Palin's Speech

Here it is, Uncut and Entire CSPAN footage, for any of those who missed it.

Raisin' McCain

I am literally watching this from the convention on CSPAN as I type.

Cancel the Convention?

There has a lot of talk that due to Hurricane Gustav the Republicans should cancel their convention. In my opinion that would not make sense. A sampling of the reasons would be "we should be evacuating people" and "they will appear unsympathetic." Now honestly, convention or no convention, FEMA and Bush are going to see this as an opportunity to redeem themselves from Katrina. McCain and Palin are currently on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and are a short flight away as soon as the convention is over. The evacuations are already in progress, and convention or no convention will continue. The evacuations started during the DNC, but it was difficult to find that covered in the mainstream media, so why so much pressure now? I think it is the media trying to fabricate a bump for Obama. The media is making it sound like when the republicans hypothetically cancel their convention the delegates are all personally going to rush to the disaster area and do somthing actively helpful. Talking heads and windbags won't get anything useful done, that will be the National Guard and private charities. Hopefully this time people don't try and wait for their welfare checks instead of evacuating.

Palin and McCain guarantee historic election.

I like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for VP. She balances McCain perfectly in my opinion. In McCain we have a tough experienced statesman who is great on foreign policy. From a conservative credential standpoint McCain is much softer on social issues than Gov. Palin. What really pleases me is that Palin will snare in some disenfranchised Hillary supporters, endear the campaign to the true conservatives, and balance the age discrepancy all in one big swoop. Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin creates some interesting contrasts. one has a young presidential candidate with very little experience, weak on foriegn policy, and (strangely) beloved by the people of his home state. Not everyone here in Illinois likes Obama, but the amount of people who do is not only sickening, but also disheartening. The other campaign has a veteran senator in the top slot, his specialty is foreign policy, and he is the truest center-right candidate in years. The GOP VP spot is a young governor who is beloved in her home state (80% approval ratings, thats like 8 times that of congress.) She has a solid economic position, is socially conservative, and her weakest point is foriegn policy. The Democrats are running a long-time Washington hack who supposedly is brilliant on foriegn policy, and is the third most liberal person in the senate. I really hope to see Gov. Palin bring more college votes to the McCain campaign. Overall I think she will be a brilliant pick. As my history prof pointed out today, no matter who wins this is a historic election simply due to the fact that no woman or African-American (or whatever the PC term of the week is) has ever been the president or vice-president. Another bit of trivia, this will only be the third time in US history a man (I can say man because no woman has been elected president) has gone straight from the senate to the presidency. The two who did were Kennedy and Harding. Ironically, both died in office.

Great Prof Quote #1

"Heres a nasty old secret, when people accumulate stuff, other people want to take their stuff"

So he was describing the reasons cities built walls, but it made me think about how the T&S crowd penalize success by taking the hard-earned rewards of those who work and save to accumulate wealth by taking and giving to those who don't deserve.

Liberal Tactic: The Cover-Up

Anyone who hasn't already, go on over to National Review Online and read Todd Gallagher's column. I'll even give you a link if you feel to lazy to go up to the bar and type the site in. Gallagher proves quite concisely that women are inferior to men. In sports at least. I am going to avoid the touchy issue of Title IX for now, and instead hit on this point: Nobody is allowed to say it. This is still America, and the liberals haven't completely trampled the constitution yet, so I want say that viewpoints like this:

"For example, in October 2007, Eileen McDonagh of Northeastern University and Laura Pappano of Wellesley College published Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports. “The premise of this book, and our work,” McDonagh says, “is that sex segregation does not reflect sex differences between men and women, rather it constructs them.”

I laid out the results of my research for Pappano and asked why male athletes outpace female athletes starting at 14 and 15. She answered: “Women are told around that time that they are athletically inferior to men and that they should start acting like ladies. That’s why we see the boys making such stunning gains at that age and the girls begin to suffer.”

should be heard, so that they can be shut down by the much simpler and more logical explanation:

While no one can deny that societal factors play some role, the research makes it pretty clear that there was a simpler explanation for the gap: puberty. The Centers for Disease Control publishes growth charts for the U.S. population which reveal that boys hit their major growth spurt between the ages of 14 and 15 — precisely when the best boy athletes begin to outperform the top adult female athletes.

To make the issue worse, Gallagher goes on to suggest this is not being debated because one side does not want the issue to come to light. He quotes a woman who suggests the issue is not being discussed because the feminists are so entrenched in the idea that men and women are not physically different that they ignore and go so far as to hide evidence to the contrary. Gallagher also uses three case studies which shows people on left side of this issue just will not listen to a differing opinion.

Now, to those who aren't feminists, this isn't just a feminist tactic. This tactic is used heavily by all segments of the left. They use it to cover up the (significant) evidence against global warming, they use it to cover up the fact that a divine creator is quite possible, and they use it to cover up the fact that babies are people too.

So, where do I fit?

As election season rumbles on I keep hearing about x, y, and z voting blocks. When will it end? there are subgroups for everything, and most people fit into a multitude of them, sometimes into groups with traditionally conflicting interests

These are the ones i consider myself a member of off the top of my head, and i am sure there are more:

conservative
youth
evangelical Christian
male
values voter
Caucasian
small town

I'll probably edit this list as I think of more that fit.

The Barack Obama Song

To the tune of "If I Only Had A Brain"

(Obama)

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the dictators
Consultin' with the Hussein
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While wars were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
Tax any individ'le
With money or a gain

(Biden)
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

(Obama)
Oh, I would tell you why
We have to stay within our shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more

I would not be just a nuffin'
The pork barrels a stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
With foreign dignitaries
If I only had a brain

Barack the Baby Killer

Although the issue of abortion is a hot button issue with many people because of the debate as to when life actually begins and the woman's "right" to have an abortion if she feels so inclined to do so, I have found very few people who will support partial birth abortions.

