"Mile high club? Hmmmm. I wonder if that means... I must remember to ask Bill."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Why some ladies shouldn't drink...
"Mile high club? Hmmmm. I wonder if that means... I must remember to ask Bill."
George Carlin on voting
This video fits the season.
I first saw Carlin in Las Vegas around February 1977... Oh I had seen him on TV but I must admit that his language was still shocking...
I have always wondered why he uses the purple prose. He is a funny man and would be funny without it. Perhaps even more popular because his message would be heard by more people...
I first saw Carlin in Las Vegas around February 1977... Oh I had seen him on TV but I must admit that his language was still shocking...
I have always wondered why he uses the purple prose. He is a funny man and would be funny without it. Perhaps even more popular because his message would be heard by more people...
Leonard Pitts' column
The following is a column from Leonard Pitts. In case you don't know, he is black.
In the past I have found him interesting. Now I just see another journalist in the tank for Hussien. My comments are in italics.
Here's a link to the column.
Sure, I'll answer your question.
It rose from a recent column about the Democratic primary in West Virginia. The contest, you will recall, was a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, amid reports that two in 10 voters in that overwhelmingly white state said race was a deciding factor in their decisions. I called that atavistic, to which dozens of you responded: If two in 10 whites voting for Clinton is wrong, isn't the overwhelming support of blacks for Obama equally wrong?
It isn't quite the stumper some folks seem to think.
I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that I have no objection to people of any marginalized ethnicity, race, religion or gender voting in a bloc for some member of their group. That's how they become less marginalized, how they win a seat at the table. The Irish did it in New York, the Cubans did it in Miami, many women are doing it now.
His argument falls directly to “everybody is doing it," the excuse of children since the beginning of time. While it may be true, it doesn’t make it right. In fact, I am sure those “two in 10” white voters will claim the same.
Thing is, that's not what happened in West Virginia. Not unless you're going to tell me with a straight face that that vote reflected marginalized whites (an oxymoron if ever there was one) seeking a seat at the table. No, all the evidence, statistical and anecdotal, tells us those folks did not vote for Clinton because she is white; they voted against Obama because he is black. There's a difference.
His argument then, is that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist because they can not prove otherwise. Okay. We knew that was coming. Glad to get it out in the open.
So there is something rather specious in all this hand-wringing about black support for Obama. Moreover, it is based upon a fallacy. Namely, that black support for Obama was automatic. The inconvenient truth is, it was Clinton who started out with the black vote sewn up. Then two things happened: 1) Obama's win in Iowa demonstrated his viability and, 2) Clinton and her surrogates made a series of racially insensitive remarks.
I see no hand-wringing. All I see is the facts being pointed out. And no. Iowa was a caucus, not an election. Thousands of people had to work and couldn’t come. There was no secret ballot. In short, it was an open invitation to let Hussein’s activists steam role the results. And again. Pitts wants to say pointing out the 90-95% support of Hussein is racist.
The willingness of black voters to support white candidates, then, is not at issue, much as some would like to pretend otherwise. Blacks have long supported white candidates (like they had a choice?). No, the issue is that some whites still find it impossible to return the favor.
Favor? Is Leonard actually suggesting we choose Presidential candidates based on "favors?" How drool.
Me, I've been around long enough to understand that, while some folks asked about black support for Obama out of honest curiosity, most did it to change the subject, the best defense being a good offense.
One encounters this particular ''best defense'' often when a discussion of race points to conclusions some of us would prefer not to reach. So instead they paint themselves as victims of a double standard, posing profoundly unserious questions like: Why is there a Miss Black America when there could be no Miss White America? Why is there no White Enterprise magazine or United Caucasian College Fund?
I have never had a problem with Miss Black.... or whatever. If any group wants to organize themselves and celebrate something, who cares? And I understand why 90-95% of the blacks support Hussein. But that is a racist position as much as the two in 10whites not supporting him. Both positions are based on race.
The point is not to get answers -- those are obvious. Rather, it is to carve an escape route route through the thicket of logic. It is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, ''Your shoe's untied!'' and then running away when the other person looks down.
To take the questions seriously, you have to believe that black and white stand equivalent in this country, that one does not hold and has never held advantage over the other, so that we should worry white kids might be shoved to the margins if, say, no United Caucasian College Fund existed to help them. That is, putting it mildly, an absurd conceit. Yet it is a conceit some of us still sell and others still buy.
Of course blacks weren’t equal in this country. But to argue that private clubs, or public white college funds are wrong doesn’t address the basic question as to why a black only college fund is right and a white one wrong. While providing a leg up through college admissions, etc., may have been correct years ago, are they still needed? And if so, when will they won’t be needed?
So here's my question: When will people stop trying to weasel out of what is self-evident? After all, there's no mystery about West Virginia. It offers just the latest evidence that something old and ugly has not just survived in us, but flourished. What's it going to take to make some of us stop hiding out from that hard and withering truth.
