Random Quote:

From a National Review Blog:

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—November 12 [Ed Whelan]

1908—In Nashville, Illinois, the human fetus to become known as Harry A. Blackmun emerges safe and sound from his mother’s womb. Some sixty-five years later, Justice Blackmun authors the Supreme Court opinion in Roe v. Wade. (See This Day for Jan. 22, 1973.) Somehow the same people who think it meaningful to criticize Justice Thomas for opposing affirmative-action programs from which he putatively benefited don’t criticize Blackmun for depriving millions of other unborn human beings the same opportunity that he was given.

Would You Visit This Family Therapist?

I ran across this story a while ago, but all the papers are running updates on it today. A woman in San Diego is trying to pay for a Master's degree.

So far, so good. It's how she's raising the money that's unusual. In order to pay for a degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, she's auctioning off her virginity. Talk about a mental disconnect somewhere. Who is going to listen to a marriage therapist with that in her past? I can only imagine the conversation:

Husband: I work and slave, and she socks all my money away in the bank.
Wife: I'm just trying to save for Missy's college.
Husband: Missy should earn the money!
Wife: How? She's only one year away from starting school.
Therapist: hmmmm . . . . . I have an idea!

But that's not all. She has bids of more than 2.5 million British pounds! I have no idea what to make of that. But I do know where she got the idea - according to the article, her older sister paid for grad school by working for 3 weeks as a prostitute in Nevada.

Nice. What a great example for her sister.

Unintentional Insight

Every now and then someone says something which unintentionally offers insight into a deeper issue. This time it was Ashley Dupre (Former NY gov. Eliot Spitzer's former callgirl (does that make sense)).

Anyway, she gave an interview to People magazine in which she (of course) asserts "I'm just a normal girl" yada, yada, yada. Then this unintentional insight:

In the interview, Dupré also opens up about her troubled past — running away at age 17 into a non-stop life of drinking and partying and how a girl from the suburbs could fathom becoming a prostitute: "This wasn't any different than going on a date with someone you barely knew and hooking up with them," she reasoned. "The only difference is I can pay my rent."

Hmmm . . . profound. Any promiscuous people care to explain the difference? When a culture cheapens sex, as ours has, to a harmless recreational activity, what is the harm in getting paid for it? Cruise directors get paid. Personal trainers get paid. Vacation planners get paid. Recreation is big businesss.

Yet people still seem to draw a line between 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again' and 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again . . . who gives you $100' and they declare the former normal and natural, and the latter contemptable.

Not seeing the difference myself . . . except, as Ashley said - one can pay the rent.

The "Right" to Win

Good article by Thomas Sowell today.

He points out that the losing side in recent elections act as though they have a "right" to win. Also talks about the protests against the church by gay marriage activists.

I recommend the whole article, but here are some highlights:

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don’t win . . .

. . . Hillary Clinton’s supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats’ nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the “glass ceiling” holding down women was still in place. Apparently, if you don’t win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling . . .

. . . In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said “The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs.” He added, “This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they’ve forgotten some lessons.”

Apparently Mormons don’t have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don’t vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

“No justice, no peace!” was a slogan that found resonance [in the 1960s]. Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don’t stop and think — and awful if you do. Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Gay Protestors' Violent Assault on Michigan Christians

It's not just California that gay and lesbian protesters are engaging in violent and destructive activities. Gay protesters interrupted an Evangelical Christian church service in Lansing on Sunday. This hasn't gotten any national press, and only small, dismissive local coverage. There weren't even any gay issues on the ballot in MI to provoke them.

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

This is one of the biggest churches in Lansing. They have thousands of people at meetings, and their own security force. What's to prevent gay protesters from doing the same, or worse, to our (much smaller) LDS meetings? I worry that this could become a regular tactic, especially in California. I hope someone is coming up with a plan to counter this type of thing. The easiest is probably also the simplest: introduce yourself to anyone you don't know at church and offer to sit with them, find out where they're from, in a word - fellowship. (oh, and make sure they aren't wearing pink underwear or something).

Can you imagine the reaction the media would have if just ONE conservative protester had infiltrated a mosque and yelled offensive slogans, or thrown bacon around? The media would, literally, make a Federal case about it - complete with Congressional resolutions, calls for stronger hate-crimes legislation and Presidential addresses condemning the incident.

Here, in a nutshell is what happened if you don't want to follow the link above:

"The [protesters] were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an 'action.'

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? . . . from another . . . liberal blogs:

'(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric . . .'

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction . . . The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the [protesters], a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know."