Barack Huissen Obama is one of the few exceptions. BHO has a track record of supporting partial birth abortion. 

Partial birth abortion is a procedure that "is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dialated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly" (link). In a different procedure, the mother delivers the baby natrually, and when the baby is delivered past its belly button, the vacuum is inserted and the brains are sucked out. Despite arguments of whether or not life begins at conception, this is an entirely different matter, since the baby is basically delivered when this procedure occurs. One cannot even argue that the mother's health as an issue because if she is going to partially deliver the baby, the extra push makes little to no difference on her health.

"In 1997, BHO voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion" (link). Since the baby is mostly delivered and considered living, aborting the baby during birth would make it murder, since murder is defined as killing or slaughtering inhumanely or barbarously (link). Suctioning out a child's brains with a vacuum is an inhumane and barbarous act, and therefore those who preform such procedures should be prosecuted as murderers.

In October 2007, BHO voted against banning partial birth abortion. (link)

It's hard to believe that a man who claims to be a Christian is in favor of the murder of infants - because that's what it is, my dear readers, it is murder. I will admit that I do not like BHO for many reasons that I do not wish to get into in this particular post. However - those are the facts. BHO is in favor of partial-birth abortion - of killing living, breathing children.

20 Years of Rush

Rush Limbaugh's 20th Anniversary is this week. Rush is a legendary conservative talk show host - like him or hate him, few do not know who he is. From a family full of judges and lawyers, Rush decided to follow his dream and be on the radio, where he has been for the past 20 years, despite many efforts by liberals to get him off the air.

We're Back!

Sorry for the lack of posting here. My computer was broken and has been out of commission for the past few weeks, and I've been busy with work a lot lately. Goose doesn't have internet that frequently while he's at home for the summer. Please bear with us and check back later in the week - I have something I'm currently working on that will be up soon.

Good Stuff...

So lets bring the price of diesel down and keep that good stuff affordable.

The Beginning of the End to Abortion?

FOXNEWS story:

"A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported..."

The baby was born normal! This has got to be a blow to the people who advocate abortion for reasons of "medical necessity." How many babies have been unnecessarily killed over the last thirty years? Coupled with the point from Nordlinger's Column on NRO located below, we may finally see an end to infanticide soon.

Few weeks ago, Ron Liddle had an interesting article in The Spectator. (Here, but a subscription is required.) It was titled, “A Century From Now, We Will All Be Appalled That We Allowed Abortions At All.”

An excerpt:

As a leftie, I had always been persuaded that abortion on demand is the right of every woman, with no arguments brooked. ‘Persuaded’ is perhaps the wrong word; the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she liked with her foetus was simply not something open to negotiation or debate with someone in possession of a penis, even if it was quite a small penis like mine. [Good grief: Ron Liddle = Ron Little?] But a dark foreboding nonetheless gnawed away at me — much as, on a personal level, it gnawed away at many of the feminists who advanced this totalitarian no-surrender hypothesis. It is still, if you are on the feminist Left, an unchallengeable shibboleth, which is why the debate today is so fraught — the god-botherers on one side, the liberal Left on the other.

I may be wrong about this, but it strikes me that in a century or so, or maybe even less, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all. I do not mean that we should not allow them now; it is merely a suspicion that the advance of our knowledge about the life of a foetus, coupled with an improved ability to prevent conception, will mean that we will be mystified as to how such a primitive and brutal procedure could have become state-sanctioned and commonplace. I can see politicians in 2108 erecting monuments and offering apologies to the unborn dead — divorced from the reality of where we are now, and why.

This is definately something to keep an eye on folks.

Destroying Our Nation, One Bill At A Time

Joe Lieberman and John Warner's (the man is a republican for goodness sake!) horrible cap-and-trade bill has already been discussed in depth, on NRO especially. My favorite is Ben Lieberman's five myths and Lawrence Solomon's Selective Precaution. It was also discussed on many other blogs, so I am going to try to take a slightly different tact and try to use a case study. I can only hope it works. Rockford, Illinois is a very industrial city. Until the 1980's, it was widely known as "screw city" because of the massive hardware industry located there. Rockford never really recovered from the massive recession of 1980-81. Rockford suffers from 7.2 percent unemployment, the highest in the state. This went up by 1.7% in the last year. It is well above the state average of 5.4 % (link). Some of the biggest employers in the Rockford area, in no particular order. are Hamilton Sundstrand, Woodward Governor, Chrysler, and GM. The first two corporations produce parts for aircraft and heavy machinery, and I hope everyone knows the latter two produce cars. GM is very likely to announce that they are closing their Janesville WI (which is very close to Rockford) plant. This means a loss of some 3300 jobs. These are high paying jobs which will be hard to replace, and the loss of wages will hurt the entire area economy. (link) This city of 150,000 will be absolutely devastated by losing the other three industries, which would lose a huge amount of business, be forced to lay off workers, and possibly close. There are similar cities all across the nation. Cap-and-trade would destroy these cities. Oh yeah, and it would give all the porkers something to squeal about in Washington. High unemployment directly correlates to high crime rates, broken families, and dissatisfied populations.

Politics, Illinois Style -or- Another Reason to Avoid BHO

The General Assembly must be illiterate. It is obvious from the state constitution that a budget MUST be balanced. See Article VIII. " Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget." (8.2) It is also the responsibility of the governor to submit a balanced and passable budget to the GA, but I don't expect much from Roddy anymore. The GA passed a budget to him which was two billion dollars out of balance. Roddy came to the completely obvious conclusion that it was unconstitutional. Link. This means that the GA will once again be stuck in emergency session, battling it out for an acceptable budget. We have not had a capital improvements plan for a decade. The legislative leaders, Chicago democrats Emil Jones and Michael Madigan, have turned on their former friend and fellow Chicago democrat Rod Blagojevich (aka Roddy). It is out of this cesspool of political bickering, partisanship. and special interests from which Barack Obama got his start. Do we really want to see a man like that running this nation? I sure don't. It has been a long time since the days of Stephan Douglas and Abraham Lincoln.

