A quick quiz from my man, Boortz

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Read more... HERE

The rich and taxes

Warren Buffet,"Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair."

If you are truly a patriotic american who wants to make sure our country stays strong and fair... why do you want the government to use police force to seize your assets instead of giving willingly and openly to those areas which need help?  Why is our government better suited for allocating your funds than you?

Last I checked, Mr Buffet, you seemed to have your finances in some semblance of order.  Can you say the same for the government?  

You scrutinize your investments.  Can you say the same for the government?

You have and hold to mission statements.  Our congressmen continually try to re-write the rulebook they swore to uphold.

Nothing keeps an american from giving more than they're taxed to the government.  If you aren't taxed enough, write a check.  Nothing keeps people from donating openly to charitable causes.

Keep your mantra out of other people's pockets.

Not because I've had nothing to say.

It has been a while, I know. Believe me, it is not because I've had nothing to say, rather, it has been the opposite, only I've been saying it, not typing it.

Today is not one of those days, so welcome back.

Have you read this?

So we now know guns in school are bad. Ok. I'll go with that. Kids should not bring guns to school. But when you say that kids can't doodle a laser pistol (with no victim) in the margin of an assignment because it is a "threat"... and suspend them for a week... ? I can't begin to tell you how many times I might have been suspended if this type of thing were going on where I went to school... when I went to school.

That's only the beginning of the story. My biggest problem in this story is the following line...

"Ben Mosteller was allowed to see his son’s drawing at the school but was not permitted to make a copy to bring home to his wife."

I can think of but one good reason why they would not let him do this. Was it because they were trying to protect his wife from this horrendous pistol drawing? Was it because they were afraid that in doing so, the father could say they were subjecting he and his wife to the same trauma?

Or could it be because the administration knew that they were being foolish and were trying to protect this drawing from winding up in the media's hands?

I suspect the latter.

Every day, I'm happier that we homeschool.

Stossel vs Moore - The pre-20/20 report

The following transcript is taken from Townhall.com where John Stossel has a regular column. In this particular one, he shares his interview encounter with Michael Moore, director of Sicko and a few other recent popular movies (Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and my personal favorite, Canadian Bacon with John Candy {his [Candy's] 2nd to last movie})

I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.

Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does

Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.

Getting myself in trouble

I've been quiet for a while and it is in no part to my having nothing to say. I've had LOTS to say, but haven't. Prepare for a partial windfall of what I've been stewing about for the past week.

1: This is a special note to Republicans, Democrats, and fellow Libertarians alike.

Stop the crap. I had a serious conversation with J the other day about just upgrading to a larger sail and circumnavigating the globe for a while until we find a place that's not going down the toilet in which to live. We homeschool anyway (and the imperial government even wants its hands in that as well) and there's a lot to learn on a boat... physics, biology, electronics, math, astronomy, literature, history.

Republicans: People who oppose the war in Iraq are not unamerican (They may not be thinking it all the way through the same way as you or me, but they're not unamerican on that accord alone). People who oppose waving a magic wand at the illegal alien problem are not unamerican. There are places for religion... in homes, in churches, in the hearts and minds of those who practice. Stop trying to legislate morality beyond the BIG 10. The constitution was erected to protect the rights of the individual, not limit them with improper legislation preventing two loving consenting adults from calling themselves married... who the hell are you to tell me I'm married to my wife or not anyway. Marriage is a church or personal arrangement, not the government's business. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. Stop spending like drunken sailors and get back to your stated principles. Pardon agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, they were doing their job... the job YOU hired them for and sent them to do.

Democrats: Robin Hood is a fictional character. I've never heard of a poor person giving someone a job. The rich are so because they do the things which make them rich, the poor are so because they do the things that make them poor. Redistribute all you like, it will always be that way. You can't just solve a problem by waving a magic (often made of money) wand at it. You don't help a guy without a job by giving him an income without work. You teach him to not work. Just because kids pray in school doesn't mean you have to... their freedom of speech is just as important as yours. There are more amendments to the Constitution than the first... start your re-education by reading the second. Actually, re-read the whole darn thing, along with the Federalist Papers, and take copious notes. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. Stop spending like drunken sailors and get back to your stated principles. And if you really want to relieve the burden at the pump, don't tax the corporations, they'll add the tax to the price of a gallon... How about starting by taking away the tax you place on us for purchasing gas. That'd be a good start.