The answer is that to deny the racism evident in the actions of the black voters while demanding that the white voters vote for Hussein or be called a racist is hypocrisy personified.
If Pitts is to be taken seriously he should be demanding that voters choose the best candidate. He is not doing that.
BTW - I call Hussein, Hussein because I will not tolerate any politician telling me what I can call him. That's called controlling the debate and flies straight into "freedom of speech," our most precious right.
In the past I have found him interesting. Now I just see another journalist in the tank for Hussien. My comments are in italics.
Here's a link to the column.
Sure, I'll answer your question.
It rose from a recent column about the Democratic primary in West Virginia. The contest, you will recall, was a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, amid reports that two in 10 voters in that overwhelmingly white state said race was a deciding factor in their decisions. I called that atavistic, to which dozens of you responded: If two in 10 whites voting for Clinton is wrong, isn't the overwhelming support of blacks for Obama equally wrong?
It isn't quite the stumper some folks seem to think.
I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that I have no objection to people of any marginalized ethnicity, race, religion or gender voting in a bloc for some member of their group. That's how they become less marginalized, how they win a seat at the table. The Irish did it in New York, the Cubans did it in Miami, many women are doing it now.
His argument falls directly to “everybody is doing it," the excuse of children since the beginning of time. While it may be true, it doesn’t make it right. In fact, I am sure those “two in 10” white voters will claim the same.
Thing is, that's not what happened in West Virginia. Not unless you're going to tell me with a straight face that that vote reflected marginalized whites (an oxymoron if ever there was one) seeking a seat at the table. No, all the evidence, statistical and anecdotal, tells us those folks did not vote for Clinton because she is white; they voted against Obama because he is black. There's a difference.
His argument then, is that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist because they can not prove otherwise. Okay. We knew that was coming. Glad to get it out in the open.
So there is something rather specious in all this hand-wringing about black support for Obama. Moreover, it is based upon a fallacy. Namely, that black support for Obama was automatic. The inconvenient truth is, it was Clinton who started out with the black vote sewn up. Then two things happened: 1) Obama's win in Iowa demonstrated his viability and, 2) Clinton and her surrogates made a series of racially insensitive remarks.
I see no hand-wringing. All I see is the facts being pointed out. And no. Iowa was a caucus, not an election. Thousands of people had to work and couldn’t come. There was no secret ballot. In short, it was an open invitation to let Hussein’s activists steam role the results. And again. Pitts wants to say pointing out the 90-95% support of Hussein is racist.
The willingness of black voters to support white candidates, then, is not at issue, much as some would like to pretend otherwise. Blacks have long supported white candidates (like they had a choice?). No, the issue is that some whites still find it impossible to return the favor.
Favor? Is Leonard actually suggesting we choose Presidential candidates based on "favors?" How drool.
Me, I've been around long enough to understand that, while some folks asked about black support for Obama out of honest curiosity, most did it to change the subject, the best defense being a good offense.
One encounters this particular ''best defense'' often when a discussion of race points to conclusions some of us would prefer not to reach. So instead they paint themselves as victims of a double standard, posing profoundly unserious questions like: Why is there a Miss Black America when there could be no Miss White America? Why is there no White Enterprise magazine or United Caucasian College Fund?
I have never had a problem with Miss Black.... or whatever. If any group wants to organize themselves and celebrate something, who cares? And I understand why 90-95% of the blacks support Hussein. But that is a racist position as much as the two in 10whites not supporting him. Both positions are based on race.
The point is not to get answers -- those are obvious. Rather, it is to carve an escape route route through the thicket of logic. It is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, ''Your shoe's untied!'' and then running away when the other person looks down.
To take the questions seriously, you have to believe that black and white stand equivalent in this country, that one does not hold and has never held advantage over the other, so that we should worry white kids might be shoved to the margins if, say, no United Caucasian College Fund existed to help them. That is, putting it mildly, an absurd conceit. Yet it is a conceit some of us still sell and others still buy.
Of course blacks weren’t equal in this country. But to argue that private clubs, or public white college funds are wrong doesn’t address the basic question as to why a black only college fund is right and a white one wrong. While providing a leg up through college admissions, etc., may have been correct years ago, are they still needed? And if so, when will they won’t be needed?
So here's my question: When will people stop trying to weasel out of what is self-evident? After all, there's no mystery about West Virginia. It offers just the latest evidence that something old and ugly has not just survived in us, but flourished. What's it going to take to make some of us stop hiding out from that hard and withering truth.
The answer is that to deny the racism evident in the actions of the black voters while demanding that the white voters vote for Hussein or be called a racist is hypocrisy personified.
If Pitts is to be taken seriously he should be demanding that voters choose the best candidate. He is not doing that.
BTW - I call Hussein, Hussein because I will not tolerate any politician telling me what I can call him. That's called controlling the debate and flies straight into "freedom of speech," our most precious right.