Leaving Trinity UCC Now?

Obama quit his Chicago church. Too many people must have finally figured out (despite the best media efforts to cover it up) that it was not just Rev. Wright who was radical, anti-American, and out of touch with a lot of voters, but the entire church culture. To me the biggest question is why now? The worst of the shelling has been endured, it is not as if he had quit it right when this stuff came out. Why now, unless there was worse to come. BHO has very questionable judgment when it comes to assocites though, Not just Wright and other controversial black leaders; but he is also connected to Tony Rezko, the fundraiser on trial for corruption, Rod Blagovitch (not sure how to spell that) the wasteful, uncompromising, and possibly corrupt governor of Illinois;
and the fact he wants to meet with terrorists and intolerant regimes without preconditions.

Indiana v. Logic

I know I don't post that often, but I saw something today that absolutely infuriated me. My father and I were driving back from Indiana today - because we go there for the cheaper gas because prices around me are just getting ridiculous - and I saw a billboard (see picture above) on the side of the tollway. It was rather hard to miss, a giant, white billboard with the words "Out of Iraq" in big black letters across the top and the word "Now!" in bold, red letters. At the very top and very bottom of the billboard were urls for two different websites... before I get to the websites, I'd like to say my piece about the quick, total withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

It is ludicrous. Plain and simple.

I believe Ann Coulter sums up the reason we are over there best: "There can be no 'political solution' in Iraq until the Iraqis are safe, which I think requires a military solution. Political solutions tend to present themselves in the wake of military solutions." We went to Iraq initially on a quest to fight terrorists. Terrorists are everywhere, but, as the news continues to prove, they are especially in Iraq. Our troops are over there with the mission of making Iraq safe for those who live there. Until that job is done, they cannot withdraw. To leave now would be to repeat history: after World War I, all foreign countries withdrew from Germany, leaving it in complete ruin (economic, political, physical). This led to a totalitarian government in Germany, which ultimately allowed Hitler to rise to power, preying on the worst fears of the citizens. To leave Iraq in a state of chaos, which is what would happen were troops to pull out on January 20, 2009 (should a Democrat be elected to office - Heaven forbid), the country would have the perfect conditions for the rise of a Middle Eastern Hitler... only instead of the Holocaust targeting Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally retarded, everyone in America would be targeted; instead of killing with carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide showers, they'll use suicide bombers.

Arguing that the number of deaths in Iraq are a reason for withdrawal is also a weak argument. Since the start of the War, approximately 4000 US troops have died in combat (link). Not to downplay the noble deaths these American troops died, but if the Democrats want to complain about "deaths that could have been prevented," there were approximately 1.21 million abortions in 2005 alone (link) - talk about needless deaths, those far out number the soldiers who honorably died fighting a war to preserve freedom not only for our country, but for the Middle East as well.

The first website is rather basic and run by the Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (NWICAIW). They advocate rallies and radio show appearances to spread their cause... they have minutes for their meetings, schedules for upcoming rallies and events... and a printable fact sheet about the war - that the link does not work to. They do not state reasons they are against the war, other solutions to the war, or anything other than the fact that we should leave... now.

Now, on to the other website, which is also rather basic. The PeaceRoots Alliance states that they are "working together for a peaceful, just and sustainable world." A noble goal to be sure, however, this is not a realistic goal. Peace cannot be attained by negotiating with the "nice man" who has a bomb strapped to his chest, a detonator in his hand, and a wicked grin on his face. In the top corner of their banner, there is a young child holding a sign that reads, "stop war, bring peace & love." Again - unrealistic if the enemy you are fighting sees you as an infidel who must be killed in order to honor their god. Another main slogan: "Farms not arms: farmers say no to War & terror." Apparently, the farmers do not understand that the War in Iraq is a war ON terror itself... therefore, they cannot be against the war and terror... because if they were truely against terror, they'd have to be for the war. Their vision statement states: "We seek to create a peaceful, just and sustainable world for future generations by emphasizing our common humanity, promoting non-violence and working to remove the root causes of war." I still find it difficult to find what the humanity in the smiling man with the bomb strapped to his chest... By removing the root causes of war, one would have to remove man himself from the equation. Without man, there would be no war. Since this is not possible, preventing war is not possible. If they wish to promote non-violence, they should start with the terrorists, not with the American soldiers, who are over there protecting the Iraqis from the violent terrorists and, also, preventing the terrorists from coming here.

Who Really Gets Hurt By Environmentalists?

The enivro-nazis have a little trick they want to pull over us. They want what amounts to a penalty on people who drive "wasteful vehicles" or in other words, SUVs and trucks. What these people fail to realize is that alot of people have a very legitimate reason to drive such vehicles. It could be that are in an industry they need a truck. Construction, agriculture, maintenance, transportation, lawn care, and many other industries need their trucks. A big tax on these would be a devastating blow to the men and women already struggling to fill their gas tanks and still turn a profit. What about the people who have a large family? My Aunt and Uncle have 7 kids and drive a Chevy Suburban. I doubt anyone in their right mind would try to fit 9 people into a little hybrid tin can. Another Aunt and uncle have 8 kids and drive a Ford Clubwagon. It is not wasteful for these people to have large vehicles, it is not only practical but necessary. Churches, Schools, and Boys and Girls Clubs often use large "wasteful" vehicles to transport people around, to those get taxed too? What happens if a carpool group uses a larger vehicle? Do some people get breaks on this tax? if so, who decides it? Will it become a method for legislatures to "buy" votes from the "gimme culture" so prevalent in America today? Do some people drive larger vehicles than they need? perhaps, but many people need the larger vehicle, and it is much less wasteful for one Suburban to be on the road than three or four Civics.

VP options...