Speaking of taxes you guys... how much tax did England expect us to pay before we revolted?

Libertarians: We have other platforms than pointing out the failure of the dumb "War on Drugs". They actually sell pretty well also. Stop making us look like a bunch of drug crazed hippies, people don't take us seriously when you do that. Oh, and that Isolationism platform... it didn't work in WWI or WWII. Sometimes we've got to go there before they get here... sometimes. Start reminding people how we can get back to a basic government at reduced cost while still providing the basic services a federal government should provide.

2: "The bill would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers, and give many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status." Horsesqueeze. You want to give 12 Meg of illegals a path to legal status? Send'em home and let them do it the LEGAL way. If that takes too long or is too hard... FIX IT. The problem is not a lack of laws... its a lack of enforcement. You can't tell me it can't be done.

What happens when a 12 year old goes into a store to buy alcohol? Why? Now why can't we enforce the legal status of immigrants and kick out those who are breaking the law?

Just because people oppose illegal immigration does not mean we oppose immigration. And while I'm on the topic... what's with this point system?!? We should not deny, nor give preferential treatment to people when considering citizenship because they have a certain skill set. If they have something to contribute, give'em a work visa and a plane ticket over... they're in line just like anyone else for their citizenship though.

3:  Have I mentioned that I hate it when people I work with tell me they vote republican because they [republicans] give us [the military] raises?  Well, I hate it.  You vote for or against people for an elected office because of their stance on issues which affect the departments and constituents overwhich they would control and influence... not personal job security.  That's the same  "gimmie" attitude you complain about the democrats having (or haven't you noticed?)



Ok... I think I've successfully driven off the three people who ever read this blog.  I'll post again when my reader base replenishes.

Say WHAT?!?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife reported $29.5 million in assets, including millions of dollars in a hedge fund he worked for part-time.

The couple also reported investment income of nearly $6 million over the past 16 months and earned income for Edwards of $1.25 million.

His biggest single source of earned income was his $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund for which he was a consultant last year.

Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature element of his campaign. He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.
Wait, let me get that last line there...

He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.

How on earth can suckers on the left actually believe people like Edwards when they say they are for the poor? Edwards is for Edwards.

Tell me, how can you be FOR THE POOR, when at every turn you are coming up with more plans to keep them dependent on the government? Why not allow them to excel? Why not keep more money in the private sector so jobs can be created and the poor could collect EMPLOYMENT checks?

Oh... who am I kidding? That would make Republicans (or worse... free thinking LIBERTARIANS) out of them and the democratic party would cease to have a cause.

Oh, wait... they'd still have global warming, right?

Go ahead Edwards. Earn your money. I'm not faulting you for that. Just don't try to tell me you were doing it "for the poor".

UPDATE
Now we have a story that John Edwards even charged $55,000 dollars for a speech on poverty.

More to follow...

Coming to America

"Hi everybody! I am get to come to your country this weekend and to tell your UN that I will keep enriching uranium for my bombs until Israel is no more my neighbor. I am so happy to be in New York where I can enjoy your freedoms for which I support your demise as the sinful scourge of the earth."

Ok, so I took a little liberty in paraphrasing there, but come on, you know it's not far from the truth. Anyway, he will be in the Big Apple this weekend to tell us all where we can stick his missiles... that Israel is the great satan... and how he loves the UN for not helping the US, England, and othersin ending the Islamic tidal wave of terror.

Just for a test sometime.. go to Google News  and type in any religion you know.  Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, Christian, any religion except Islam.  What did you get?  Now cross reference them with eachother (still exempt islam or muslim)?  Everything going well?  You don't have to read the entire articles (you can if you like, but for this little sampling, we're concentrating on headlines and the first sentance.)

Now, take any of those religions and cross reference with islam, islamic, or muslim.

Notice a change in the demeanor of the articles?  Who's covering what aspects?  What is the bias or slant?

Give it a try, draw your own conclusions, let me know in comments.

