Insanity Reigns...
Last night (or was it the night before?) I was watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox and, lo and behold, but who should happen to be on the show that night but Malik Shabazz (Shab-ass?), who is in some way associated with the "New" Black Panther Party. By the way, the New Black Panther Party is the same as the Old BPP, except that now they apparently wear suits. Despite the new and improved packaging, the essage is still the same: kill WHitey.

Anyway, Mr. Shabazz was on to talk about the recent riots in Toledo, Ohio, where the mayor and police chief are apparently too dumb to realize thatone does not, in this day and age, let Neo-Nazi skinheads hold a protest march in a black neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I don't see the necessity in allowing Nazis to have a public voice, but that's just me. Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you can imagine what happened: a riot, naturally, ensued. You can't put 14 White boys, screaming 'bout the "niggers", in a black neighborhood and expect the locals to obligingly ignore it.

So, of course violence broke out, and of course, true to form, the local "diversity" went way beyond any acceptable and understandable "counter-protest" and immediately took to looting, arson and attacking the police and ambulance crews sent to restore order.

Mr. Shabazz, naturally, condoned the violence (since it was committed by blacks, it's okay), and began to recycle Louis Farrakhan's fairy tale about the Fed'ral Gubmint dynamiting the levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Farrakhan says he has proof (never to be seen) and the "new" Black Panthers divulge that they have evidence as well: residue from an explosive was found on the levee ruins, and the Panthers are the only ones to have found it. They want Congressional hearings, of course, to look into the government's evil deeds.

Naturally, no one stopped to ask how residue of anything was found on blasted concrete thathad been under 30 feet of sewage-infested water for a month, but that's okay: Mr. Shabazz doesn't need to explain anything --- he's black, you know --- and that automatically gives you the right to lie, condone rioting (and even join in) and make false accusations without threat of retaliation.

This is what is passing itself off as "responsible" leadership in the...ahem...black community: a Muslim Hitler who claims he receives messages from the Mother Ship, and a guy who can find evidence that even Quincy could dig up but who doesn't feel like he has to actually show it to anyone.

On Hiatus...
Sorry for the really light blogging, but I've been quite busy moving and getting my act together. Ths is becoming all too common lately, and I have to make more of an effort to rail uselessly here more often.

The Silly Season Starts Early...
God, I really hate posting things like this, but someone has to do it in the interests of sanity.

I've read a blurb this morning in the New York Post that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton will meet with the national tragedy, Cindy Sheehan, today when she blows through Washington on her "Look-at-me-I'm-a-bereaved-Mother/Moonbat!" tour.

The day before yesterday, John Kerry (remember him?) made a speech at some confab of idiots criticizing GW for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. He was joined by his old comrade-in-arms, John Edwards (the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle), who also made noises about the same thing. Incidentally, Edward's wife, Elizabeth, managed to take time out from her chemotherapy to announce that we should all listen to Cindy Sheehan (for what, I have no clue).

The opposition for 2008 is starting to line up. God save us if these are going to be our choices.

On the repuiblican side, we see McCain already making waves, polishing up his media-beloved "Maverick" image. McCain is suffering from a deadly disease - narcissim - which blinds him to the truth; he would make a lousy president. His only qualifications are getting shot down twice, becoming a POW, and being involved in the stifling of free speech (McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform Bill). His only rationale for running is to give GW Bush one last flash of the middle finger, a "F*ck You, Rich Boy!) moment, in which McCain both extolls his own miniscule virtues while jabbing a thumb into the eye of the republican party. McCain will merely reinforce everything democrats say come election time in the course of trying to make himself look batter than Bush. For example, I can hear him saying right now "While George Bush is a good man, it's quite obvious, with the trouble in Iraq and the fact that FEMA couldn't get a roll of toilet paper into New Orleans, I would have done it all better."

The only real republican challengers capable of winning in 2008 and presenting the heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, with anything resembling competition, would be Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice. However, the rabid conservative wing of the party would never let Rudy on the ballot (he's pro choice) and Condi has lots of 'splainin' to do over 9/11, North Korea and the War.