My friend and I were discussing possible McCain VP choices the other day, and the standard names (Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc.) came up, but then he brought up a strange possibility-- Joe Lieberman. At first this seems like a daring, but logical strategy, Lieberman is one of the more conservative democrats (sad to say), he and McCain have been in congress together a long time, and McCain could capture some swing votes that way. Knowing there had to be a reason not, I turned it around in my head a bit, and came up with this: its been tried, and failed. In the original form of the United States Constitution, the winner of the Electoral College became president, and the runner-up became vice-president. This failed so badly that the constitution was amended in 1804, a mere seventeen years after being adopted (12th amendment). The twelfth amendement does not require the two offials be from the same party, but the reason was due to the political infighting of the day. in fact, it was so bad that at one point the Vice-President shot the treasury secretary in duel. (Go ahead, make a Dick Cheney joke.) Another very obvious reason against Lieberman is the issue of succession, if McCain were to die or otherwise be unable to hold office, Lieberman would then become president. Not such a good idea. The last reason I came up with is very practical, many hard right conservatives are at best skeptical of McCain, if he chose a democrat running mate, they would see it as a final act of treason against their principles, a metaphorical slap in the face and McCain would lose their votes. On the other hand, if he chose a more conservative Vice-Presidential nominee, The right would see it as an act of conciliation, and McCain would be able to ensure their votes, while being able to keep his moderate facade. After all, McCain may be the left of the right, but he is still infinitely more conservative than BH Obama, and I think most of the right-wing will confirm it on election day.

Why People Are Conservatives, and Other Random Thoughts.

I hate people who don't really know anything, or even really care, about issues but call themselves liberals. They are really conservatives because they don't care enough to challenge the status quo. A very simple definition of a conservative is a person who is happy enough with how things are that they don't agitate for change. The people who are apathetic are therefore conservatives. This is different from being lacking compassion.

If somebody asks you to sign a petition to get a 3rd party candidate on the ballet, sign it. Election laws are very unfairly tilted towards only allowing the two traditional parties on the ballet. A plus to getting Nader and company on the ballet is that they will take votes away from the two left-wing nuts still duking it out for the democratic nomination.

I saw diesel prices hit $5 per gallon today, and up go the farmer's costs and therefore food prices.

I really don't understand what the feminist movement is all about.

Illinois is going into emergency legislative session again if they don't agree on a budget by the end of the week, and as much as I would love the federal government to adopt a balanced budget amendment, this scares me what would happen on a national scale.

Illegal Immigrants are criminals, and should be treated as such.

Gas Taxes

Something to think about, the Federal Government charges an 18.4 cent per gallon tax on gasoline, and a 24.4 cent per gallon tax on diesel. State taxes averaged 21.5 cents per gallon NOT including sales tax. 11 states charged additional sales tax (link). The average U.S. gas price as of May 19th 2008 is $3.791, and they have gone up in the last few days, and probably will keep going with the holiday weekend (link). Working with the number of $3.791, with a moratorium or repeal of taxes on gasoline, the price would be down to about $3.391 for a national average. This would be a huge boost to the economy, since it would cause prices across the board to fall slightly, and therefore drive up demand. Everything that is sold in the United States uses some gasoline at some point in its' production, transportation, and inputs; which also require gasoline. Lowering prices of gas by forty cents would lower production costs of food, shipping costs for all goods, costs for services, and government costs. This subject is also discussed here. Illinois adds a 6.25% sales tax to a 19 cent per gallon flat tax, which using the numbers you just saw, puts it right at an average 3.792. Some states have a higher flat tax, and others charge more sales tax. Cut the taxes, and boost the economy. Even if income taxes needed to be increased to make up the revenue, the psychological effect of lower prices will make it worthwhile.

The Activist Judges Ignore the People Again, Part 2

These guys just don't get it! This time it is in Virginia, where a panel of judges from the federal appellate court wrote a 31-page document to try to justify the fact that the law they declared unconstitutional was nearly identical to a federal law the Supreme Court upheld. The law in question was not even attempting to overturn the precedent set by the Roe vs. Wade case. which any law could legally do, but rather was a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortion. Almost everyone can agree that late term abortions are inhumane, because with today's medical technology, almost any child in the third trimester has a chance to live. This case is just another example of the few trying to subvert the will of the many. Part 1 Story

An Opportunity?

Ted Kennedy has cancer. As much as I dislike the man's policies, It is horrible for any human to be given that diagnosis. I am not celebrating the fact that he has a brain tumor, but it does open an opportunity for the conservatives in Massachusetts. In all likelihood, unless his chemotherapy goes remarkably well, his senate seat will be vacated within a couple terms as he decides to concentrate on other things, or God forbid, if he were to pass on. This is a chance that has not been nearly as available with the popular incumbent. Hopefully, someone can find some good in this very human tragedy and a conservative can win Kennedy's seat. The one thing I fear is that Kennedy will retire but essentially name his successor, and the people of Mass. will unquestioningly follow. Of course, if we had term limits, he would have been out of the senate a long time ago.

edit "some good can come out of the very human" has been changed to "someone can find some good in this very human" because I think it better conveys my meaning.

Oil, Gas, and the Supply Side of Things.

Easiest way possible to lower gas prices is sitting on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, under some caribou in Alaska, and sprawling across Texas and Oklahoma.

Thats right, we drill our own damn oil!

The most basic tenets of market economies are the Laws of Supply and Demand. Therein you can find the following principle: As supply increases, price decreases as the market tends toward equilibrium. Restated, this means that if we increase the amount of oil in production, gas prices will tend downward. This is without the 1970's style lines at the pumps and violence over severely rationed gas. This self-same idea is behind GWB's requests that the Saudis raise production, or risk facing a partial embargo (military goods)as a sanction. More OPEC production would drive down the prices, but we would still be dependant on a foriegn nation, and anytime they wanted, they could cut production and raise prices back up. In order to ensure independence we need to increase drilling on US soil. There are massive amounts of oil in Alaska, including but not limited to, the wildlife refuge. The Chinese are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no reason we could not drill alot more there. There is even oil under US territorial waters. Scarcity of oil is the reason why prices are so high, so by increasing it's commonality we can drive prices down. In America, gas prices are highly inelastic, because a massive number of people live in rural areas, and even our metro areas are often so spread out that public transportation and bicycles are often literally impossible to use as alternatives. If you can use them, great and more power to you. I live 7 miles from the nearest town, there is no other option than to drive. The other issue with high gas prices is that it drives the prices of everything else up. No matter what, every good you purchase, and many services rely on fuel. Shipping, fertilizers, farm equipment, and even public transportation require
fuels.