Book update

Closed Somebody's gotta say it (enjoyed it) and opened The FairTax Book by the same author (I know, not diverse, but he's coming to town and I figured I'd get him to sign both.)

And I'm yawning through The "Truth" About Hillary (Ok, I added the quotation marks, but they should be there.) I just don't understand why somebody thinks they have to do "creative editing" and conjecture when you're dealing with such an obviouly corrupt family. Perhaps he thought the controversy would sell more books?

What I'm reading now...

I don't know... do people really post about what they're reading?  Oh well.. here goes:

Somebody's Gotta Say It by Neal Boortz (and yes, I'm going on the 28th to see if I can get it signed when he comes to DC)

• Really good book.  I'm a chapter or two from the end and will probably finish it before most people read this (an easy statement for me to say after looking at the traffic on this site since "most people" don't come here.)  But if you listen to his program and read his show notes, the stuff he has to say in the book isn't anything new.  I guess when your time is consumed by writing a book, it is inevitable that you are going to talk about the same matters the next day on the air.  Regardless, it is a very good read.
  

and

The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein

• I just picked this one up and am only to the second chapter, but honestly, I'm not sure how far into it I'll wade.  I'm sure people have heard the reviews (like this one from mediamatters.com) where even the washed up Al Franken made the author look like... well he made the author look like Al Franken looks whenever HE normally opens his mouth.  But it's on CD and I have a drive in the mornings and how can you tell about a book without reading it yourself? (And, yes, I have watched {read:  suffered through} Michael Moore's and Al Gore's (as well as others) movies and have Al Jazeera linked from this page too.  I filter through BS from all sides equally looking for nuggets of logic and truth or at least a rationalle for their fatuous behavior... wait, if there were logic, reason, and rationalle behind it, would it still be inane?  I guess, if the logic (etc) were flawed or misguided, it would still be logic... but I digress)
  

Ok, so that's what I'm reading.  Two books meant to have taken up a line or two now blown up to an entire post which. if you're reading this sentance, you've now read in its entirety.  Aren't you blessed.

Tim on "honor students"

Saw this on the web today and had a little chuckle.

And this for my brother:

Have a good day.

No I didn't come up with it... but I like it

I guess I could just as easily link to it, but I'm gonna cut and paste here to save you some surfing time.

If you do take the time to even glance over the following... go ahead and post a comment with how many you were actually able to answer from the second set of questions.  I'm interested to know.  (And yeah, you can leave it annonymous if you're embarrassed about your results.)

This first list is from The Asheville Citizen-Times (NC that is) when it ran an article asking "How patriotic are you?" which included the following questions:

1. What is the date that the Declaration of Independence was signed?
   
2. What document is the legal framework of the United States?
   
3. Who wrote the words to the "Star Spangled Banner"?
   
4. What is the Pledge of Allegiance?
   
5. Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?
   
6. What is the number of original Colonies?
   
7. Who was the first president of the United States?
   
8. What is the minimum voting age in the United States?
   
9. Who is the current governor of North Carolina?
   
10. What is the motto of North Carolina?
    

The response was this:

1. Forget when the Declaration of Independence was signed (Hint:  It was not the 4th of July); tell me why it was signed? What were the signers trying to accomplish?
   
2. What happened to the men who signed the Declaration? Did they go on to be heroes and live happily ever after?
   
3. What does the Declaration of Independence say the people can do when a government becomes destructive to the ends of liberty?
4. Are we about there?
   
5. What would happen to anyone who tried today to alter or abolish our government if it became destructive to idea that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed?
   
6. Which articles of the Constitution grant specific powers to the federal government?
   
7. Which article of the Constitution restricts the powers of the government to only those specifically set forth in the Constitution?
8. Which article of the Constitution do you imagine is the one most often ignored by the Congress of the United States?
   
9. Describe the circumstances under which Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the Star Spangled Banner?
   
10. Do you believe people living in a free country ought to be compelled to recite a pledge of allegiance to that country? Why?
11. If you are required to recite the pledge of allegiance, are you really free?
    