On the democraic side, so far we have two men who have failed to learn the Gore/Lieberman Rule: democrats just don't bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Neither Kerry nor Edwards has a snowball's chance in hell. This leaves Hillary, who has a very interesting tightrope to walk; she has to maintain the semblance of moderation she's been working on for the last four years while reassuring the tree-hugging-double-latte-drinking-metrosexual-faux-disaffected fringe of the party, which is her biggest albatross and her biggest fundraiser. This wing of the party would put Hitler on the ballot, provided he stood for their kooky agenda --- he's not George Bush, you see.

However, that's just everyone's problem. George Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election (he can't), and to run on a platform of "I'm Not Bush" just won't wash. It didn't wash in 2004, and it's even more irrelevant now that the man doesn't have to run for anything. The democrats are still fighting the 2000 election, and so is McCain.

The silly season just got whackier.

Mars Grows Warmer...Kerry Says Bush Should Have Signed Kyoto Treaty...
Read this:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3362746

And then ask yourself this:

"How can there possibly be global warming on a planet that has no civilization? No industry? No SUV's? No CFC's? NBo internal combustion engines? None of the usual suspects we blame for our own "global warming" here on Earth?"

I have yet to hear anyone in the media put this question to any of the global warming nuts, nor do I expect them to. I have yet to become aware of any of the global warming loonies stepping forward to even explore the question. It is taken as gospel truth that Earth is warming, that mankind and his dirty, little inventions are speeding the process up, and that we're all dead from a combination of skin cancer, dirty air and water, lack of food and really bad sunburns.

Critical questions in this debate remain unanswered. If, for example, we take it as scientific fact (because it is) that the very spot upon which I sit right now was once covered by a 2-mile thick sheet of ice 12,000 years ago, what happened to the ice? Did someone come along with a really big bag of halite and melt it? Giant hair dryers? It melted at some point, the glaciers retreated leaving Staten Island to be inhabited by all sorts of flora and fauna. Why did it happen? Had to be some form of global warming, right?

And this was before civilization even existed. Before all the nasty appendages of human civilization that the Save the Earth crowd finds so dangerous and offensive were even a gleam in anyone's mind.

We have to assume that this warming is a natural occurance. We also have to assume that since this cycle of freezing and warming can be scientifically proven to have happened at least four (4) times, that someone is not being completely honest with us. Could it be the Global Warming is Death crowd? I wonder...

The point is, if we're seeing this phenomenon on an uninhabited planet lacking in the very basics of what the enviornMENTAL movement claims is the cause of our own warming, then they must be mistaken, right? I would bet they are. Therefore, Global Warming is a myth.

So why do they insist on continuing to promulgate a lie? They do so because their real motive is to control human behavior. To have the power to force people and governments to bend to their will, which is twofold: the first is to return mankind to it's Noble Savage state, which never truly existed and is merely a romantic fiction. The second is to replace the seemingly (in their eyes) stupid, uncaring, greedy, avaricious, lusty, wanton governments and industries of this planet with versions more to their liking, i.e. where they are in charge, or failing that, to be in a position where they are dictating the agenda.

Lying in the pursuit of this goal means nothing to them. The ends (a more perfect world according thier own warped vision) justifies the means.

Conservatism Advances...
As of this morning, it appears as if Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany has lost the latest German election to a more conservative, pro-American candidate, Angela Merkel. We may be witnessing the outbreak of sanity in Germany on the one hand, and the dissolution of the Franco-German axis on the other.

The results are pretty thin right now, with Merkel's party having won a slight parliamentary majority, so we'll have to be patient to see is common sense has broken out in Germany. My fingers are crossed, though.

Katrina, Part VIII...The Idiocy Continues...
This morning, Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans is announcing his plan to "repopulate" the washed-away city, one neighborhood at a time, beginning with those areas least affected by Katrina. This takes place as federal authorities warn of the risks of massive amounts of e. coli bacterium, fecal matter and heavy metals laying around in a city without hospitals, power, fesh water or a 9-1-1 system.

What is this Mayor thinking? Is he thinking at all? It would appear not.

The Mayor, naturally, is now upset that the feds are telling him how to run his city and interfering with his plan. This is the man who screamed like a schoolgirl for three days that he "didn't get no hep" from the feds, and now that he has them on the scene, is willing to ignore them completely if it interferes with his own agenda. What this agenda is, is a complete mystery.