A good explaination of basic economic theory can be found here.

The Activist Judges Ignore the People Again

The activist judges in California don’t care what their people think. In the manner typical of the left, the voice of the people was ignored (i.e. a matter passed by direct vote) in a 4-3 split decision by the State Supreme Court. The people of CA decided to ban homosexual marriage. The supreme court decided the people don’t matter. Activist judges are incredibly annoying, they are the liberal way of circumnavigating the sea of popular opinion and ending up in the puddle of pseudo-intellectualism. I don’t care what your views on the issue of “gay marriage” are, The will of the people, not the will of 4 judges is what should be enforced. Every time a “landmark” court case like this occurs, I am incredibly saddened, because we all just gave up our voices. The Roberts court seems to have promise, but we have a long way to go for them to just be doing their job- interpreting, not writing laws.

Freudian slip?

Barack Huissen Obama stated the other day that during his tour, he has visited 57 states. Unless he's planning on annexing part of Canada and/or Mexico, we have 50 states. Obama's representatives have been saying that he made the mistake because he was tired. That's a possibility.

However, there is another possibility.

This could be a Freudian slip... There are 57 Islamic states...

Coincidence?

Nancy and Harry

Pelosi and Reid are the respective leaders of their branches of congress. As such they have considerable authority and clout to affect the prices of gas if they wanted. Why don't they? Is it like Bill Cunningham claimed, that they are doing nothing in hopes of sabotaging a republican presidential run? Those two need to take the lead on getting energy prices down.

Code Pink Proves Why People Think They Are a Joke

Code pink is bringing out their witches. Yep, witches. I thought this was a joke at first. For their Mother's day rally, they are having a "Witches, Crones, and Sirens day. The idea is that they are going to cast spells to impart wisdom to end the war. I don't know who at the recruiting centers (their favorite place to stake out) has the power to end the war. I thought the guys with that power were in caves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on a ranch in Crawford TX. Seriously, individual troops can't end it, only the leaders of the participants can. This is really just Code Pink's latest little cry for attention, since nobody cares about their rallies in the media. Berekley's College Republican Chapter has been counter-protesting Code Pink, and the Berkley CR Activism Chair said "We try not to do anything embarrassing." She added, "We're just going to stick with our regular thing because we have lives and they don't." The best part of this is the quote from the Marine Recruiter:

"Ironically, it's actually helped us by putting our name out. We're now well known. And people know who we are, and where we are, and they come in to talk to us about enlisting. They've gotten us the publicity that we could've never afforded to pay for ourselves," Wheatcroft told FOXNews.com.

"Just in the last three weeks, 10 people came in looking to apply, looking to become Marine officers, and that's much higher than normal," he said.

God Bless America, and the Troops

Link

Say yes to tax cuts on gas.

Ok, Its been awhile, Moving home and all that took up some time, and my internet access is limited now.


I read an article today about how Illinois has a proposal for a gas tax moratorium before the General Assembly. This sounds great to me, and it's only about 5% and only for 3 months, so it is not drastic, but a few cents add up. The thing is, the moratorium faces strong opposition from people who don't think that it will work, and people who think it will just drive up prices and oil company profits because more people driving more of cheaper gas. Here is why they are incorrect: most of Illinois is rural, so people will drive the same amount because they cannot go without it. Even more than a consumer benefit though, corporations and especially small business will benefit because they have to pay less for shipping, to obtain raw materials, and for some, the high fuel prices directly affect them, such as truckers, movers, and anyone who needs to be mobile. Retail needs people to come and buy their merchandise, which is more likely with cheaper gas also. Even a few cents per gallon of savings goes a long way when multiplied by a fleet of trucks. Another benefit is to make vacations more affordable, which is great for some economies dependent on tourism. Plus, in a capitalist system based on profit, the goal of the oil company is to make a profit. The current Governor and GA have already proven that they don't understand the economy, so I doubt they will pass this, they can't even balance the budget.

This girl just drives me nuts.


Update: some discussion of this issue can be found on Female Impersonators

Why Corperate Taxes Aren't Bad

Lets take a hypothetical corporation who is producing widgets. Their widgets cost about $1.00 apiece. The raw materials cost about 50¢ per widget. Labor costs about 30¢ per unit, and other overhead costs 15¢ per unit. This leaves a profit of 5¢ per unit.

Now say that their government has decided to put a 10% tax on all products. The corporation has a choice. They can absorb the 10% tax fully, and make -5¢ profit, absorb part of it, or pass it all on to the consumer. This mostly is based on the concept of price elasticity, that is, how high a company can charge before people stop buying the product.

If the company raises prices, anyone who depends on widgets to make other products have to pay more for raw materials, and pay the tax, so their prices go up. As prices go up, individuals have to pay more, and as profits go down, companies look for ways to cut costs, which ends up being in either jobs or salaries.

If the Widget Corp. was to absorb the tax their workers would suffer from the cost cutting which would have to happen in order for the company to stay in business.

If the consumers are making less and paying more, the end result is that they have to buy less items. This in turn means less sales, and companies have to cut more jobs.

So the next time you complain about how much the "big bad" companies make, and that they need to be taxed more to pay for a nonexistent "free lunch" which everyone wants, remember that lower taxes equates to more investment, higher wages, and more sales, which in the end benefits the whole economy since it creates job growth and opportunity for new businesses.