12. Was the Revolutionary War supported by a majority of the Colonists?
13. Should Washington have developed an "exit strategy" before he ever led his troops into battle during the Revolutionary War?
    
14. Where in our Constitution is it stated that anyone has a right to vote for the office of President of the United States?
    
15. How did our original Constitution provide for the appointment of Senators?
    
16. Most foreign countries appoint an ambassador to be their official representative before the government of the United States. Who officially represents the 50 state governments before the government of the United States?
    
17. Explain the difference between a rule of law and the rule of man.
    
18. Explain the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
    
19. Was our country founded to be a country of majority rule?
    
20. Can you imagine what our country would be like today if the majority did rule?
    
21. Aren't you glad the majority doesn't rule?
22. If two wolves and one sheep vote on what they're going to have for dinner, what do you think the menu will look like?
    
23. Why does it matter in the grand scheme of things who the governor of North Carolina is?
    
24. Isn't a governor something you put on a state to keep it from moving ahead very fast?
    
25. What possible benefit could you gain by memorizing the motto of the State of North Carolina, or any other state for that matter?
    
26. How many times is the word "democracy" found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?
    
27. How many times is the word "democracy" found in the constitutions of any of the 50 states?
    
28. What does this tell you?
    
29. Define "civil war."
    
30. Was the war between the northern and southern states in the mid-1800s a civil war?
    
31. Who is third in the line of succession to the presidency?
    
32. Based on your answer to the foregoing question, would you demand that George Bush and Dick Cheney never eat from the same container of potato salad now that the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives?
    
33. How did the political class manage to fool the people of the United States into supporting a Constitutional Amendment creating an income tax?
    
34. How do most people get their news on a daily bass?
    
35. Does the "freedom of press" clause in the First Amendment apply to the broadcast media?
    
36. So, do most people get their news from agencies licensed to operate by the federal government?
    
37. Why were the words "under God" placed into the Pledge of Allegiance?
    
38. Do you think that it is proper for the federal government to compel students attending government schools under compulsory attendance laws to acknowledge the role of God in the formation of our country? Would this constitute "effecting an establishment of religion?" If not, why not?
    
39. Do Americans derive their basic rights from the Constitution?
    
40. If we don't derive our rights from the Constitution, just why was the Bill of Rights added anyway?
    
41. Define a system of government where the means of production are owned and controlled privately.
    
42. Define a system of government where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government.
    
43. Define a system of government where the means of production are owned and controlled by the government.
44. Why do liberals have such a tough time answering number 42?
    
45. What percentage of total income is earned by the top one percent of income earners.
    
46. What percentage of total income taxes collected by the federal government is paid by the top one percent of income earners.
    
47. Where in our Constitution does it specifically state that only U.S. citizens may vote for the office of President of the United States? (Caution: Trick question.)
    
48. Name one right that a state government can exercise without interference from the federal level.
    
49. Where in our Constitution does it specifically state that only U.S. citizens may vote for members of the House of Representatives?
    
50. Look at the Bill of Rights. List any Amendments in the Bill of Rights that were ratified for the purpose of limiting the powers of the government.
    
51. If our Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, why, then, does the Voting Rights Act only apply to certain states who were held in political disfavor in the 70's?
    
52. List any Amendments in the Bill of Rights that were ratified for the purpose of limiting the rights of individuals.
    
53. If the Bill of Rights was written to limit the rights of government and to guarantee certain rights in the individual, try to explain why so many people seem to think that the 2nd Amendment was written to limit the rights of individuals and guarantee the rights of government?
    
54. Does the First Amendment protect speech that some people might find offensive?
    
55. Explain how our Republic was threatened when Janet Jackson showed the world that she likes to wear a Japanese throwing star on the nipple of her left breast.
    
56. What is the one exclusive power our government has that no individual or business can legally exercise?
57. If we were playing Rock Paper Scissors... and "treaties with foreign nations duly ratified by our Senate" is paper... would the Constitution be the Rock or the Scissors?
58. Do you have the right to use force to take money from a stranger if you are going to give that money to someone in need?
59. Explain the concept of our government deriving its powers from the concent of the governed.
60. Now explain how you can tell the government to do something for you that, if you did it, would be a crime.
61. Should the government make something you might do a crime if that action does not violate another person's right to life, liberty, or property through force or fraud?
62. How many votes must you have in the Senate to be assured that a piece of legislation will pass?
63. Do you have a choice as to whether or not you pay Social Security taxes?
64. Why, then, do they call Social Security taxes "contributions"?
65. What is the average age of a country or society based on the rule of law and guaranteeing freedom, individual rights, and economic liberty?
66. Has the United States outlived its life expectancy?

