this. "Conservatives want slogans." Well, turns out the bimbo head of the publishing guild was a former Democrat lawmaker. Perhaps the trade group would be better served if they hired a rock. Just a suggestion.

Here is one of her lines as quoted in the story, if I can actually copy and paste as I die from plain laughter.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

Yeah, that onion smells and it will certainly make you cry. She complains that you can write a book with "No new taxes" on every page. Ahh, no wonder she missed Steve Forbes "Flat Tax" book and Neal Boortz "FairTax" book. Or wait, shouldn't she have noticed two books on tax policy? I mean, they both were filled with fancy statistics about taxes. Guess liberals aren't such policy wonks after all, huh?

However, the best line has to come from White House spokesman Tony Fratto, using words I don't even understand.

Obfuscation usually requires a lot more words than if you simply focus on fundamental principles, so I'm not at all surprised by the loquaciousness of liberals.

Amazing, ain't it? Basically he acted like a liberal and said, "To confuse readers, use more fancy words."

See, conservatives will read; they just won't read crap. Conservatives don't need any more Algore scare pieces or Hillary wonder books. And remember, the poll focused on books. I could read nothing but the Internet and be a helluva lot smarter than someone who sits and reads the liberal wing of Barnes & Noble. (Yes, it could very well have its own wing, everything from feminism rants to liberal politician butt-kissing to African-American racism.) The Internet is a great thing (and actually, no credit belongs to Algore, though he tries through his invention claim) and people can get smart by looking at knowledgeable websites. Then again, people could read crap online, like 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. But, books are just one medium. And with this nutjob as head of the publishing guild, perhaps there is a very good, very simple reason conservatives tend to avoid books. Why read liberal crap? Ahh, books following the footsteps of network news. A pity really. Oh well, maybe this bimbo will be fired for her remarks. Then again, I am sure researchers are close in making pigs fly. I will end with this quote by Mary Matalin, the lady who oversees conservative titles at Simon & Schuster.

As head of a book publishing association, she probably shouldn't malign any readers

That just ain't the Democrat way though. Better to see it as conservatives don't read. Remember, an idiot with a fancy title is still an idiot. (I don't know if that is a quote or not and if it is, then it ain't mine. Still applies here though.)

EU Probably Could Use a Dose of "Just Shut Up"

In this article, the EU decides that it needs to give the state of Texas advice on executing convicted felons. Yeah, you ever hear that story of the pot and the kettle? I wonder what would happen if the U.S. told the EU how to do something? Oh wait, already happened. The EU starts whining and calling the U.S. busybodies and all that.

See, there is nothing wrong with punishing someone for their crimes. And you know what, killing a convicted murderer doesn't imply some moral dilemma. Amazing isn't it, how the pro-life people are criticized for being pro-death penalty? See, to be honest, I believe most religions believe in equal punishment. You kill someone, we kill you.

Oh well. What sane person would ever listen to the EU? How about this? We will leave this convicted murderer in jail if France eliminates its minimum working hour laws. Nothing for nothing.

So the next time you hear some European being so smug about the death penalty, ask them if they would rather have a family member murdered in America or Europe? Remember, people can die from things other than guns cause that would be their next argument. (I know how people think. And I was always derided for not being empathetic...) Hopefully the governor of Texas ignores the EU and executes the bastard. Be even better if he invites the EU president over for a demonstration of how executions are really not as inhumane as perceived. Hehehe.

Readin' Books or Not

So in this article, a survey found 1/4 of people don't read books. Okay, no big deal, right? Yep. See, there is more than reading books. Some people read magazines or newspapers, some even read blogs and other online material. Some people prefer books on tape or movies. Reading is something that those who do it enjoy and those who don't avoid, just like rock climbing or organized sports. If something is a passion, people will go out of their way to do it.

Thankfully, I am nowhere near even the average reader. Actually, am nowhere near the median for male or female readers. (They were quoted at 4 books for average, 5 median for men, 9 median for women.) I would be much closer to those random few who read a dozen or more books in a year. I don't know how many books I have read in the past year, but during the past weekend or so, I read three books. (I shudder to count all the books I have read in the past year.) Let me just say, my current library of over 850 books is not that big by accident.

I will say, the good thing about this story is it doesn't preach a new government solution. I understand there are people out there who hate reading, just as I know I hate exercising. Now if only books were a little cheaper so I wouldn't be so broke after buying 5 of them at a time.

When is Medicine Not Really Medicine?

So yeah, Planned Parenthood is suing Missouri over a new law that would require government oversight of abortion clinics. Now, I don't care how you feel about abortion in this post, but let me just point out one thing. Have a licensed doctor open a clinic in a town and WHAM! - out come the authorities and the red tape.

Amazing isn't it? A doctor who wants to actually care for people and save lives is prevented from practicing unless all the regs are in order, but require that of an abortion clinic and all hell breaks loose.

If there is one thing I hate, it is inconsistency. This case should be thrown out and Planned Parenthood told to either follow the law or donate time and money to help other doctors fight idiotic regulations. What is good for one is good for all. Remember that whole "everyone is equal under the law" bit that liberals tend to ignore? Yeah, how about enforcing that? Thanks.

Tell the Truth, the Whole Bloody Truth

So I just happened to see an ad for cable about how cable and its competition forced phones to change. Okay, self-disclaimer: I have grown up with cable and only cable. I agree with the idea that competition works, but tell the whole friggin' truth.

CABLE DOESN'T COMPETE WITH ITSELF!

If I live in an area with Comcast, I can't contact Charter. Comcast has a monopoly on cable in my area. So where the heck are the cable companies where competition is really needed? I don't need more competition in phone service (though it is nice). If I don't like my local cable company, I have to get a dish. No other option. For those people who can't put in a dish, it is cable or nothing. So isn't that essentially a monopoly? Oh yeah, but we don't call it by that name. Rather, it is a government license. Bullcrap!

Competition is wonderful. Competition brought us better phone service. Competition can bring us cheaper cable. Allow Adelphia or Charter or any of the others to compete with Comcast and cable prices will drop. Hey, we might even get a la carte pricing. (For example, if I choose not to want Oxygen or HGTV, I don't have to pay for them.)

So, if you happen to see this ad, well, propaganda piece, understand that it is true. Only...just not the whole truth. The cable industry doesn't want competition unless it is in something they aren't already allowed to provide. Full competition would benefit customers, but hurt cable companies. So, if the phone monopoly was so bad, perhaps someone can explain why the cable monopoly is so great for consumers? Anybody? Didn't think so.

