Okay. I'll join in.

A Web site called EarthHour.org, apparently unconcerned about the carbon footprint of majuscules, urges global warmists to "VOTE EARTH BY SWITCHING OFF YOUR LIGHTS FOR ONE HOUR" starting at 8:30 p.m. tomorrow. We were tempted to make fun of this, as many people in the site's comment section have done, but then we remembered what President Obama said about cynics who fail to understand that the ground has shifted beneath them. So instead of being consumed by the stale political argument that this protest is silly, we're going to do something positive: organize a counterprotest.

Reader, if you are against global-warming hysteria, high taxes, socialized medicine and a weak foreign policy, Sunday is your day. Show how you feel about the issues by turning on your lights in the evening and leaving them on until you go to bed. If you go out for a drive after dark, make sure you turn your headlights on too.

Granted, the EarthHour people have a head start on us. They started planning this months ago, whereas we're giving you all of 48 hours notice. Yet we think the outlook is bright for this effort. Tell your friends, tell them to tell their friends, and so on, and we'll bet millions of people across the country will turn their lights on Sunday night.

If no one will listen to the silent majority, let's at least make sure they see us.

Mary Tyler Moore is on Dave Letterman's show. First, let me say that she looks great. It's hard to believe she is 72 years old. But get ready to grab the world's smallest violins.

She is renovating her house. "It's horrible," she says. She's been in a rental house for TWO YEARS while she waits for the remodeling. And it's horrible. Oh the humanity.

She is getting ready to move in, even though the two year long remodel isn't complete. Dave commiserates, "It takes years off your life!" Mary agrees, having done this "once before in a house in Malibu."

Now the real fun begins. Dave says, "It's always the contractor," and Mary replies, "Or the architect."

Holy crap, it's never the celebrities! I would love to hear the contractor and architect opine upon what it's like to work for Mary Tyler Moore and David Letterman. Never mind the absurdity that renovating their mansions somehow takes years off their precious celebrity lives.

Most comfortable bar stool ever

see more pwn and owned pictures

Motorcycle riders are an odd lot. One the one hand, you have your Harley Davidson “cruiser” type rider. He or she is likely to be wearing steel toe leather boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, and gloves. And on top of his head is just as likely to be a $30 novelty helmet that won’t provide protection for much more than a falling acorn.


On the other hand, you have your sport bike rider, who is just as likely to be wearing flip flops, short pants, a tank top shirt, and $300 full face helmet designed to protect a motorcycle racer laying his bike down at 150 mph.

For both sides, these helmets are about image, not protection.

Quick Hits

This is what passes for “democracy” in New York State:

Democrats who control the Legislature and the governor's office for the first time since the late 1930s plan to ram the budget through with virtually no debate or scrutiny using special "messages of necessity" issued by Paterson that will circumvent the legally required three-day waiting period designed to give lawmakers, and the public, time to review proposed new laws, several sources said.

From the same article, here’s a lovely example of honest public service:

"Paterson has told everyone he really wants the taxes, but he wants it to appear to the public that he's against them," a senior legislative official said.

"Then, next year, when he's running, he'll say we can afford to phase them out so he can claim that he's a tax cutter."

Also in New York, was this outrage, not over AIG bonuses, but hot dogs:

It's not what you would expect: a worker in a NYC eatery caught on tape fending off a group of Jewish patrons with an electric knife.

"I was petrified – stuff was going through my mind," a patron who didn't want his name used said. "I want to live. I don't want to get stabbed for a hot dog."

And this from a “60 Minutes” interview with Barack Obama:

“You're sitting here. And you're— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asked at one point.

“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft said.

Imagine the howling we would be treated to if a Republican had yucked his way through an interview about a faltering economy.

Liberal - Conservative Divorce Agreement

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood . You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N . . . but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and over sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely, John J. Wall Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Hat Tip: Matt Dee

I am sitting at my desk today with my iPod set to Shuffle play, and it is apparent how much our teen years form tastes that never go away. In the space of three hours, the following songs came up at random:

“It’s Too Late” by Carol King.
Though we really did try to make it . . .

“Killing Me Softly” by Roberta Flack.
Strumming my pain with his fingers . . .

“Killer Queen” by Queen.
Dynamite with a laser beam . . .

“How Sweet It Is” by James Taylor.
It’s like sugar sometimes . . .

“Jet Airliner” by the Steve Miller Band.
Don’t take me too far away . . .

“Incident On 57th Street” by Bruce Springsteen.
“Spanish Johnny you can leave me tonight but just don’t leave me alone . . .

“I’m Not Gonna Let It Bother Me Tonight” by Atlanta Rhythm Section.
“Tomorrow I might go as far as suicide . . .

“Holly Holy” by Neil Diamond.
Sing it out, sing it strong . . .

”Tequila Sunrise” by the Eagles.
Take another shot of courage . . .

I listened to all these songs just this morning, not 30 years ago. Sure, there was some newer stuff interspersed in there (mostly country and folk music), but that’s a heck of a heavy dose of the 70s for one morning. Kinda felt like watching one of those Time Life infomercials.

“But wait, order now and we’ll also send you this bonus CD!”

