What a Jerk!

This is just disgusting and is another example of the media not doing their job.

The gift that keeps on giving

Oh, Joe. You just can't seem keep that foot out of your mouth. And we all thought Bush was bad.

There have been some real choice moments as of late, like when Biden proclaimed that Hillary would be a better VP:

Or, my personal favorite, asking the audience at a rally to "Stand up for Chuck!" when referring to wheelchair bound Senator Chuck Graham:



Or the latest, Biden bungling an interview with Katie Couric, showing his lack of knowledge of US history:



Or when Biden was recently condemning China's use of coal power, when Obama supports the use of clean coal in the US:



However, this Obama/Biden Gaffe Machine video is pretty funny. It does contain some painfully awkward moments, though. So watcher, beware:



The best part is that there are several other gaffes that I haven't posted. How about when Biden castigated the Obama/Biden campaign for an ad deriding McCain for not using a computer because of injuries?

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the “CBS Evening News,” Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

“I thought that was terrible, by the way,” Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: “I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we’d have never done it.”

Or when he declared, on ABC's Good Morning America, that paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do:

"It's time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut..."

Or what about when Biden claimed his helicopter was "forced down" in mountains crawling with al-Qaeda? Even though his helicopter landed because of weather. That’s not what he told a National Guard audience in Maryland. From Jake Tapper:

Biden said he would ask Palin about “The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down…John McCain wants to know where Bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That’s where Al Qaeda is. That’s where Bin Laden is. It’s not in the country of Iraq.”

Never stop, Joe. Just keep doin' what you do and we'll keep laughing.

Lions and Tigers and Polar Bears. Oh my!

Ok, maybe no lions and tigers, but definitely polar bears.

An article on CNN laments how the shrinking of Arctic ice is starving polar bears and causing them to turn to cannibalism. Oh, woe is me! Damn that global warming! It's Bush's fault! It's Palin's fault! It's time to panic!

Oh...wait.

Polar bears are a naturally aggressive species. Oftentimes, the adult males will eat their young and the smaller females for survival and to eliminate competition. They exhibit these same behaviors when there is an abundance of ice. Nature is not always pretty, my green friends. Deal with it.

An article called "Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)" notes the natural behaviors of polar bears:

Cannibalism in polar bears appears to occur as carrion feeding and as attacks by males on small cubs or incapacitated individuals. Direct observations indicate that intraspecific killing and cannibalism occur among polar bears throughout the Arctic. The high incidence of Trichinella infection and circumpolar observations of cannibalism suggest that polar bears will readily eat other polar bears when they can do so without excessive risk of injury. Speculations that intraspecific aggression and cannibalism may be an important social and ecological force are consistent with existing information on polar bear biology.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do a little more research and at least mention that this does occur normally.

Not to mention, the earth has been warmer in the past than it current is, and somehow our polar bear buddies managed to survive.

So, phew! We can all calm down. The world is not ending tomorrow.

C'mon, really PETA?

PETA is constantly one-upping themselves with new levels of crazy. But they've really been on a roll lately.

According to an NBC article they plan to purchase the San Diego Sea World. Why, you might ask?

To free all the animals, or course, replacing them with virtual reality and animatronic displays. Fabulous idea. I'm sure that will work out brilliantly. I'm not sure what a Sea World ticket costs these days, but I am sure that people are not going to pay that price to see holograms and Chuck E Cheese style animals.

And for the record, it would only cost about $110 million to buy the park.

However, their newest, shiniest idea has to be their latest demands on Ben & Jerry's, urging them to replace the cow's milk in their ice cream with human breast milk. Really? I mean....REALLY!?

I have three things to say about this:

1. Gross

2. Gross

3. Since pumping human breast milk is a labor-intensive, long and slow process, how does this make ANY economic sense. How could Ben & Jerry's afford to pay all those milk-pumping women?

Their letter to Ben & Jerry's discusses their "innovative" idea.

Ben & Jerry's response to this plea was, "We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child." In other words, "You've got to be kidding me, you tree-hungging, dolphin-saving, tofu-eating phychos".

In conclusion, I know I can rest easy knowing that PETA is there to save the animals and...the world.

The Tax Discrepancy

In a recent poll conducted by IBD/TIPP, some disturbing evidence was uncovered about how much people think the "rich" are paying in taxes.