Literal Commercial Part II

So yeah, with the playoffs coming for the PGA Tour (no matter how idiotic it sounds), FedEx is showing commercials promoting the FedEx Cup, the prize for winning the playoffs. So one commercial shows a conveyor belt with packages and then golf stuff comes down, from golf balls to clubs to caddies holding a flag. At the end, everything is loaded in a container with the last item being the FedEx Cup itself. However, the Cup is sitting out, no packaging, and is just put on top of the pile.

Now, yeah, I know this is just a commercial, but who was dumb enough to authorize it? Think about it. Suppose some not so bright person sees the commercial and thinks it is real. (Come on, you know that can happen. Didn't you hear about the kid who collected all those Pepsi points for a fighter jet?) Doesn't the ad show FedEx not taking very good care of the FedEx Cup? I know it is a commercial, but companies tend to be uptight about image. What kind of image does this imply about FedEx?

See, there is a reason I come up with this odd ideas. I just would figure FedEx would not want to display any signs of carelessness with packages.

Who Should You Listen To? A Waitress is Somehow an Expert Economist

Okay, so there is an article that is just so horribly idiotic that I will not link to it. However, I want to discuss the idea behind the article. See, some nutjob reporter went out and decided that a waitress would be the best economist in the world. Yeah, did you laugh too?

So yeah, this waitress chickie decided that the minimum wage is great cause she gets paid more. There are reasons people go to college and take beginner economics classes. Heck, some high schools would teach this lady more than she knows right now. Let me give you another example using the same fallacy sorta. Imagine you have a friend with a large diamond ring. Now, if you use this lady's logic, if you were to steal that ring, you would be rich and better off, right? Oh wait, you mean your friend might call the cops? You might get arrested?

See, theft without government involvement is easy to see and easy to fix. Someone is in trouble. But what happens when the government backs up the thief? Now, if your friend called the cops and they ignored the call, you the thief, would be just as well off as this chick.

Now, I don't know about economists with a PhD, but if you could get all the economic knowledge by just being a stupid waitress, do you really think those people would go for a PhD, spending time and money to get it?

An expert is someone who has knowledge and shares that knowledge because they invested the time and energy gaining it. Now, sure, there are a lot of people who claim to be experts. But one thing about knowledge, it must be true and accurate. Without some standard, anyone could be an expert and just make up crap. "Yeah, the sun is like, whoa, freezing cold man. It ain't hot at all. Ya know I'm right cause I'm an expert man. Yep, cold, freezing cold."

Here is my hope for this so-called waitress playing an expert economist. I hope she is fired for the simple reason that that would be real economics at work. Money don't grow on trees. Most of us learn that at an early age. Too bad this chickie didn't realize that for her to get more money, she needs to friggin' earn it. Either she will be working more, tougher hours or her coworker will and she will be fired, sitting on her expert behind trying to figure out why she lost her job. Now, would she rather make $5 an hour or $0 an hour? Cause with a raise in minimum wage, less poor people are hired and some end up losing their jobs. Too bad this idiotic lady doesn't actually know economics.

I really hate media propaganda pieces, but they are useful demonstrations of bias in action. Is it really that hard to at least attempt to act like reporters? I mean, honestly. I could do a friggin' better job than this idiot. Whoa, maybe I could be an expert? Sweet!

Planes? Seriously? Stick a Cork in a Volcano and Shut It!

So I think this will be a short rant. So yeah, guess there a bunch of numb nuts camped out in London protesting planes. Wow, really, planes contribute to global warming? Tell ya what, put a cork in the next volcano that will spew more carbon dioxide and crap into the air than human history combined, sit down, and shut up. Volcanoes have polluted the planet more than humans can even be remotely blamed for. And yet, volcanoes are blameless. Yep, it is all man's fault. Nope, not really.

By the way, you notice how these idiots are in London. Wonder when they will make their way to Hollywood to get the so-called "green" actors to stay away from the private jets. Imagine how much crap is put in the air every time a movie has a premiere on three continents. Yeah, but blame the ordinary people traveling commercial. The stars bought indulgences remember?

And people say I am a global warming skeptic. You know what else I am, an alien skeptic. I know, I know, aliens must exist. I mean, think of all them Southerners taken for a special exam. Now, isn't that more proof that aliens exist than the claims that global warming exists? Yeah, but who needs proof when the world could end? Well, unless you are Christian predicting the end of days. Then you are just nuts. Yep, gotta love the double standard.

Microsoft vs. Apple: Wonder Who Will Get Criticized?

So yeah, in another story on IMDB, I guess the BBC is putting out video that can only be played on a Microsoft product. Now, okay, how is this any different from stuff put out only for Apple's iPod? Think about it. If I bought a fancy car, I could get an iPod slot, but a Microsoft media player slot? I don't know about that.

So why complain? Is the BBC programming that precious? Eh, I don't think so. Realize this. Do you know how many websites have programming that has restrictions? Everything from "register for free" (so they can spam the heck out of you) to Real Media Player required (or Quicktime) to stream only (sorry impatient viewers).

Now, there is an argument that the BBC, being public, should be available to the public. Why not have the other side, take the BBC private? I am not British so I don't actually watch the BBC, but how come that is never an option? Wouldn't that solve more than one problem? (Yep!)

When Media Bias Overcomes Common Sense

So a story today on IMDB mentioned a conservative group criticizing NBC for airing footage of a sub looking at the Titanic when discussing a Russian sub planting a flag on the Arctic floor. Of course, because it is a conservative group, the story basically covers up for NBC. Now, I don't know about you, but the whole point of news is accuracy and truth. Running stock footage of a sub and passing it off as real is neither accurate nor true.

So why complain about the watchdogs? Isn't that kinda what a media watchdog is supposed to do? I mean, it isn't like it was that controversial of a story. Heck, it wasn't even the potential controversial part. I mean, they mentioned the Russians and the flag; they just used different footage. So why complain about the watchdogs? Why not demand NBC get its act together?

See, when media bias overcomes common sense, it just shows how idiotic the media actually is. They would rather complain about the conservative watchdog group than actually ask for honest reporting. Doesn't anybody in the media care about the media's image?

And they say there is no liberal bias...

Defamation of Character? Really?

So yeah, one of the Rutgers team members is suing Don Imus over his comments as "defamation of character." Now, don't get me wrong, but exactly how was she defamed? (Is that word? Oh well, it is now.) I mean, truth be told, isn't she more well known now after his comments than she ever was before? Think about it. Say you run into her somewhere. Before when she says she played on the Rutgers basketball team, you would go, eh, okay. Now, she says she played on the team that Imus insulted. Whoa, instant understanding and maybe someone might care to talk to her.