A little Explaination.

Ok, so apparently popular opinion is that I hate feminists, women, African-Americans, homo-sexuals, Mexican-Americans, liberals, foriegners, socialists, communists, minorities, and the 9th circuit court of appeals.

I don't hate any of them. I disagree with many of the listed "-ists." That goes with out saying. Hate is a very strong word, and should not be focused on ANY group. Ever.
Lets address minorities (which should technically be called pluralities soon at this rate.) I have nothing against them as people. A few elements of their cultures may annoy me, or even upset me, but i still support their right to be here (legally) and to express themselves. I am against any of them getting special privileges. I am also against illegal immigration, for a very simple reason. Its illegal, doofus. You wouldn't let someone get away with rape, murder, theft, assault, etc. so should they get be rewarded for breaking this law? That said, the immigration system needs reworking, but that is a different post.

Now socialists and communists, those folks believe in an anarchism of an overly simple, disproven theory. Well, technically socialism is still around and in use, but there is a reason why Europe is moving to the right. Chavez has impoverished Venezuela. Communism failed, epically. The soviets could not make it work, nor could most of Eastern Europe. China is trying to achieve some weird hybrid of capitalism and communism which is destined to fail due to their opposing natures. The bottom line here is that I firmly believe in the merit of free markets.


Feminists, You got picked on lately because you have been visibly annoying. This was actually supposed to be a general post, but the example was reflecting feminists. The next one, I happened to come across, and even with the age, I found some good stuff in there. If you really want to know why you are so easy to pick on though, this guy has a good explanation written. My biggest complaint is the fact that it is a way of trying to secure special privileges. That and the horrible economics behind it. Oh, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau figures, of every 100 women in America, there are only 97 men. In other words, men make up about 49.2% of the population. Women are not a minority in any way, shape, or form.

Above all, liberals make me mad because they have no common sense.

Keep in mind, as much as I dislike what you say, I will always support your right to say it, within reason (obsecenity, for example, is an exception.) I promise, I won't hate you for it either.

Whiners

Two Posts today, but its worth it, and the folks over at Female Impersonators are going to hate me for this one even more than the last one.

I found this site on the internet which has a reasonable well-written, scholarly refutation of the feminist movement. It is from Australia, and is a bit dry, but it makes many good points, a few of which I will quote, but I recommend you read the entire article. Feminism, in it's original context, was great. Feminism as it is now, is just a bunch of leftist agitation hiding behind supporting women. Is it no doubt that feminism is usually linked to socialism, which is the hallmark of the greedy, me-first mentality in America today?

Ok, this here is the link to the article, y'all.

A few select of my favorite quotes:

"One of the consequences of feminist antipathy to marriage has been the advent of the permissive society: alternative lifestyles and no-fault divorce laws. Far from enhancing the status of women, a major consequence of no-fault divorce has been the feminisation of poverty: economic analysis indicates that after divorce, the standard of living of fathers and husbands remains the same or improves, while wives and children slip below the poverty line."

"The abortion issue illustrates feminist Fraud No. 2. All the scientific evidence, especially since in vitro fertilisation techniques were developed, indicate that a new human life begins at fertilisation and not at birth. Yet feminists want to be able to dispose of this new life with no more regulation than covers the cutting of toenails. At the same time they claim that to avoid the trauma of abortion, contraceptives should be made freely available, especially to adolescents. But if abortion is of no more consequence than the cutting of toenails, if it is nothing more than the disposal of an unwanted piece of tissue, why is it so traumatic for so many women? After all, one cuts one’s toenails every week — is an abortion different and if so in what way?"

'Dr Moens claims that affirmative action programs which involve the setting of targets is a smokescreen behind which preferential hiring takes place, thus shifting the burden of discrimination to a new group:

"The practice ends up by creating new classes of victims by lifting the burden from past group discrimination (women and minorities) to a new group — white Anglo-Saxon males."'

"Consequently, there is a natural alliance of feminism with Marxism and the "peace" movement which is instinctively sympathetic to the latest party line emerging from Moscow, Hanoi or Managua."

Hello, Real World?

So, the other day, my girlfriend, my friend, and myself went to a little local restaurant. This menu entry started a conversation about how some people are so quick to claim injury and insult from every little thing. Folks, you know the lesson we need to learn as a society is? Grow a skin! Toughen up! Everyone is NOT out to get you. Don't take everything personal, and learn to pick your battles.

Also, this is cute for you feminists too... Alt+11 my keypad0 is this: ♂. Alt+12 is this:♀. Is that somehow asserting men are superior or something? Having one number-code higher doesn't make me feel special or anything, so why would it make anyone feel insulted?

Flippin' the Bird?

Did Barack Obama flash Hillary Clinton the one fingered salute? Look at the video, right at 21 seconds. I think he might have. I'm still really not sure, but the reaction seems to be sure of it. I just love how those two are doing all the dirty work for us now, and destroying each other. Come fall, McCain will be so far ahead in credibility.

Art isn't Nice! Art does have to have value to society though!

Woo, final papers are all coming due and I have no time.

The Yale abortion art thing is disgusting. I hope to God she is lying and the school never signed off on it, but I would not be surprised if at least one prof approved the idea. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, click here.
Honestly, I will argue a strongly pro-baby stance with you all day long, but for those on the dead-baby side, this has to be a setback. It just shows how quickly the jump can go from "mother's life" to "on demand" to "contraception" to finally just being a sick form of "art."
Ladies, I love you, but as a guy something about "that time of the month" is just unappetizing to me. I know its a natural thing, I won't like you less as a person for it or anything like that, but i would prefer to be kept as in the dark about it as possible.
This is not art. Art is a thing of beauty and workmanship which cannot be easily replicated. Art has to have value to society, be it painting, photography, music, theater, sculpture, or anything else. Putting "blood" in a box and making a video of your period is not art, it might maybe be science, but it is not art. Is it provocative, yes, but it has no worth to society. Somebody should ask a couple who have suffered a miscarriage what they think of this, I wish I knew somebody around here I was comfortable asking.
Hoax or real, her project is profoundly disgusting. If a monkey throws it's poo at a wall long enough, somebody will call it art. This is a conversation that could and should have been started in a much better way. If this is a hoax, she would have been better off claiming it was a representation, and if it is real, I consider her a murderer.