Nice and tolerant, aren't they? This picture is from the protesters' own website - draw your own conclusions:

Current Oil and Gas Prices are Self-inflicted Wounds

For several reasons, I always enjoy finding articles that summarize everything I've been thinking on a current issue. First, it confirms what I've always thought - "I'm a smart guy." Second, it saves me the trouble of composing long blog posts - I can just cut, paste and link. Much easier.

so I'm glad I found this post on the real political and historical reasons for the current "energy crisis."

Short version: Congressional dismay about high gas prices is like me blindfolding myself and then complaining when I bump into things a lot.

Long Version:

Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office.

Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year.

Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India.

At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. . .

Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.

Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?

Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.

It's not as if we don't have the oil available. According to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress:

Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.

That doesn't include ANWR, and it doesn't include offshore drilling.

The real problem, I believe, is that liberals, and environmentalists in particular, want oil to be expensive. Read the words of Sen. Obama when ask his opinion of high oil prices:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.

I think most people fail to see the need for an adjustment at all. the article points out that Democrats don't have this attitude about other scarce "resources."

Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs?

Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. 'Adjust to having less' is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance.

Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves.

Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy?

Climate and the Precautionary Principle

We went to a memorial day barbeque today with several families from the ward, and I got into a debate (friendly, of course) with a brother about the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change (whatever it's called now).

Anyway, we each had points and counterpoints. I'm a lawyer and he's a physicist, so it's not like either of us really knows what we're talking about. But I noticed that whenever I'd make a point, the response would be something like "yeah, we don't really know, but we shouldn't risk it."

I've encountered this attitude recently as I wrote my final law school paper. It is basically "better safe than sorry." The formal name for this philosophy is the Precautionary Principle. It's widely used in environmental circles as a justification to prohibit, regulate or tax any activity that could conceivably impact the environment.

the Precautionary Principle is insidious for at least two reasons.

• First, it reverses the burden of proof - forcing one side to prove a negative. Instead of the environmental advocate gathering evidence of actual harm and using that evidence to advocate halting the damaging activity, all the activist has to do is come up with a scenario that will potentially harm the environment, and invoke the Precautionary Principle. The activist doesn't have to prove anything, the other side has to prove that their activities will be harmless. This is nearly impossible. I can't prove that driving to taco bell to get lunch will be harmless. This being the case, the precautionary principle says I should not do it.
• Second, it is used selectively. Environmentalists use it to force industry to prove they will cause no harm, but activists don't take into account the harm caused by their own actions. DDT was banned because it may have harmed some birds, but this ban has allowed millions of people to die from mosquito-bourne malaria over the last 3 decades. One would think that if an action had the potential of killing millions, the precautionary principle would dictate that it not be taken. not so. Only environmental harm is fair game. (and humans are not part of the environment).

Just something to keep in mind next time you hear predictions of possible environmental catastrophe.

European 'Human' Rights

A British woman is trying to convince an Austrian court to declare a chimpanzee a 'person' so that she can adopt him and be appointed his guardian. Read the whole story here.

36-year-old Miss [Paula] Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

She insists that the chimp [Matthew] needs legal standing so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests  -  especially if the sanctuary shuts down.

Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A person, not a human? I, being a lawyer, know there is a difference, but legal persons who are not human are usually organizations or companies. Maybe the chimp should just incorporate in Nevada. I know a guy on the radio who will do it for just $499.

But later she seems a bit fuzzy on the difference.

'Everybody who knows him personally will see him as a person,' she said.

'In his home in the African jungle, he would have been well able to look after himself without a guardian.

But since he was abducted into an alien environment, traumatised and locked up in an enclosure, it did become necessary for me to act on his behalf to secure the donation money for him and to avoid his deportation.

'Since he has no close relatives, I am doing this as the person closest to him.'

He was 'abducted?' She's trying to 'avoid his deportation?' As to his close relatives, isn't science always harping on how close we are to chimpanzees, genetically?

The sad thing is that the court will probably take the case, and probably rule for the chimp. After all, this is the same court that doesn't recognize that an unborn child is a person. In fact this very court awarded damages to a Polish woman who's "human rights" were violated when she was denied a 'therapeutic' abortion.

Europe's idea of 'human rights' is, I fear, irretrievably lost.

The "New Homeless"

CNN ran a very misleadingly-titled article today: Mom Forced to Live in Car With Dogs. What an outrageous example of elder abuse, right?... No. Kids out of control and trashed the house?... No. A fire or flood?... No.

This poor lady is a member of the "middle class homeless." At the beginning of the article I felt bad for her, but as I read, I gradually found it harder and harder to really sympathize. Let's just say she's not your stereotypical homeless person.