However, if you really think about it, shouldn't the lady be satisfied? I mean, how many people came out in support of that team after Imus's comments? Don't you think, when people are offended by his comments, it ain't very likely that they are going to agree with them and injure her in some way? Is she more likely to hear, "Whoa, you were one of the 'nappy-headed' girls" or "Man, that Imus guy is a jerk; you totally didn't deserve that?" Which is more likely? If it is the first one, then maybe she has a case. However, I am putting my money on the second scenario. (Technically, both could happen, in which case the second outranks the first.)

Oh well. The only thing this proves is that some people crave fame more than anything else. I am almost positive this chick knows she has a tough case but is just using it for more publicity. Now I know she should lose. Without the comments from Imus, she would be a nothing basketball player that lost the big game. But now, she is a media darling, suing the jerk Imus. Plus, she's black so instant racial bating moment number 2. How long do you think it will be before "Hymie Town" Jackson or "Rape! Rape!!!" Sharpton show up?

(For those of you not familiar with the two names I just threw out, Jesse Jackson called New York "Hymie Town," an offensive name, and nothing happened, and Al Sharpton has a streak of defending rape victims that are caught lying, and of course, nothing happens.)

Is THIS for Real? Colleges Banning Laptops?!

So in this article, it discusses colleges trying to stop students from bringing laptops to class. Umm...wait just a squirrely minute here. Weren't it colleges that were giving students laptops when they arrived on campus?

Now, I have had classes where a laptop is nice to have. Sometimes, it is because the professor has 15 million reading assignments and PowerPoint up the wazoo. It is nice to a laptop instead of having to print out and lug all those darn things around. Some professors are just so boring that IM and surfing the net are the only way to stay awake. (Plus, if you are a reader and have ebooks, you can read them during class.)

Professors who try to ban laptops need to have a good reason. Some professors are good enough teachers that students won't need a laptop. However, even the best teacher can still leave students needing to use a laptop for taking notes. Great professors can keep the attention of students with a laptop. But for those worthless boring profs (some of whom think it is still high school and take attendance), a laptop is a way to escape. For those that take and grade attendance, they can't complain about students on laptops. Some students only show up for class for that grade. Eliminate the grade for showing up and some laptop users will disappear. (Mind you, this ignores the band, choir, and drama classes where attendance is taken, but then again, laptops are rare in those classes too.)

I guess the idea that universities are banning laptops is kinda idiotic. Laptops are part of the college experience. Banning laptops is pointless. Plus, it must be the dumbest idea ever. How about a better idea? Improve the boring teachers that inspire the use of laptops for slacking off. Make laptops a tool rather than an escape. But we can't think of that now can we?

Michael Wilbon is an Idiot. (He said it first!)

Yesterday while watching the PGA Championship, I heard the remarks of Woody Austin regarding Tiger Woods. I knew instantly what Michael Wilbon of "Pardon the Interruption" would say during Monday's show. Austin said he played better than Tiger even though Tiger scored better. Well, actually he said he hit the ball better tee-to-green, meaning he couldn't sink a putt. On Sunday, Austin came within one shot of Tiger even though he ultimately lost. Watching the whole 18 holes, Austin had a point with his remarks. Austin couldn't make a putt in the beginning while Tiger was having trouble off the tee.

Of course, what did Wilbon say? Oh yeah, Woody Austin is a "moron" and an "idiot." Wow, can I call 'em? Now, I don't know if Wilbon plays golf or if he just idolizes certain athletes, but I do know that Austin had a point with Tiger banging his club on the ground. That just ain't right. Now, I didn't start playing golf until I was 5 or 6, but you don't hit your club on the ground when you hit a bad shot. Tiger may be a great golfer, but until he learns to respect the course when he hits a bad shot, he is a piece of crap and I hope he loses. I don't like people who disrespect the course. Tiger of course gets away with it because he is Tiger Woods. Wilbon appears to be of the "Tiger can't do wrong" crowd. There are reasons why I think Wilbon is an idiot and this is number one. (And no, this isn't a personal attack. Wilbon does not deserve people to avoid name calling until he stops name calling.)

So, if you watch "Pardon the Interruption," enjoy the show. I think I am to the point that I need to find something else to turn on instead. I like sports talk, but I get tired of hearing champion apologists. I don't need to hear a sports announcer sucking up to an athlete. I like sports talkers who speak their mind, not caring whether they offend a great athlete. Either report objectively or shut up. I don't need a press agent for an athlete on a sports talk show.

Aww, So Sad. Leo DiCrapio Doesn't Like the 2008 Presidential Candidates

Wow, the stuff that passes for news. Even for entertainment news, this is kinda out there. So yeah, turns out Leo DiCrapio is not a big fan of the Democrat candidates. (For those of you who needed to hear this, have no fear. You may continue your lives knowing that Leo is still alive - unfortunately - and that he is not campaigning yet.)

See, here is what I don't get. Who cares? Honestly, are there people out there who will keel over and die if they don't hear Leo news? I mean, Leo is an actor. Now, finding out that Jimmy Peanut Carter isn't impressed might mean something. But Leo? Did I miss something? Was the movie Titanic real so that Leo became "king of the world?" (Har har, I know the Titanic was real.)

Well, perhaps we need some more Hilton or Lohan news. I mean, at least when they get arrested it is kinda funny. But Leo? I swear, did I enter The Twilight Zone or something? So yeah, when I actually read the whole short blurb, turns out Leo is unimpressed with the leading candidates' environmental policies. I think this quote sums up the entire problem with the religion of the environment folks.

I'm waiting for the right questions to be asked, and for these candidates to give really clear responses to what they're going to do in a tangible way - not a lot of rhetoric. I want to hear hardcore facts.

Ain't we all Leo, ain't we all? (I was never good at recognizing irony. Is this ironic that Leo is complaining about a lack of facts when the whole environmental movement is based on a lack of facts, just empty rhetoric? If it isn't, it is still kinda funny.) Too bad I can't ask Leo to give me hardcore facts explaining how global warming is man-made, proof global warming exists, and actual evidence that humans are worse than volcanoes. I also am waiting for some enviro-nut to explain how the Ice Age ended and Michigan ended up not covered in ice. I know how non-enviro-nut scientists explain it, but I want to hear Leo or one of his ilk's explanation. See, somehow where I live right now was covered in ice and now it isn't, but there weren't any humans around driving SUVs.

Oh well. At least I might have saved a life by bringing the Leo story to you. (If you would have died without this info, please don't tell me. I don't think I could stop from laughing in your face.) I do have one quick question for everyone to ponder. If Leo picks a candidate to support, will he fly in a private jet to campaign for the person? Ouch, asking if an enviro-nut would stop from polluting. I will be in trouble for questioning their actions for sure.