One the one hand, the agenda must be to get civilization back inside the City of New Orleans and revive the Mayor's tax and voting base. That voting base, by the way, is mostly made up of people too stupid to get out of the city when ordered to, and now, presumably, is stupid enough to return to a toxic swamp without basic services because the Mayor asked them to. Conversely, the other part of the agenda has to be doing something, anything, to give the Mayor the appearance of controlling something. Having fiddled (more like diddled) while his city flooded and cried for the feds to take over to absolve himself of responsibility for the failures, he now wants to accept the appearance responsibility while the feds are there to take the heat. By the way, there's another potential hurricane (Tropical Storm Rita) approaching the Gulf region.

What an idiot. What an opportunist. What a complete waste of gametes.

If anyone thinking of returning to New Orleans reads this, then please heed my advice and don't return. Not yet. Not while the place is a breeding ground for a myriad of dieases and with another hurricane about to enter the Gulf. The potential for a repeat performance is high.

Stifling of Free Speech at UNC...
I posted this on Freerepublic.com this morning, courtesy of the Raleigh News and Observer (suitable for wrapping fish).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485697/posts

Just a few observations.

To begin with, this is a university that did this to the young lady in question. Universities used to be places were opposing viewpoints, even if they seem horrid at first blush, are supposed to be aired and debated without fear of retaliation. However, we live in 21st century Amerika, where our professors and administrators are more concerned with appearances than they are the expansion of young minds. UNC, in recent years, has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to this kind of muzzling. But this is a phenomenon that occurs daily on college campuses.

People who express unpopular opinions on campus fall into two categories: they either express viewpoints that are popular (popularity being measured by the personal tastes and politics of the professoriate) and thus acceptible, or, they express opinions that run counter to the established (again, denoted by the professoriates personal views and politics) campus norm.

Thus, a Ward Churchill can safely hurl invective against the United States, praising Usama bin Hidin' from the Ivory Tower, and nothing gets done about it or no opposition will be allowed, while those who disagree with him are tarred with vile labels and denied the right to speak on campus. Or, in extreme cases, fired.

UNC seems to have a history of handing scholarships out to young Arab men who turn out to be involved in terrorist plots (as the news of a few months ago makes clear) and stomping on those who would point out that Arab men are typically terrorists and should be excluded, not only from campus but from American society as a whole. The university must, of course, cover their behinds because of appearances: how does it look to the taxpayer and potential students if all that wonderful knowledge doled out at UNC wound up being used to kill innocent people? Since they cannot take back the degrees, they instead turn on the people who point out the error of their ways and make it about THEM rather than the University and their lunatic policies.

The young lady in question here is merely yet another victim of academia's seriously fucked up priorities.

Of Rats and Sinking Ships...
Read this little blurb this morning, and it seems appropos:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485684/posts

One of two reasons behind this:

a) Ter-AY-Zuh finally got wise and is about to kick Lurch to the curb, or
b) Johnny finally figured out what a liability his sugar momma was int he last campaign and is already distancing himself. Should he run again, she'll be nowhere to be found.

Figure it out for yerself.

Katrina, Part VII...Intelligent Design vs. Evolution...
Amazing how this event can be so relevant to what, to me, is an irrelevant debate, but here we go:

Intelligent Design is a theory which intimates that the development of species cannot be held to be a random event. There must be some system or mystical plan by which an organism is formed and evolves because life is just too complex to be an accident. For example, a human being sees in color. In order for your eyes to be able to discern color there are multiple, minor details that must all be wrapped up in a tight little bundle and co-ordinated in order for you to display and utilize this talent. Eyeballs have to be specially crafted to interpret light in such a way, lenses and retinas must have certain properties, the brain must be able to process light information passed on as chemical or electrical stimuli. If any of the precursor traits are available without the others, then seeing in color is a non-starter. According to Darwin's theory, organisms keep and pass on useful systems and appendages and discard the non-useful. So, if you had a brain capable of translating color, but did not have the eyes for it, according to Darwin, that brain enhancement would either have to be chucked or the organism would have to evolve the other required equipment.