Barbara Harvey climbs into the back of her small Honda sport utility vehicle and snuggles with her two golden retrievers, her head nestled on a pillow propped against the driver's seat. Californian Barbara Harvey says she is forced to sleep in her car with her dogs after losing her job earlier this year.

Poor lady. But wait, she owns a Honda SUV? Oh, then I saw the dateline: "Santa Barbara, CA," so it's all relative. (a late-model Honda CRV in Santa Barbara is like a 78 Chevy Nova anywhere else, right?). She also owns (and feeds) two large dogs. Just the bare necessities for her. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the homeless can't even afford to support two large dogs when forced to live in their SUV.

A former loan processor, the 67-year-old mother of three grown children said she never thought she'd spend her golden years sleeping in her car in a parking lot. . .

Harvey was forced into homelessness this year after being laid off. She said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house. . . costs more than $1 million. She lost her condo two months ago and had little savings as backup.

Gee, I wonder why she wasn't able to save anything. Must be George Bush's fault. There might be a place or two where it would be cheaper to live. Especially when you have transportation and no steady job tying you down! That just makes me feel like shouting - MOVE TO A NORMAL TOWN!! The rich can barely afford to live in Santa Barbara.

And her children must be real deadbeats, not helping their mom, huh?

Her 19-year-old daughter moved in with friends to avoid being homeless. Her other children live overseas, and she didn't want to tell them about her living status.

Even if her children offered to help, she said, she wouldn't accept it.

She wouldn't accept help from her own children? But she'll complain to CNN! Are we supposed to just ignore this and feel sorry for her anyway? At least she's an optimist when her daughter calls. (on her cell phone?)

"My daughter especially is very unhappy. Sometimes she'll cry, and she'll call and say, 'Mom, I just can't stand it that you are living in a car,' " Harvey said. "I'll say, 'You know what? This is OK for right now, because I'm safe, I'm healthy, the dogs are doing OK, and I have a job, and things will get better."

Well, as long as the dogs are OK! Things WON'T get better, not in Santa Barbara they won't. Get in your car and leave, find an affordable apartment in an affordable town, get rid of the dogs, and the cell phone and, for crying out loud, talk to your children!

The article quotes an economist blaming the California housing crisis and the dearth of affordable housing in Santa Barbara. blah, blah, blah. The real issue here is stubborn pride and a fundamental disconnect from the realities of life. Unfortunate, yes, but not unforeseeable, and certainly not irreparable.

Keeping Up With the Joneses

You know the stories you hear of neighborhood rivalries? The Smiths buy an Explorer, and the Joneses counter with an Escalade, etc?

It's not just greedy, rich, white Republicans playing anymore. From California . . . (where else?). . . (and no, I did not make up the name of the city) . . . (and all parenthetical snide remarks are my additions, not from the article).

SUNNYVALE, California (AP) -- In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels. . . After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

As for who cares more about the environment, must be the solar guy, right?

Vargas (solar guy) says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened."I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.

Well he's obviously seen the light. . . er . . . been enlightened . . . has a sunny outlook on . . . stupid puns . . . LOVES the environment. But wait, the Redwood couple counters with . . .

. . . Treanor and Bissett (Redwood couple), who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife. (in the middle of San Fran/Oakland/San Jose's 3 million people)

A Prius, countering global warming, and wildlife habitat, all in one sentence! It's the Trifecta of Green-ness! Take that Vargas, you tree-hating, gas-guzzling corporate sell-out !!! But, hang on, what's this?

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

No mere hybrid for him! His new car plugs in. You can take your majestic Redwoods and 2 more acres full, chop 'em down and burn 'em . . . compost 'em! (or just transplant them 'where the sun don't shine'). Zero-emission, solar-powered self-righteousness FOR THE WIN!

This sounds like the new Rock, Paper, Scissors. It used to be that paper covered rock, rock crushed scissors, and scissors cut paper.

Now, Redwoods cover solar power, solar power crushes redwoods, and windmills cut birds

(I know, it doesn't make sense, so sue me! I had to get the bird link in somehow)

Saying Anything to Win

Ahh, Hillary, careful what you say!

"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That's very discouraging to people."

But,

The former first lady's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, works for New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group. She previously worked in New York for McKinsey & Company, her first job after graduating with her master's degree from Oxford University.

Hillary Clinton is either ignorant about what her own daughter does, or so desperate to win at this point that she'll say anything. Can you imagine the firestorm that a Republican would have incurred for having a child with a position different than theirs?

(just google: dick cheney daughter hypocrite -- and read a few of the 102,000 results).

One Reaon Reason Our Schools are Failing . . .