For a Conservative Network, Maybe They Could Get Around Firing Alan Colmes

So, on "Hannity and Colmes" tonight, they had Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) on discussing his exchange with Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) about an earmark in a defense spending bill for Sherwin-Williams Paint. So, when Colmes's turns comes, he starts in on how bad Republicans are with earmarks. Campbell says, yeah, but it is only Republicans trying to change anything, compared with the campaign promises of Democrats. Colmes then mentions a guy from Alaska who is being investigated for selling land that he had an interest in. Okay, that is what needs to be done. But where the heck was Alan Colmes around the 2006 election when it came out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid profited from earmarks in Nevada? Are those crickets I hear Alan?

See, while I tend to vote Republican, I don't like people who spend tax money on unconstitutional measures, be they Republican or Democrat. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about liberals. For most liberals, it is only wrong when Republicans do it; Democrats have a free pass. That is what I hate.

Now, if liberals were correct and Fox News was really conservative, Alan Colmes would be on his behind in the street. A real conservative does not accept double-standards and hypocrisy, even if it is brought in to maintain balance. Why force viewers to put up with this crap if the network is only going to be seen as conservative anyway?

At least someone is standing up Murtha. Man, I love when that guy blows up in the House. Always funny.

One of the Greatest Commercials Ever!

So I was just watching golf and there was the best commercial I have seen in a long, long time, if not ever. The ad starts with this mountain gondolier thing, one of those basket things on ropes to get people up a mountain. Well, it suddenly just stops and starts rocking, scaring the occupants. A bird settles on the basket and it wobbles some more. Well, this one guy says he took this class in the power of positive thinking and tells people to think happy thoughts. Suddenly, a woman screams and we see this guy in a suit moving over to a button with the title, "emergency restart." He hits the button, the thing starts, and the guy who took the class says, "See?" while the woman smiles knowingly, like she believes him. The voice over guy says something along the lines of doing action, not just talking.

The ad is for the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS). However, the ad fits into politics as well. Far too often, we have seen people calling for action, but not doing anything. With the bridge collapse, Democrats and their media allies have been calling for higher taxes, and surprisingly, it is Bush who is asking where was the money they already had?

At least I found one funny ad and a smart one too. Just refreshing to see.

Imagine if the Fairness Doctrine Worked

So, the Democrats have been whining about liberal radio stations failing and want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. (Could it be that the liberal radio stations failed because people could get the liberal viewpoint by watching network TV or PBS? Just a thought.) The Doctrine would require equal time for an issue, whatever that means when there are 15 different viewpoints, for media companies, the news excepted. Now, without going into the idiocy of this proposal, what would a current news story look like if the Doctrine worked as promoted? (By this I mean, the Doctrine is supposed to give both viewpoints an equal opportunity, but of course, what legislator is going to complain if it is only the conservative viewpoint being suppressed? So, to think about this, suppose that both viewpoints were accurately represented and trouble if not.)

So in this article, people are complaining that AT&T cut part of the Eddie Vedder's rant against George Bush. (To correct many people, technically censorship is only illegal if the government does it.) So imagine if the Fairness Doctrine were in place and working as advertised. How would this story change? Well, nobody could complain because a pro-Bush artist wasn't allowed on stage to give equality to the other side. Hmm...guess that is why the Fairness Doctrine will only be applied towards conservatives.

Now, being a freedom kinda guy, do I have a problem with this? Nope, not really. Should AT&T have warned Vedder? Yeah, probably. It all depends on how the contract is written. If the contract allows Vedder to say whatever the heck he wants, everything is fair game, including the F-bomb. If the contract allows AT&T to remove anything against corporate policy, then Vedder might need to shut up.

Needless to say, it is nice when stuff like this happens because it points out which artists are merely puppets of liberals and which artists care about American values. See, many libertarian or classic liberals like me don't care for Bush because of his unconstitutional actions. People like Vedder just hate Bush because he doesn't have Democrat after his name. They couldn't care less, and probably would support, a Democrat acting just like Bush. That is something I can't stand and if it means I don't have to listen to Vedder, this is between him and AT&T. Not my problem. Wouldn't it be nice if an artist that did care about personal liberty was able to put out his beliefs? Wonder if this article would have been written if that would have been the case. Eh, probably not. Who cares about people who just want to be left alone and not made slaves to some elitists idiocy?

Network TV Not Gay Enough? And Gays Want to be Treated Equally?

So in this article, it appears network TV doesn't have enough gays. Now, I don't know about you, but when I turn on the TV, I don't target shows that have gay people. Frankly, I don't care. Now, I do watch shows with gay characters, but depending on how it is handled, it usually makes me uncomfortable. (For example, the TV show "Greek" this week, while trying to show gays in a positive light, still cram it down our throats. The only good thing is that they cram everything else down too so it isn't as bad.)

Now, here is my question. If gays are supposed to be the exactly the same as straights, how come we keep having to focus on how many gays we have? Quotas only reference differences. Equality doesn't come from having one gay per show or even more. Equality isn't a whole channel devoted to gay people. (Yep, they have Logo.)

I have read advice on how to persuade someone and convince them of your ideas. The one big no-no is to bash them over the head with your idea. First, you must find common ground and then introduce your argument. Thus, if I want to introduce a limited government argument, it works best if I find out what government programs the person I am trying to persuade is annoyed by. Do they have to stand in long lines to renew their driver's license? Are they angry at the cost of prescription drugs? Pick some government failure and then go from there.

So how would that work for gays? Well, first off, stop focusing on gay characters. Most importantly, if the only gay character is a stereotype, use that as an opening for discussion, not a point of attack. Most importantly, gay lobbyists need to stop pushing homosexuality and just let people get used to it first. Get rid of the show where the queer guys change the straight guy! (And yes, queer is acceptable because that is the name of the show. Hehe, I love using so-called offensive names simply because the would-be offended do it themselves.) Stop trying to make everybody gay and let TV adapt on its own. For example, take an older family sitcom, like "Home Improvement." Now, no matter what the gay lobby says, there could never be a gay character on that show that would allow it to be the same show. The most important thing is don't force a gay character into a situation simply for a gay character. Remember, the goal is equality, not the token gay.

Now, will some people never accept gay people? Yep. Then again, there are quite a few Hollywood Nazis that don't accept fat people or people who smoke. Remember, a lifestyle choice is just that, a choice. Realize that your choices may not be acceptable to everybody. But that is the great thing about America, live and let live. By allowing people their non-gay character shows, they are more likely to not care about an all gay network.