As it turns out, the top 1% (people making over $364,657) pay 40% of taxes, while only earning 15% of the nation's income. Now, that doesn't seem very fair. However, 60% of people believe that income bracket pays 1% or less in the nation's taxes. Also, people feel that the "rich" should pay up to 26% in taxes, while Obama want to raise this to 39%. It seems there is a discrepancy in the common knowledge.



The poll continues with top 5% (earning $145,000) pay 60% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of taxes and the top 25% ($60,000 and up) pay 85% of taxes. More than a third of people believe that the rich pay less that 20%. Why don't people know this? Why isn't this all over the news? Instead, that misleading racial poll is being blasted into every home in America.

As a nation, we are focusing on the wrong things, as usual. Both sides are guilty of this. Let's stick the issues and get the facts out there. For example, so many Obama supporters believe that his proposed tax hikes will not affect them. But with everyone fretting over the state of the economy, now is THE WORST possible time to raise taxes...on anyone.

But, maybe an Obama presidency will be a good thing. Maybe he'll run the country into the ground so badly that people will be clamoring for Palin for President in 2012.

Another interesting article on Investor's Business Daily.

New Race Poll

These new poll results that are getting so much press attention asks whites about their views of black people.

I'm sure by now, most have heard that 52% of whites feel that blacks are aggressive. 49% feel that they are boastful, 41% think blacks are complaining, 34% feel they are lazy and 21% believe they're irresponsible. This has lead many to believe that if Obama loses, it will be because of this seemingly overwhelming white racism.

However, what you don't hear on the mainstream media outlets is that blacks were polled as well. How did they react to the same questions?

59% of blacks feel that blacks can be classified as aggressive, 57% feel they are boastful, 51% feel they are complaining, 39% feel they are lazy and a whopping 40% feel they are irresponsible. Blacks feel much more negatively about their race than do whites.

And although blacks feel all these things about their race, does that mean they think Obama reflects any of these qualities? No, of course not. Neither do the vast majority of whites. Even though blacks feel these negative stereotypes apply to their own race, 96% of blacks intend to vote for Obama. What does this say about the poll?

That it means nothing.

While I'm sure there will be those whites who do not vote for Obama because he is black, there will probably be more whites who will vote for him because he is black. If Obama loses, it will not be because of racism, it will be because of his lack of experience and far leftist views.

Isn't is about time that we move past these pathetic allegations of racism?

Bush's Resignation Speech

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.

This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.

If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.

I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:

There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world.

Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours.

And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office.

Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.

That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can.

But they are.. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.

Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter.

Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out,

even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below ow sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again.

Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Why don't people see how radical this would be?

Obama/Biden-#1/#3 most liberal voting record in the senate + Democrat controlled house and senate = Scary

So much for checks and balances.

Word Salad

This post won't really have anything to do with Obama's constant word salad-ing. I just really like that phrase.

Actually, I wanted to discuss the idea of race-based preferences and how they hurt the very people they're supposed to help. There has been a lot of research lately on what actually happens to the students who are admitted with lower credentials. A minority student is much more likely to graduate on time and with better grades, if they attend less competitive school. Many who attend more competitive schools because colleges or high schools want to appear more diverse, are setting themselves up for failure. Now, OBVIOUSLY, there are many minority students who are very deserving of a spot in the most competitive of colleges, etc, just like there are many non-minority students who could never cut it in a competitive school. So, why force it? Isn't it better for any student to graduate, rather than drop out. With a high school or college diploma from any school, a person is much more likely to find a job and being a to support a family than if they fail or drop out.

Check out Professor Richard Sander's research regarding the perfermance of students in law school:

Not surprisingly, such a gap leads to problems. Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students tend to perform poorly.

The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial.

Supporters of race-based admissions argue that, despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school. But Mr. Sander's research suggests that just the opposite may be true--that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.

Specifically, Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. Similarly, when black and white students with similar grades from the same tier law school take the bar examination, they pass at about the same rate.

This is a quote from Gail Heriot, The Wall Street Journal

I just don't understand how this helps.

Lipstick on a Pig Policies

Interesting, Barack (The One) Obama using the lipstick on a pig rhetoric, supposedly to refer to failed policies that McCain is trying to pass off as something different. Well, Mr. Obama, do you really want to go there? Let's think about some Obama policies that have failed in the past, shall we?