Sex and global warming
How much will the Senate's Global Warming bill cost us?
Well, we don't know. But we do know that the law will be structured around the cost of carbon dioxide emitted. So the question becomes, how do we measure it?
Here is how.
Now, if you have read the link, you know that burning a gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon.
So, what's the cost?
Now, if your car is tagged as a 20MPG car, if you drive it 1000 miles, you will have used 50 gallons.... that's 1000 pounds of carbon... or a half of a ton.. or $20. or 2cents a mile... or if you drive 30,000 miles a year that's $600.00 or $50.00 per month. Have two cars? $100 a month.. Of course the Demos will want a special "second car permit." Cost unknown.
For absolutely no reason other than the desire of the Environmental Wackos to run the world.
And carbon comes from many places, including when you breath, how much you breath and how fast....
Wanna have sex with your significant other?? Sorry. You have exceeded your carbon production allowance... And no cheating! And yes... in spite of what Clinton said, a BJ is having sex...
And, of course, that is gasoline. Coal is different, and will vary based on type of coal, but as an example:
So for every ton that your utility burns to produce electricity, they will have to pay $114.40 or not produce electricity.
Can you see your electric bill costing $500 a month???
Folks, this is the biggest rip off in the history of mankind.
Call your Senator. Call your Representative. Tell them to vote against this bill and ANY variation there of.
Well, we don't know. But we do know that the law will be structured around the cost of carbon dioxide emitted. So the question becomes, how do we measure it?
Here is how.
Now, if you have read the link, you know that burning a gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon.
So, what's the cost?
In Europe, where permits to emit carbon have been trading since 2005, it now costs nearly $40 to emit a ton of carbon.
Now, if your car is tagged as a 20MPG car, if you drive it 1000 miles, you will have used 50 gallons.... that's 1000 pounds of carbon... or a half of a ton.. or $20. or 2cents a mile... or if you drive 30,000 miles a year that's $600.00 or $50.00 per month. Have two cars? $100 a month.. Of course the Demos will want a special "second car permit." Cost unknown.
For absolutely no reason other than the desire of the Environmental Wackos to run the world.
And carbon comes from many places, including when you breath, how much you breath and how fast....
Wanna have sex with your significant other?? Sorry. You have exceeded your carbon production allowance... And no cheating! And yes... in spite of what Clinton said, a BJ is having sex...
And, of course, that is gasoline. Coal is different, and will vary based on type of coal, but as an example:
Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.
So for every ton that your utility burns to produce electricity, they will have to pay $114.40 or not produce electricity.
Can you see your electric bill costing $500 a month???
Folks, this is the biggest rip off in the history of mankind.
Call your Senator. Call your Representative. Tell them to vote against this bill and ANY variation there of.
Don't confuse me with facts
I have made my mind up.
Global Warming anyone??
6. It appears that some of the organizations that are ideologically committed to green issues are willing to employ any means to further their cause. A research project and its uses serve as an example. Two studies using data developed in Vienna 2005-08 proved damage is caused to the cell structure through the rays of mobile phones. By now we have a confession of data manipulation to prove the project’s hypothesis. Nevertheless, some scientists that authored studies based on bogus facts (they represent institutions in Berlin, Munich and Vienna) are reluctant to revise their findings.
Global Warming anyone??
Good grief...
Hussein visited Mount Rushmore. And what was he curious about?
Look. This guy doesn't have enough common sense to pour sand out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. And we want him answering the phone at 3AM?
And then we have this:
How's that for ego!? Someone tell him, "First you have to be elected."
He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in "North by Northwest," Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore's presidential faces.
"How did they get up there in the first place?" he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.
"They didn't. It was a movie set," Jensen told him.
Look. This guy doesn't have enough common sense to pour sand out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. And we want him answering the phone at 3AM?
And then we have this:
Asked by a reporter if he ever envisioned himself carved into the mountain, he said, "I don't think my ears would fit. There's only so much rock up there."
How's that for ego!? Someone tell him, "First you have to be elected."
Why so long????
Hussein has never answered the question of why he remained in the church.
He had to have known what was being said. Of course we all know why he didn't leave. He either agreed with the rants, or else he felt he need the political connections that the church was bringing him.
Just like his association with William Ayers and Rezko. He wanted what they brought him and he is so far out of touch with everyday Americans that he saw no problems.
He wants to meet with and negotiate with our enemies, yet he can't even see what harm his friends are doing to him.
That is a damning thought. A very damning thought.
ABERDEEN, S.D. (AP) - Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
He had to have known what was being said. Of course we all know why he didn't leave. He either agreed with the rants, or else he felt he need the political connections that the church was bringing him.
Just like his association with William Ayers and Rezko. He wanted what they brought him and he is so far out of touch with everyday Americans that he saw no problems.
He wants to meet with and negotiate with our enemies, yet he can't even see what harm his friends are doing to him.
That is a damning thought. A very damning thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