Ultimately it comes down to this. The only way a show will have a gay character is if the character is a stereotype. So, should that be the goal? Should the character be included in the show by force? I say no, simply because I don't like force. Let the people decide what they want to watch and leave them alone. If they choose to avoid gay characters, let them be and create shows for people who want gay characters. Maybe some day Logo will be no more and gays will be a part of every TV show; then again, with the current gay lobby, that isn't very likely. Resistance to an idea, even if it might be a completely sensible idea, is a heckuva lot stronger when people are forced to accept the idea rather than allowed to accept it.

What is the Point of a Comedy Roast?

So, I am too young to know those old Rat Pack roasts. You know, the ones where everybody gets up and makes fun of somebody. However, I have watched a few of the recent roasts on Comedy Central and of course, they are promoting another one. I just have one question. I thought a roast was to make fun of the person being roasted. Why the heck are the speakers making fun of each other? I guess I don't understand.

Perhaps the worst part of those things is the people they pick to speak. I mean, I watched the Jeff Foxworthy one and of course, they had the Blue Collar guys. Sweet! But who the heck are the other idiots on stage? Lisa Lamponelli? Who the heck is this woman? I know I have seen her on Comedy Central, but what else? No offense, but she ain't Blue Collar. She just was not funny I don't remember who the other idiots were, but they weren't funny either. All three were crude to the point of being stupid.

Oh well. I guess the oddest thing is the guy getting roasted this time. Doesn't it say something when Flava Flav is being roasted? You know, the moron with the huge clock as a necklace. Guess I am too white to actually know what he is famous for (but because I watch VH1, I have seen him in old repeats of "I Love the 90s"). What is the point of roasting someone who hasn't done anything? And oh yeah, guess who is roasting him again? Lisa Lamponelli, of course. Great.

What if We Took Commercials Literally?

Now, since I tend to watch quite a bit of television, there are certain commercials that just are annoying. So what if we took them literally or took them to mean what they are implying?

Example 1
A VISA check card commercial shows a mall food court-type thing and people just waving the card to pay for fast food. Well, a couple people will use cash and the line moves to another restaurant. At the end, the tag line is something like "fast food requires fast payment." Now, I don't know what fast food places these ad wizards frequent, but I tend to find the slow places. Cash works very well when you wait 15 minutes for the workers to decide to serve my food.

Example 2
A Hormel ad shows the boss coming out and saying lunch is only 10 minutes long. As her coworkers fight over getting lunch, the main woman sits and enjoys her Hormel microwave product. Only one teensy tiny problem. See, as she is eating and relaxing, two coworkers start fighting over the microwave. So when does she use it and how does she not have to wait her turn or fight or something? Yeah, only needing 90 seconds is nice, but not if the microwave is taken. So what does it matter in this commercial that she has it? How did she warm it up?

Example 3
There is this Folger's commercial with some actress lady (that is what the words on the screen say at least) and how blah blah blah, kids, only get to sit and drink coffee once a morning. Wait a second. I thought she was an actress. Why couldn't she drink coffee during the day? I mean, stage actress she can't drink on stage, but that is only at night right (whenever the show is)? And if she is a regular actress, doesn't she like have a trailer or something or a craft service table to drink coffee at?

Example 4
Subway has this ad where everybody is throwing their cup in the air and spilling pop because they keep winning at some game. So, if you are interested in the Subway game, try to find the place where everybody is soaked in Pepsi. Hey, gotta play the odds, right?

Example 5
So in a Target ad, they keep changing around this dorm room in different designs at a low cost. Except, the first room looks like it has all these fancy stereos and stuff. Umm...where the heck were those deals when I was in school? Yeah, I don't think it is all that cheap.

See what happens when ad wizards are taken at their word. Not pretty, no. All I know is that those ads are bloody annoying.

Golf, Environmentalism, and Me?

So, in this article (HT: Liberty Belles Blog), the author goes on a rant against golf and how boring it is and how it uses up so many resources, blah blah blah. Basically, the guy hates golf, but he in this piece he wants to point out how bad it is for the environment.

Needless to say, he has an axe to grind and he ain't using a very sharp grind stone. Well, more like a piece of moldy bread. I am a golfer, I understand the game, and I understand how it fits into nature. See, this author would like desert to just be desert, nothing more. (I wonder if he would volunteer to live out there with no water? Or, would he rather share an apartment with 12 other people because the city is so crowded so we don't impact nature?)

So why does this article make me mad? Well, for one simple reason: without golf, I would never consider myself ever to care about the environment. See, I don't care about global warming or any of the people who proclaim doom from it. (Living in Michigan, I kinda like global warming. Plus, the glaciers covering the state made some great golfing locations, once global warming hit and melted the blasted things.) However, force me to wake up early, put me on the first tee as the sun is rising, the dew covering the grass, and my appreciation for nature grows. I don't think I am alone in that scenario either. One of most amazing things I have ever seen was the opening hole at The Rock golf course on Drummond Island when I went up there in high school, just as I described it only better. I have seen the Grand Canyon (eh, a hole in the ground; big, but just a dang hole in the ground) and I have seen the Atlantic Ocean. I live in Michigan with beautiful lakes, clear open air, and forest as far as the eye can see. (Our government land tends to be better protected or else it just ain't as hot to start the wildfires that California has, one of the two. And, some forests aren't even on government land. Amazing, huh?) But trust me when I say this, nothing compares to that golf course in the morning light.

Golf courses may use resources, but they also protect them. Imagine how much easier it is to protect a wetland when it is the swamp of a golf course than when it is just there. Plus, on the golf course, it serves a purpose, an evil purpose to steal my golf ball. But what this author, and for that matter any environmental extremist, forgets is that resources are meant to be used, be it by putting a swamp in a golf course or spending billions of dollars trying to protect the dang thing so no one can ever get to it. While I may swear at my local swamp or man-made lake at my local golf course, it still exists; I still get the chance to savor it and enjoy its presence. That is ultimately what this guy forgets when he complains about water usage. True, it takes hard work to get golf courses to look so good, but then again, it takes hard work to get forests to not burn down, work most often ignored leading to ever larger wildfires. A single leafy tree standing in a clearing is kinda worthless. Who admires its leaves in the fall? Who admires its beauty when no one can see it? A single leafy tree in the middle of the fairway on hole number 3? In the fall, that tree and the other color-changing leaf trees are savored by the golfers on the course. (I know there is a special name for these trees, but it isn't important.)