Cross posted on Ridgewood High School Class of 1977

Steve Chapment writing for Reason Magazine’s website:

You don't have to be part of the pro-life movement to have qualms about this kind of scientific inquiry. James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin biologist who pioneered the field, has said, "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." The president's new order suggests we shouldn't think too much.

In 2001, supporters of embryonic stem cell research called on Bush to allow experiments using "surplus" frozen embryos in fertility clinics, arguing that they would be disposed of anyway. But Obama didn't limit his new policy to these fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, he left open the possibility of funding studies using embryos created specifically so their cells can be harvested—which Congress has barred, but which some advocates would like to allow. The president took no position on whether scientists should be permitted to create embryos for the sole purpose of dismembering them for their stem cells.

He did, however, reject another option. "We will ensure," he said, "that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

Is that a scientific judgment? No, it's a philosophical one, reflecting Obama's moral values. Apparently, the folks in the white lab coats can't be relied on to answer all questions.

But this position is hard to square with his professed approach. On one hand, the president says his policy is "about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion." On the other, he will use coercion to keep them from doing reproductive cloning.

What this mandate means is simple: It may be permissible for scientists to create cloned embryos and kill them. It's not permissible to create cloned embryos and let them live. Their cells may be used for our benefit, but not for their own.

There lies the reality of embryonic stem cell research: It turns incipient human beings into commodities to be exploited for the sake of people who are safely past that defenseless stage of their lives.

It's a change that poses risks not just to days-old human embryos. The rest of us may one day reap important medical benefits from this research. But we may lose something even more vital.

And Mona Charen writing at National Review Online noticed the same disconnect:

In reversing his predecessor’s executive order regarding embryonic stem-cell research, the president outlined the choice as follows: “In recent years, when it comes to stem-cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent.” You see, there really is no moral quandary worth considering because “I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.” Everyone is for easing human suffering. So, would the president be in favor of easing human suffering if it required using the organs of, say, six-month-old fetuses? The problem is not that some people are against “sound science,” but rather that science cannot answer questions like “When is human life worthy of respect and protection?” Those are inherently political questions that can only be answered by the whole society.

A few sentences later, President Obama himself acknowledged that “sound science” is not the only consideration. He declared that “we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.” Come again? What if human cloning could get paraplegics to walk again or deliver diabetics from a lifetime of needles? What if the federal government’s refusal to fund such research caused “some of our best scientists [to] leave for other countries that will sponsor their work”? Apparently there are moral constraints on science and President Obama stands ready to impose them.

Obama's glibness seems to have everybody so mesmerized that few hear what he is actually saying, no matter how contradictory. Personally, I find the man to be a snake-oil salesman. I didn't always agree with George Bush (or even understand), but I always felt he believed what he was trying to say. With Barack Obama, I feel like I am listening to the president of a college fraternity explain that their latest kegger was a actually a charity event because they sent twenty bucks to Planned Parenthood when they woke up the next morning.

I found this quote on Neal Boortz's site and felt it worth reposting here:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

Dispatch from the Religion of Peace

You know, what with all the beheadings, bombings, rapes, and assorted other activities engaged in as part of the RoP, it becomes difficult to find new atrocities of note. Allah bless them, the RoP doesn't disappoint:

A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives [...]

The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

That's good. An elderly widow wants some bread, and some good souls bring it to her. And the government responds by lashing them all in the name of Islam! Lovely religion, that.

Commenter Rob recently upped the ante on this blog in terms of vulgarity, ad hominem nastiness, and class warfare. It seems Rob doesn't want a big house, so nobody should be permitted one:

After all, I don't need more "wealth" than I'd know what to do with; money building up in a bank account somewhere. I don't covet a huge McMansion, I don't need a fancy summer home, I don't need any of the materialistic bullshit that's shoved down our throats by the marketers of useless crap. That is not what life is about.

Well, I don't necessarily want all those things either. although a summer cottage would be nice. Regardless, it's not my place to deny such things to others. I am sure somebody, somewhere, would say my house is more than I need. I just hope it's not somebody of Rob's ilk, because they feel it's their place to deny that which they don't condone. Likewise, I am sure there is a nihilist out there that would say Rob's house, computer, and high speed internet is an affront to a poor person somewhere.

And as far as accumulating capital in real estate and bank accounts, would it be preferable that we save nothing and depend on the next generation to provide for our old age? How are we to support ourselves come the unproductive years if not for accumulated capital? I am saving and investing so I never need to depend on my daughter and her generation. I would argue that not saving and investing, while demanding ever-expanding social programs is the most selfish policy imaginable, because it requires others to finance your vision of society, whether they share your view or not. By contrast, my vision requires Rob to do nothing more than take care of his own life.

Again, my politics are distilled to this: Just leave me alone.

Hang on Folks

The economy is in turmoil, and the President is in the middle of an economic Katrina of incompetence:

President Obama's decision to raise taxes by allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset is having the predicted effect on the nation's financial markets: they are cratering.

The poisonous combination of massive spending, an ineffectual Treasury Secretary (anyone seen Geithner lately?), incremental bank nationalization and a proposal to raise taxes on capital gains, dividends and the highest wage earners is sending the market to levels not seen since 1997. The insanity of this policy is that the president's own budget projections are based on a recovery beginning next year, an inexplicable assumption given that the White House expects this to happen as it raises taxes on the very businesses that must create the job growth and income to bring about the end of a recession.