Either way, Darwin cannot be wrong, which is the wonderful thing about evolutionary theory. All you have to do is give an organism enough time and it will do everything, in both directions. How an organism first becomes aware of a useless feature is not described. How an organism then goes about rejecting or modifying the useless feature is also curiously absent. It is assumed that somehow the organism "just knows". In way of example, try to think of the precursor to the girrafe standing around one day thinking to itself "Gee, those leaves up on top of the tree look mighty tasty". Somehow it figures out that if it stretches it's neck to it's fullest extent, it can reach some of those leaves. Somehow the girraffe has made a conscious effort to solve a problem, managed to succeed, and then somehow made it possible for it's offspring to solve the same problem. We cannot guess at the mechanism except to say "the giraffe must have thought about it really hard".

Intelligent Design says, basically, that the giraffe was designed, from the start, to have a long neck, eat the leaves from the tops of trees and it doesn't have to give a second thought to such mundane matters as how and why. All previous models of giraffes before the long-necked variety were merely prototypes that having failed to eat the leaves from the tops of trees, were merely discontinued. As if there was a factory turning out giraffes somewhere.

Intelligent Design then, is merely a theory that attempts to introduce the concept of God, or at least of a superior intelligence, that has mapped and planned out the ways of life (at all levels) of all creatures on the planet. It's supposed benefits are that it closes the holes in the theoryof evolution and gets people thinking about the God of the Book of Genesis, even if He/She/It isn't exactly mentioned as such.

Now we apply both theories to Hurricane Katrina.

According to intelligent design afficianados, human beings were designed with perfectly functioning brains, the ability to adapt to and manipulate their enviornment and with certain instincts for survival, the prime one being the overwhelming instinct for self-preservation. One look at the events that played out in New Orleans puts that theory to bed, big time.

If the people of New Orleans had perfectly functioning brains and an overwhelming desire to save their own skins, they would not have stayed in New Orleans. They would have heeded to two requests by the mayor to evacuate the city. They would have watched the storm inch closer to the Gulf Coast on the television (processing information is what a perfectly functioning brain is supposed to do). They would have made efforts, either individually or collectively, to ensure survival (arranged car pools, pooled food and water resources, collaborated on escape routes and means, etc.). Instead, they made a conscious effort to stay, and in the aftermath, engaged in activities that very little to do with survival. If you believe in Intelligent Design, you would be sorely disappointed by what the actions of New Orleaninans said about your theory.

On the other hand, if you believe in Darwin full-throttle, you would have been somewhat vindicated, but still somewhat surprised. To begin with, the activities of some residents of the flooded city made it clear that they have not evolved past the semi-ape-like state. Panic took hold when logic and reason were needed, baser instincts overrode the need to ensure the survival of the species. Looting, rape gangs, shooting at rescuers, are not the activities an evolved organism engages in when fighting for survival in the face of a natural disaster. According to Darwin, organisms only make positive change or undertake positive activities to ensure their survival. Therefore, Darwin must be wrong.

Therefore, both theories must have serious flaws, if they're not ourtright hogwash.

Katrina, Part VI...Setting Priorities...
As I write this, approximately 20% of what used to pass for a police department in the City of New Orleans, is taking a "well-deserved" sabbatical in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Mayor of New Orleans, afraid that his cops (the ones that catually have shown up for work in this fiasco) might "be worn out and in need of relaxation". I guess looting really takes it out of ya.

So, in the interests of a well-rested, mentally-clear police force, the City is offering their officers an all-expenses paid hotel room in Las Vegas, a per diem (rumored to be $200 a day), and six days of revelry in America's second Sewer City, so that they can come back refreshed to do the job they didn't do in the first place.

Only a democrat could come up with this idea, and only a particulary dim democrat would put it into operation WHILE PEOPLE STILL NEED TO BE RESCUED!

According to initial reports, the City of New Orleans employed approximately 1,500 police officers prior to Katrina. On the day when the storm hit and the following day when the levees broke, upwards of 300 of these officers were nowhere to be found. They failed to show up for work. A portion of the remaining cops on duty took to looting when all hell broke loose instead of doing their jobs: restoring order.

And they're being rewarded for this heroic behavior? Is it just me or is there something seriously wrong here?