Now, because I am also a musician and I know how many environmentalist artists argue in favor of school music programs, I am going to use their arguments in favor of golf. I am fat, no question about it. I almost never exercise. See, I said almost never because I exercise whenever I get the chance to play golf. In high school, I didn't want to run laps so I didn't join the football team; I picked golf, four years in a row. Now, we didn't take carts or have caddies, we walked with our clubs on our backs. Golf can make people exercise, even if they do use a cart. (They have to walk some places, plus swinging the club is exercising too!) Golf teaches math. How often do children learn negative integers? (Kinda like baseball in this way, only in baseball kids learn the thousandth digit, seen as an adult only in gasoline prices.) Golf teaches honesty. In golf, there is no umpire or referee. You call penalties on yourself and keep your own score. The only one you cheat is yourself. (Ignore golf tournaments as that is an unnecessary example.)

So go ahead. Blame golf for ruining the environment. Realize though that eliminating golf courses would also eliminate a great deal of nature. Sure, it may be nature by man's hand, but if that is the criteria, I would like the deed to Central Park in New York City to turn into an office complex. (See, that was man-made too.) Ignore the lesson's golf can teach people and ignore the benefits golf can bring. Or, take the opposite approach and ignore the environmentalists. Ignore those who worship nature but don't understand it. Ignore those that act high and mighty, making demands on ordinary people why acting contrary in their own lives. Get out, enjoy yourself, and play a round of golf. Enjoy nature and understand the beauty of a golf course. Just remember to replace your divots, fix ball marks, and try not to mess with the swamp so others can enjoy nature as well.

By the way, as a final note, it is amazing that this guy, after ripping tourism, mentions how visitors to the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone never say it needs a golf course. Amazing because how many people travel to see the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone and how many people travel to play golf? By the way, Mr. Author-extraordinaire, did you know that both those sites are subsidized by taxpayers? Whoops, why let facts get in the way of a good piece of environmental propaganda?

Incentives and Hypocrisy

So as I was listening to an EconTalk podcast today, I had a thought while they were discussing climatologists and incentives. They gave the economic answer that incentives drive behavior so if a researcher will get money and prestige if they declare global warming is happening, guess what? More researchers will say global warming is happening. Incentives drive behavior.

Well, I figured with my accounting degree, I would take a different approach to reach the same conclusion. Now, if a company is large enough, it can demand results of its auditors. The auditors can't fight back because to lose the client would be to lose the firm. (Before Enron and the resulting rules, audit companies made more money consulting for clients so companies would threaten to stop purchasing consulting services to get the audit results they desired.) Now, when a climate researcher is working for grants from a global warming advocacy group, the researcher is like the audit firm. Deliver the wrong results and lose the grant. So, just like the auditors, the researcher gives up and goes along; what the researcher believes is not important in this example because they aren't acting on their beliefs, though if they believed in global warming, there would be less of a struggle between researcher and advocacy group. (I am giving the researchers the benefit of the doubt that as scientists, facts trump ideology, but that is not always the case.)

So here is my question for you. How come it is wrong for audit companies to give up and go along with the client's wishes, but not wrong for researchers to give up and go along with the advocacy group's wishes? What makes auditors so special? Or what makes researchers so special? (Gotta be one or the other that makes the difference.) Kinda interesting when you think about it. Weak auditors generally only hurt investors and in a way, employees if the company collapses. Researchers on the other hand are generally supporting policies that will affect everybody. So how come auditors are held to such a higher standard? You wouldn't believe how often in accounting classes I have to listen to the public good argument applied to auditors, how they protect investors, which is somewhat true. How come that argument is never applied to researchers? Shouldn't they be the ones truly doing public good? I mean, an auditor is weak, only investors are hurt. I don't invest with that company, no big deal. A researcher fudges the numbers, the advocacy group uses the fudged number to call for another tax or spending increase, everybody hurts. What is the difference?

By the way, while I used auditors, corporate executives and politicians also face the similar incentives and also tend to get criticized, though in the politician's case, generally only by the opposition party. What makes climate researchers so darn special? I really want to know cause I want auditors treated the same way. (Now, this can be read as I want auditors treated to lower standards or researchers held to higher standards. I really don't care which actually happens.) All I want is consistency. Is that too much to ask?

Ahh...Social Darwinism is Not Darwin at All

So in The New Yorker the other day, there was an article on a guy named Herbert Spencer, someone I had never heard of. I was reading the Everyday Economist blog and it linked to the article so I decided to read it after one sentence caught my eye.

“Survival of the fittest”—a phrase that Charles Darwin took from Spencer—made free competition a social as well as a natural law.

Interesting. See, I have argued with people that capitalism is actually more compassionate that socialism. (Of course I am correct. In a capitalist society, a small percentage of people live in poverty; in socialism, it is the reverse where most people live in poverty while a small percentage own all the wealth. Oh yeah, the capitalist poor are also hands down richer than the socialist masses and if the societies were mixed, the capitalist poor would be considered middle class.) The one argument I hear over and over is how life isn't about Social Darwinism, that "survival of the fittest" is mean. And yet, quite often, these same people turn around and praise Darwin and his theory of evolution, mainly to get back at religious people who do tend to donate the most. (Is this envy on the part of the so-called compassionate elitists? Who knows?)

So, I was greatly shocked to see that Darwin stole the phrase from someone using it in the same manner I was. See, I was getting criticized by a phrase invented by the guy who invented my argument. Talk about hypocrisy! Unfortunately, I didn't know it at the time, but now I do and so do you. I love seeing facts resolve in favor of my argument. So enjoyable.

Misguided Advertisements

So, I hope to do a rant about more idiotic commercials soon, but this was something that just made no sense whatever.

So on ABC Family, they are showing the movie Bring It On. The commercials for the movie say that during the movie special scenes will be shown from the new movie Daddy Day Camp. Umm...am I missing something here? Bring It On is aimed for teenagers and Daddy Day Camp is for little kids. So why promote during that movie? Just because the channel says family does not mean that a full family will be watching EVERY show. And to think about it, ABC Family is owned by Disney, a channel targeting Daddy Day Camp's intended audience. So why not promote there?

So, am I being too picky? Eh, I don't think so. I guess I get tired of companies complaining about lower earnings and then wasting money on commercials during programs that aren't even meant for a target audience. To give another example, during tonight's show "Greek" (the reason I was watching ABC Family), they showed a commercial for Huggies brand of diapers. Umm....whoa, hold on a second. I might be mistaken, but does "Greek" really target the same audience as Huggies? See what I mean?

Republican Debate Thoughts As They Occur

So, I am going to record my thoughts on tonight's debate. First off, George Step-on-his-face is not objective so unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are willing to put up with a lefty asking questions.