(Nice title, you'd think I was the illiterate one - thanks Matt)

This story is amazing to me:

OCEANSIDE, Calif. -- John Corcoran graduated from college and taught high school for 17 years without being able to read, write or spell. . . In 1961, Corcoran graduated with a bachelor's degree in education, while still illiterate he contends. He then went on to become a teacher during a teacher shortage. . . For 17 years Corcoran taught high school for the Oceanside School District. Relying on teacher's assistants for help and oral lesson plans, he said he did a great job at teaching his students.

That explains some of the teachers I know.

"Transgender" Second Grader . . .

This story is just weird.

HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO – The issue of being transgender usually pops up with students in high school. However, a 2nd grade biological boy wants to dress as a girl and be addressed with a girl's name. . . teachers are planning to address the student by name instead of using he or she. The child will not use the regular boys or girls bathroom. Instead, two unisex bathrooms in the building will be made available. . . The student had attended this same school in years prior, but had left to go to classes in another district for about two years. The transgender student will be returning to what is the child's home school. Dave M. thinks classmates will recognize the change.

Of course they will recognize the change!!! I don't mean to offend anyone, but does a second grader really understand anything about what it means in the long-run to be male or female? Is elementary school the right place to "come out?" Does the child understand that to truly pursue this, he will need multiple major surgeries, hormone treatments, and will never be able to have children? If a person is going to make a choice of that magnitude, shouldn't they be old enough to tie their shoes first? The therapist says:

The most important thing is to make sure the transgender student does not become the target of bullying or verbal abuse which can lead to suicide. "These children are at high-risk," said Pearson. "Our number one goal is to keep kids safe."

So the way to make sure the child isn't ridiculed is to

1. Have him go ahead and cross-dress,
2. Call him by a different name than the children knew him by before,
3. Have him use a special bathroom,
4. Pass out an explanation to every parent in the school, and
5. Never refer to him using pronouns?

That won't make him seem any different! Just one of the gang! Excuse the sarcasm, but they might as well put a "kick me" sign on his back and have him stand on a desk in front of the classroom all day.

I'm not trying to say that this child isn't deeply confused, all I'm saying is that this remedy is going to make things worse. This is just labeling him. Children HATE being labeled, but they will latch on to the labels given by others immediately. The school wouldn't divide the class into beanpoles, husky kids, midgets and cripples would they? How about preppies, stoners, nerds and jocks? kids might, but the school shouldn't. By doing this, the school is separating him from his classmates, and singling him out for attention.

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone to have the child wear male clothes while at school, and try to teach him that his worth as a person isn't determined by the clothes he wears? That would keep the discussion, advice and counsel to the people who are supposed to care about him and not drag the entire community into a personal, private issue. Parents need to ensure that their children make choices at the appropriate time, and with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences, not let them do whatever they feel like, and insist that the entire community adapt.

As a side issue, I thought the latest thinking was that gender is all a matter of environment? Aren't men and women all the same? Why are "transgender" people the only ones who can insist that gender is fixed at birth without being called bigots? Am I the only one who sees this as inconsistent? I must need to attend more propaganda sessions sensitivity training.

Al Gore, Friend of the Animals

Al Gore is out to save the environment again. From Mary Katharine Ham's Townhall.com blog:

After Live Earth produced the carbon emissions of a small country in order to discourage carbon emissions, Gore has moved onto eating endangered species to encourage their preservation, I guess. Don't ask questions. He's a visionary:

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.

The species is currently managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources, the body which introduced a catch and trade documentation scheme as an attempt to tackle illegal poaching of this species.

The story comes from the Humane Society.

Apparently, endangered fish taste better than abundant ones. I guess that makes sense, if no one liked them, no one would catch them . . . and they wouldn't be endangered, right?

Al Gore's Environment

Look at all the environmental waste in this guy's office. Why he's got 3 entire old-growth trees worth of paper on his desk. While those 3 Apple 30 inch monitors look great, just imagine the fossil fuels being burned to power those suckers. 150 watts each if you're wondering. That comes out to 7.5 sixty-watt incandescent light bulbs. (who knows how many compact fluorescents). He can't even spring for a TV card to use one of the monitors to watch. Instead, he needs a separate flat-panel TV. Also take note of the huge personal laser printer under the desk - more dead trees.

There are so many ways to make this office more environmentally friendly. Why, if Al Gore saw this he'd have . . . ummmm . . . wait a minute, that is Al Gore!

Never mind. It must be OK, Gore knows what he's talking about.

(I for one intend to follow this environmental example just as soon as I can get the money for three nice big monitors).