How about health care?
Obama wants nationalized health care. Liberal Americans love to use Canada's nationalized health care system as a model for what they think we should have in the US. Well, if Canada's system is so wonderful, why are they shifting to a privatized system? Their system has failed. Time and time again, we have seen that government programs do not work. For example, has there been any correlation between the exorbitant amount of money thrown at the public school system and the education level of its students? No.

How about raising taxes?
It has been proven, over and over again that raising taxes on businesses causes businesses to raise prices, costing the consumer more. Who gets hurt the most with raised prices? The lower-income consumer. So much for protecting the little guy. Plus, it causes people to spend less, hurting the economy. It's not complicated, people.

How about "understanding" and "talking with" our enemies?
Sounds a lot like Jimmy Carter, who also ran on the mantra of "hope" and "change". Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today as Islamic Terrorism, mostly backed by the current Iranian regime is largely a result a the failed Cater foreign policy. had he been tougher in the 1979 revolution and hte US embassy hostage crisis, things would be different today.

Obama loves to use Kennedy as his model for foreign policy. Kennedy, in 1961, sat down with the soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, without any preconditions. After the meeting, Krushchev sized him up as naive, inexperienced, and a lightweight. He then built the Berlin wall, put missiles in Cuba and put the country at the brink of thermo-nuclear war. Kennedy, afterward, said it was a mistake, he shouldn't have done it and that Krushchev ran all over him. Why would Obama use Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev as a model is confounding. Why is no one talking about this?

How about opposing the surge?
Pretty sure that it worked amazingly. Pretty sure Obama voted against it. Pretty sure that he is FINALLY coming out and sort of admitting that it worked brilliantly.

And on a final note, I would love to know what foreign policy experience Obama has that would make him more qualified than Palin. Nevermind the fact that one is running for President and one is running for VP. Oh, I forgot about his stirring speach in Germany. Doesn't that count? They sure do love him over there. And I'm sure that the Germans really have the American's best interest at heart.

Why I am Pro-Palin.

1. She has strong conservative ideals and fights for less government control. It seems to me that Republicans are becoming more and more moderate (aka McCain and a spend-happy Bush), so I am thrilled that someone who is articulate and popular might be able to reinvigorate the stagnant conservative ideals (LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL).

2. She energized the hell out of the conservative base, which was desperately needed.

3. I couldn't care less that I share a gender with her, but am thankful that she is a woman to take some ammo from the Dems when they say the Republicans don't have diversity in their party (which is a fallacy).

4. I definitely hope to hear more from her and find out what she's truly about. But, I am excited that at first blush, she seems intelligent, tough (but likeable) and conservative. I also like that while she seems to stand by her ideals, she is willing to listen to others and modify herself accordingly. For a small example, when she said "nucular" in her speech on the day she was announced, I almost died. But, she corrected that by the time her acceptance speech at the RNC rolled around, unlike Bush, who, stubbornly, to this day, says "nucular."

5. I disagree with some of her principles. I'm an atheist and lean toward pro-choice. I want religion out of schools and politics, for example. But, I still feel that she is SO much more in the right direction than the majority of other republican politicians. Even if McCain is not elected, I hope that this campaign allows her to be a real contender in politics in the future.

I'm sure plenty of dirt will continue to come out about her in the future, but I am confident the pros will vastly outweigh the cons after the dust settles.

It is so important Obama does not get elected, that McCain could have picked a toad to be his running mate, and I'd begrudgingly support the ticket. But, I'm glad he didn't. I'm glad he picked someone who's stealing the spotlight from Obama, creating buzz about the McCain ticket, is quick, packs a punch and finally seems to be on the right side of most issues that should be important to this country (whether they know it or not).

I can't understand how people do not see this and why they are fooled by Obama's "Change" BS. On the topic of change, how is it that Obama can claim his platform as change when everything he wants to do has been tried already and failed. For example, Obama's health care plan, which is packaged as "new" is completely modeled on the system implemented in Canada, which is failing. Why is it that Canada is returning to a privatized system? Because government-run health care DOES NOT WORK. Just like most other government-run programs DO NOT WORK.