• Wow, Ron Paul is only at 2%.
• Hmm...attacks. Mitt Romney trying to say he is pro-life? Yeah, not so much.
• Hehe, Romney getting mad at YouTube. Not gonna work. Republicans don't like flip-floppers very much. And at this point, Romney has flipped way too often.
• Once again, Romney flips, this time on Rudy.
• Romney is fighting back at attacks.
• Rudy is still trying hard to be Republican, but he is failing.
• Wow, Tommy Thompson had a pretty good answer on the pro-life and trying to avoid fighting.
• Step-on-his-face doesn't like people applauding. Learn to accept the audience before hosting a debate known for clapping.
• First shot of McCain and he is not quite as stiff as before, but it is still there. I can see the fight behind him trying not to look like a linebacker.
• McCain keeps saying he has been in public service for a long time. Yeah, what ever happened to citizen legislators?
• Dang, another chance for Ron Paul to speak only on the war question. Hopefully he gets the opportunity to talk of something else.
• Duncan Hunter talks up the Marines. Nice job coming down on a stand.
• Huckabee wants to stay away from foreign oil, but doesn't say how.
• Brownbeck focuses on politics rather than fighting as the issue in Iraq. Interesting.
• McCain thinks the political solutions are working in Iraq. Not even I can see that happening.
• Whoops, McCain just joined the football team again. I guess he was frustrated or something and forgot his stance.
• Rudy hits at Democrats and the New York Times.
• Romney hits out at Obama. Great line.
• This is really kinda boring.
• Tancredo yells at Step (you know the rest). Right when I said it was getting boring.
• Tancredo gets mad enough to not be able to speak straight.
• Tommy Thompson just doesn't have any emotion, a direct contradiction to Tancredo.
• Ron Paul pretends he is at the Democrat debate. While I may not agree with him fully on this, at least he is not flip-flopping like many of the others. Plus, he is pointing out his difference with the other guys.
• McCain was a critic of the Iraq War? Must have missed that when he was keeping the Senate from voting on judicial candidates.
• George talks about poor children. Hmm...kids from families that make $80,000 a year are poor?
• Nice line Huckabee, going after Congress and its health care. Let's see if he can really hit back at Step.
• Tommy Thompson shows that he is smarter than Step. Sen. Grassley of Iowa is not the brightest bulb when it comes to health care.
• I hope Ron Paul gets a chance to speak on this issue as he is the only one with a medical license.
• Ahh, Tancredo gives the right answer and then ties it into the illegal immigrants.
• Romney can't go to hell on his health care plan. Everybody pays for health insurance when they have to pay taxes. Let people buy insurance without government mandates and regulations.
• Duncan Hunter points out the illogical health care and banning insurance over state lines.
• These idiot moderators are just proving what I said in the beginning. The candidates just said to get government out of health care and yet the moderators keep talking about needing more taxes. No, you don't need more taxes getting the government from paying the bloody costs.
• At least market ideas were presented, but too bad Paul didn't get a chance to point out that they are some of his as well.
• Referencing Richard Armitage is weird. Wasn't he the one that gave away Plame's name, not Scooter Libby? (To answer my own question, I seem to remember his name and more likely since I know it was one of Powell's deputies at the State Department that did it.)
• Boring again, even though Step keeps trying to stir things up. Unfortunately for him, the guys on stage are all of the same party and tend to agree more with each other than they do with him. So the arguments come from candidates fighting against him.
• Free elections in Iran? Hmm...I wonder how many anti-Ajiminabad (none of them can spell their own name, why should I?) were able to vote against him without getting shot? I wonder if Step believes that the voting in the South was free back in the Jim Crow days since the votes in Iran and Gaza were worse than those.
• I wonder if George Step knows that the U.S. isn't a democracy. Remember this great quote from Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
• Remember, we destroyed Germany and now they are socialist, not a democracy, even though we built the nation. I say we failed and shouldn't keep trying.
• Romney needs to learn that democracy is not reliant on health care. Our republic didn't have fancy health care until much later.
• Hehe, Tancredo hitting back at the State Dept. Wonder where they were last week when Obama spoke. I may not agree with him, but at least Tancredo knows what the President's job is required to be.
• Wow, Thompson showed emotion. Nice.
• These moderators ask the dumbest questions. Why should we have to raise taxes to fix bridges that have had tax money earmarked to them, but not spent there?
• Republican dogma? At least Rudy hits him. This guy is an idiot. He doesn't have a clue about economics. And that is saying something when he is being shown up by Rudy!
• Wow, Romney knows econ? Dang, definitely shows what an idiot the moderator is. How the heck did he get on this panel?
• At least Romney points out that money is being spent stupidly.
• Step thinks he didn't say that Republicans are against poor children? No, maybe not, but he sure did imply that. Too bad the idiot can't be honest.
• Once again, Step tries to goad candidates on Vice Presidential duties. Whoops, Step stepped in it once again, hehe.
• Once again, viewers can easily see which candidates are second-tier, simply because they are caught off or not called on.
• Wow, fault line in taxes? Weird. I guess because Republicans want to cut taxes and differ on means must be bad compared with Democrats who agree that high taxes are great. Not so much.
• McCain wants to appoint Greenspan to chair a commission. I think I like that idea since he actually knows what he is talking about.
• Wow, Tancredo keeps talking like a Constitutionalist.
• Brownbeck pulls out the optional flat tax. Another great idea and it gives a choice, a real American ideal.
• Another idiotic online question.
• Romney points out his flip-flop manner.
• Rudy has to pick a mistake and can't, which is funnier than it sounds.
• Some of the candidates pick out the cookie cutter answer.
• Another reference to Bush. I wonder if the media knows that Republicans are not all Bush supporters and that their idiotic hatred of Bush blinds them to real truth.
• I don't understand McCain's answer. How is that different from Bush?
• Romney wants to strengthen the military and avoid foreign oil and the family. Wonder which one is the most important as the military is actually pretty darn strong, when allowed to fight that is.
• Huckabee understands that he works for citizens, but then he bashes Wall Street. The people on Wall Street are citizens.
• Ron Paul wants openness. A chance to show off his ideas.
• Duncan Hunter is a protectionist. Too bad he doesn't realize that America doesn't need to build crap anymore and can be richer by not doing so. I don't want to work in a factory and without protectionism, I won't have to. Much rather make more money outside the factory.

Overall, this debate was pretty boring. There really wasn't a point of having it. George Step-on-his-face just proved that he is Bill Clinton's man through and through. And the guy next to him, an idiot, nothing more, nothing less. What a waste of time!

Alas, Headlines May Not Be True

Okay, so this article has the headline, "Dogs kill man at actor Ving Rhames' LA home." Now, I am sure Reuters did due diligence so we can trust the headline of the story; oh wait, this a media outlet? Forget it. And of course, I am correct. See, in this article, headlined "Police: Rhames' Dogs May Not Have Caused Death," the police take front stage, rather than the media in giving the facts.