Edit: To clarify, I am NOT saying that a womans body is not beautiful, I am saying that a box of blood is not. People should never be considered art, that is dehumanizing.

Freedom of the Press. Back Off.

Dutch Filmmaker Geert Wilders made a film called Fitna which portrays Islamic terrorism. Since then various nations and groups have stated their disagreement in various ways. Leaders in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the foreign ministers of 27 EU members are among the people who have made statements against this movie. "The Pakistani Foreign Ministry summoned the Dutch ambassador to deliver an official complaint against what it called a "defamatory film which deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world." (source) Now Indonesia is blocking Youtube, GoogleVideo, MyspaceTV, and other video sites in an effort suppress this film. Rather than confronting Wilder's criticism, the Muslim leaders are blocking him from being heard. Obviously, If they felt the need to block the film, they were afraid of what would happen if people watched it. Who says the government is the authority to tell an individual what they can or cannot watch. Theo Van Gogh was assassinated for his anti-islam film Submission. Anyone who really believes in freedom of speech and press should be rallying behind Wilders. Both these films are blocked by Youtube unless you sign in as a member, certifying that you are 18 years of age or older. Why should adults be blocked from information? It may be insulting to Islam, it may even be untrue, but let the people decide for themselves. Blocking video websites is not the answer.

See the movie here if you have not seen it yet

Story
Story
Story
Story

Hillary voted for the war

From a fox election article: “I still don’t really like the fact that Hillary voted for the war,” she said.

Does she not realize that Obama was not even in national politics at the start of the war.

Here are the senators who voted against entering Iraq... Daniel Akaka (D-HI Jeff Bingaman (D-NM;) Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Robert Byrd (D-WV); Lincoln Chafee (R-RI); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Jon Corzine (D-NJ;) Mark Dayton (D-MN); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Bob Graham (D-FL); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Jim Jeffords (I-VT); Ted Kennedy (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Carl Levin (D-MI); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD; Patty Murray (D-WA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR)


Ironically, Hillary didn't stand with her most liberal partymates and one aisle-crosser.

Edwards voted for it too, but that doesn't stop him and Obama from being buddy-buddy. nor does it stop him from blasting Hillary too. (Link)


All the democratic candidates (both now) have voted for plenty of stupid bills. This one was actually important, and the one who couldn't vote on it should not get a free pass since no-one knows what he would have done.

Somebody, Anybody tell me what good Obama has done for this nation, or even for his state during his time in the Senate.

County Politics

I don't really have the time for a long post, but just let me tell you, if you ever get the chance, get involved in county level politics. It is not a huge commitment. The College Republicans were helping out at the county Linoln-Reagan day dinner tonight, and it was awesome. Alot of local movers and shakers were there. U.S. representative Ray LaHood was the keynote speaker, and Dr. Steve Sauerberg also spoke. (Dr. Sauerberg is running against incumbent Senator Dick Durbin) State Representative Aaron Schock (running to fill LaHood's seat, Lahood is retiring) was supposed to be there, but unfortunately could not. State Representative Dan Rutherford also was in attendance. County level officials such as the sheriff, county clerk, treasure, and others each had a table. It was a very nice event.

The grassroots level is the best place to get involved in U.S. politics, IMHO. This is especially true if you don't want to make a career out of it. It is some pretty cool stuff.

Ms. Clinton's Common Sense

Hillary Clinton's new 3 AM add is absurd! The first one, about a foreign policy crises was plausible, unlikely, but possible. This newest add is dumb! The U.S. markets are all closed at 3 am. Any person with common sense can say... if its closed, there wont be a crisis.


“Home foreclosures mounting, markets teetering … Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs. It’s 3 a.m., time for a president who’s ready.” (Fox)


There is no way in a month of Sundays that the president is going to get a call at 3 am about foreclosure! The economy cannot be regulated by the president anyway.

I'm happy to see McCain mocking this ad.

Then again Hillar-ity has no common sense, she proved that by claiming ignorance about her whoremongering husband.

Sorry Teach, But Not All Christians Rape and Murder.

Story from CA, a school district is being sued for anti-Christian remarks made by a European History teacher. The teacher reportedly told students "What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” These remarks were recorded on tape by an understandably upset student. Why did a European history teacher need to make these remarks? If he had said "Christianity has a history that includes rape and murder, as in the Crusades." I would not have a problem. Is it embarrassing, yes, but it is also true. The fact these remarks were uneeded shows his bias and goals. People would have been up-in-arms if he had said... "Which world region has the most oppression of women? The Middle East! Which region is responsible for most the most terrorist acts? The Middle East! Which region has the most Muslims? The Middle East!" I see no reason why they should not be upset by the same sort of insulting generalizations about Christianity. Personally I do not feel like this is a proper interpretation of the 1st amendment, but because the 1st amendment has been used to make our schools completely non-religious, the precedent is that this teacher was in the wrong. If the courts find on the side of the school, it will be glaringly unfair in our society where the only reason an atheist lost his suit to remove the pledge of allegiance due to the reference to God was a technicality.

Should Guns be Made Illegal?

I was looking around xanga today, and I came across the question of the day: "Should guns be made illegal? Why or why not?"

Hmm... let's ponder this question for a minute... better yet, let's start by rephrasing it: "Should your constitutional rights be stripped away from you in the name of supposed public safety?" Now we can properly answer it - NO.

People argue that guns cause more problems than they end.

"School shootings occur because people have access to guns." Common recent examples of this claim include the VT shootings and the NIU Valentine's Day Shootings.  If you stop and think about it... if students on both campuses had been legally armed, the tragedies would likely have been stopped sooner.  Considering the size of the classroom involved in the NIU shooting, at least 10 students would have a gun in that room.  Now let's run thru the shooting - crazy gunman walks in with a visible intent to shoot.  If one of those 10 or more students pulled out their gun, it is likely that NIU would not have had as many casualties as it did. Same with VT.  If students in the classrooms had been armed, they could have stopped the shooter.

"Kids accidentally kill themselves while playing with their parents guns."  Here's a thought - lock your gun up.  Keep out of reach of children isn't just a suggestion for perscription drugs and household cleaners.  If you're worried your children will get curious about the gun, do what my grandpa did - take the kid out and let them shoot the gun in a controlled situation in which they cannot hurt anyone so they won't get struck by curiosity later and go play with guns when you aren't home.

"Shooting sprees happen because crazy people get guns. By not allowing anyone to have a gun, this prevents them from falling into the wrong hands." They have forms that people must fill out in order to get a gun. They have to pass certain tests. They have to wait a certain number of days before they are actually able to get the gun. Limitations are already placed on our Second Amendment rights... you cannot take away the right completely.

Here's something people don't always consider - if America were to make guns completely illegal, there would be an uprising of organized crime. The rusult would be similar to what happened during prohibition - mob bosses and others becoming organized with a sole goal - to make liquor (only in this case guns) available to those who wanted it and were willing to play with it.  By making guns illegal, people similar to those in the days of Prohibition will rise up and create an even more dangerous society. Consider this - guns are illegal, that means police cannot have guns. If the police cannot have guns, and criminals get ahold of guns via the black market, the criminals are unstoppable. Pepper spray is not going to beat a gun. That's like putting up scissors and trying to convince everyone that they can defeat rock.

Taking away the constitutional rights of Americans gives the government even more power - something that is dangerous in and of itself. But taking away the constitutional right of the American people to bear arms... that is even more dangerous.

Time For A Little Economics Lesson, People.

As I was reading this post on Female Impersonators, I felt the need to express my feelings on this general issue.


Businesses exist for a single purpose above all others-- to create profit. How do you create profit? Selling a good or service that people want. If no market exists for a product, anyone producing said product has 3 choices. 1. Keep producing said product and take a loss. This may work if your product is seasonal, or experiencing a temporary decline. 2. Shut down your business, either temporarily or permanently. a temporary production stoppage is an excellent way of ridding yourself of surplus supply. 3. Produce a product that people will buy.

Take the gender-specific Easter egg example. Plastic easter eggs are all about the same, so in order for a company to try and make the most profit, they need to make their eggs stand out to potential customers. This particular company printed purses and lipstick on their eggs in order to attempt to reach a specific consumer. That consumer has a choice as to which product they buy. If they like the print on the egg, the company gets a sale. If they do not, the company has less profit.

Obviously, there is a market for these eggs. The company is not indoctrinating society, society is mandating the market for the product.

This printing is necessary for the profit margin. America is built on capitalism.

Also, despite the fact that the minority may be growing, the people who do not fit traditional gender norms are such a small minority that there is no real profit to be made by targeting them with products.

A commenter on Amelia's post named Micheal made an excellent point, "It's substantially more cost-effective to market to two groups-- Masculine and Feminine-- than it would be to market to the whole spectrum of sexual orientations and identities. I personally hypothesize that, even if we did have a society that fully recognized and supported the whole spectrum of gender and sexual identities, people would feel marginalized, simply because it's simpler and more cost-effective to quantify gender and sex."

From an economic point of view, the gender-oriented products make perfect sense, profit is not made by catering to every small minority, but to the largest possible market.

Let Them Do Their Jobs

A couple more great stories on FOXNEWS. I'm sure we will see another round of calls for more of these ill-conceived non-chase laws.

Jeep Jumper

Washington Chase

As a society we have a choice- Laws or Anarchy. Obviously laws are the correct choice. The police are the enforcers of the law. Either we let them do their jobs, or the laws are pointless and anarchy reigns anyway. By saying "if you drive medium fast and obey the flashing light, and get a ticket" or drive really fast and not get chased" what kind of options are we offering? These laws have never made sense to me. People sometimes need authority. The police need to be allowed to do their job in the best way they can. Teachers need to be able to control their classrooms without fear of lawsuits. Obviously I am not advocating corporal punishment or police brutality, but in our law-suit happy society things have gotten ridiculous. Teachers should not be sued for waking students. People need to quit claiming injury over ever little thing in society.... The world is tough, get used to it. Darwinists,you should know this. Instead it seems the same people who want less lawsuits are the same conservatives that typically support the teaching of either additionally or solely creationism. Wouldn't the people who believe that only the best/brightest should pass on their genes use that same logic on humans?

The Double Standard of Abortion vs. Murder

Somebody explain to me, how are all of these men (examples... Case 1; Case 2; Case 3; Case 4; Case 5) being prosecuted for the murders of these unborn babies, but under Roe vs. Wade and ensuing laws "In 2005 (the most recent year for which there is reliable data), approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S."(according to abort73.com) Obviously this is a double standard. I think that all murders should be treated as such, How about you?

I'm Sick of Politics and Pop Culture

Am I the only one? Every time I turn the news on, It seems like some new popstar has endorsed a candidate or something. If you are so ill-informed as to seriously vote for a person because some actor or musician told you to, do me a favor and don't vote. Why are people so obsessed with this stuff? Hillary or Barack or McCain are 6th cousins to some celebrity who I don't care about? Find some news that is relevant to report, please! Along with that, these celebrities are among the worst America-haters. They should go live somewhere else and then come back and tell us how bad the country is. I agree, not everything this nation does is good, or right, but I also think that this is the greatest country on earth to live in. There are so many rights and freedoms that we still have. I can think for myself, I do not need pop culture to do it for me.