Now, of course the first article quotes a cop, but compare the two headlines and you decide which one better conveys that words of the officer to readers. Here is the quote, taken straight from the first article.

"It appeared that the person suffered a number of injuries as a result of the dog mauling," Sgt. Lee Sands said. "There were numerous dog bites all over his body, but the exact cause of death is pending the coroner's ruling."

Hmm...interesting. So what is the real story? Both articles point out that dogs can turn on owners, but did that happen here? Alas, for the media, the past is gone, never to be repeated or remembered, unless it points out subjects in a bad way of course. Neither article mentioned an animal attack from a few years back, one the media had a field day with until one of the people involved got a chance to comment.

A few years ago, Sigfried and Roy were doing a show and one of them (yeah, I can't tell them apart and it isn't important which one) was caught in the mouth by one of their famous tigers. Now, immediately there were calls to kill the beast (ahh, Disney humor) and stories were run about cruelty to animals (eh, and shooting the cat would be humane right?). That is until the other guy got up and explained how tigers operate. See, when a tiger is in danger, it grabs its cubs in the mouth and drags them to safety. The tiger thought it was in danger and grabbed the performer to get him to safety.

Could this be the same situation? I don't know. But remember, the police don't have a clue yet, but that doesn't stop the media reports. So why do we allow the media the right to free speech to spread lies? As I believe the Supreme Court decided, it was because without the knowledge that they wouldn't be punished for lies, the media might actually have to be competent enough to wait on stories, thereby depriving the public of news. (I guess to the Court, lies parading as news is better than silence, just like foreign law is good to use when the Constitution doesn't authorize some governmental power. Give me a little more media accuracy and I can handle the occasional silence rather than be forced to suffer corrections buried in newspapers on page 14 and the correction link never quite making it online where the article itself was.)

Well, I hope you learned something from this. Unlike the nutjobs who use the "don't judge a book by its cover" to force people to accept serial killers and child rapists, I will use it the phrase to caution against ever trusting the media. Or to quote Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify." True of the media as of the Soviet Union, both of whom thought propaganda didn't exist (it was truth, see?).

Bias, Even in Germany

So in this article (HT: Marginal Revolution) from the German paper, Spiegel Online, American students studying abroad in Germany are faced with a barrage of anti-American feelings. So, in an interesting idea, American students are rented out to schools to talk about the U.S., the kind not seen in the German media. However, the problem arises with the American students, and shown brilliantly by the author. See, a great majority of the students are lefties, socialist wannabes that hate the Bush and the U.S. style of living. (Sure, they might not say that directly, but when agreeing with the Germans about social issues it comes through.) For example, one student is asked about the way Americans consume natural resources and she says no. But wait a minute, who the heck is she? Why is she important? She is just a college student, younger than me even; what makes her world ambassador? (You don't see me standing in a German classroom airing my views do you? Though to be honest, from the sounds of this program, I would be a hit. Probably the most requested student, if they take requests.)

The thing is, Americans are not Germans. Our lifestyle is different. For example, my family hosted a German exchange student. Now, my family is part German on my mother's side, not that it really means anything. And you know what, it really doesn't. Then again, our German exchange student wasn't an example of the whole German culture. But, there were some obvious differences, pointed out by the discussions between the two of us. That is the problem. A lone American may be an example, an anecdote, but not the culture.

But this post is about bias, and so here it comes. This is the ending.

"Texas Kate," for example, gets plenty of laughs from her roommates when she voluntarily takes out the carefully sorted trash -- "in penance."

Penance for what? Not wasting time (the most precious resource known to man) sorting garbage? (For a discussion of why trash is garbage and not a resource worth sorting, please see the podcast with Prof. Mike Munger of Duke University at the EconTalk website.) The examples given of the American students is also skewed heavily to the left. One student voted for Bush, but wouldn't do so again. Another is from Texas, but voting for Obama. Now, it might be hard for this paper to find an American student of my political persuasion, classical liberal/libertarian, or even conservative, but shouldn't they at least try? Wouldn't a conservative or a Bush supporter be a much better story? Imagine a Bush supporter in this program. Just imagine that tension. Heck, like I said, I would be great because I don't support the idea that Germany is anything special, but I for darn certain realize America is great; great not so much for the German style of policies of the past half century or so, but for the ideal that created this nation, the ideas of John Locke, economic ideas of Adam Smith and later Frédéric Bastiat and F.A. Hayek, basically ideas that Germany has been lacking for so many years. Put another way. What has Germany done for the world? Germany may be known for the Autobahn, but how many people actually own a car to drive on it? What is the standard of living in Germany? Is it anywhere close to the U.S.? The idea that somehow America is at fault because the Germans are so pretentious is moronic. German citizens can believe what they choose, but like I said, I have German ancestors. I am betting they weren't as fond of Germany as they were of America and in that, I do take after them.

The bias of this article is the belief that even though Bush is in office, college students know Americans are really like Germans, a patently absurd idea. However, I will end with this priceless gem from the Marginal Revolution comment board by a guy named Keith (answering one of the questions posed in the article).

"Do Americans support the Iraq war?"
Not as much as we supported World War 2.

Brilliant.

WSJ or Liberals are Pansies Update

So, yesterday, I put up a post about the News Corp. buying the Dow Jones Company and its Wall Street Journal. Seems liberals are really scared. Turns out a Democrat on the FCC is mad that the Journal would be owned by a group that owns a TV station. Except, when you get down to it, the rule would not apply in this situation if anybody but a liberal read the rules. (For some reason, laws and regulations are like written in invisible ink as well when passed because liberals somehow seem to find words written that no regular person can see.) See, the rule applies only to a local newspaper. But wait, the Wall Street Journal is a New York City paper so the rule applies. Essentially, that is what the Democrat is arguing. Now, I may not have a fancy title or nothin', but who would be dumb enough to believe that the Journal is only a local paper? Anybody? Hands? No? Nothin'?

See, any non-stock holding grandmother would say that the Wall Street Journal is a national paper. The idea that this somehow limits competition is utterly pointless. No offense to Mr. High and Mighty Democrat, but sit down and be quiet. The Journal is the opposite of the New York Times, ahh, also published in NYC. Would the Dem call the Times a local paper? (If he did, I have to believe the Times might be pissed at that classification, as they claim to be the "nation's paper.") Eventually, this deal will pass, the Dem will be told to be quiet, and the Journal will be owned by News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch.

Now, the issue with the CNBC's deal with the Journal, that is interesting. But alas, no one seems to really care about that one. Oh well. Just another bit of proof that reporters, as much as they claim to the contrary, are liberal pansies, afraid of conservatives.