Yes, this list is from Neal Boortz.  Give credit where credit is due, right?

To make up for missed posts...

In case you've been asleep for a while... or in case you'd like to see a cute little children's play about the year 2006 in review (watch for mild language kiddies) I found this whilst in my surfing.

Nuckin' Futs! The JibJab Year in Review

Nonconformity Linked To Peer Pressure

(this from THE ONION)

ATHENS, GA—According to a study released Tuesday by the University of Georgia's Institute For Social Research, a strong link exists between nonconformity and peer pressure among teenagers and young adults.
Commissioned in 1995 to examine the growing trend of nonconformity among 13- to 21-year-olds, the three-year study found that 85 percent of U.S. youths actively defy standard societal norms—adopting "alternative" modes of language, behavior and dress—as a means of winning the acceptance and approval of their peers.

"Kids today are told, over and over, by their classmates, their siblings, and images on TV and in magazines, that normal, mainstream behavior isn't 'cool,'" institute director and study co-chair Iris Evantine said. "The message these kids are receiving is: 'C'mon, don't you want to be different like us?' Sadly, kids who resist these pressures to be different are usually ostracized. For the average teenager these days, the pressure not to do what everyone else does is enormous, and often unbearable."

"I'd really like to be normal and conform, because, at heart, I'm not a risk-taker at all," said Grand Rapids, MI, high-school sophomore Christine Kornowicz. "But if I want to fit in, I have to be different. If you don't stick out, everyone at school makes fun of you."

"I've started wearing all black, painting my nails, and shaving my head, just to fit in," said Jonathan Auger, a Binghamton, NY, high-school junior. "You can't understand how hard it is for a young person not to make waves these days."

The trend of nonconformity—which soared to mass popularity in the late 1960s before eventually tapering off in the '80s—has experienced a resurgence in popularity since 1991, when Nirvana's Nevermind album generated nationwide interest in the nonconformist Seattle "grunge-music scene" and its surrounding alternative culture. In the years since, those who have chosen to remain within mainstream society have become virtual pariahs.

"Today, nonconformity is everywhere," Evantine said. "From the Piercing Hut in the suburban mall to the fast-growing, 'radical,' multi million-dollar business of snowboarding, all of America is not going along with the crowd."

While nonconformity is most prevalent among youths, the trend has spilled over into older groups, as well.

"We are finding a shockingly high rate of nonconformity across virtually all age groups, particularly the 40- to 55-year-old middle-class white-male demographic," Evantine said.

According to Institute For Social Research statistics, 38 percent of middle-aged males are defying society's rule that men be prohibited from wearing ponytails; 51 percent regularly wear denim or leather garments, long regarded by the mainstream as bold and unconventional; and 73 percent listen to such nonconformist alternative-rock groups as The Wallflowers, Counting Crows and Oasis.

Additionally, the defiant, iconoclastic fashion statement of earrings has now reached an epidemic level of 89 percent among 40- to 55-year-old men.

Evantine noted that, due to the boom in nonconformity, the percentage of Americans who currently make up the "mainstream" stands at an alarmingly low 7 percent.

"We should all be grateful to the precious few who have stuck to their guns and conformed, even at the cost of exclusion from the vast majority," Evantine said. "And we must pray that they continue to conform, for without this tiny group of people, there would be no one to rebel against."

The institute's report, which has been condemned as "subversive" by such powerful nonconformist institutions as MTV, Pepsico, Urban Outfitters and 1-800-COLLECT, concluded with a call for increased public willingness to rebel against rebelliousness.

"Now, more than ever, we must have the courage to stand up and embrace the norm, no matter how marginalized we may become in doing so," the report read. "We must be brave enough to walk the road less travelled and conform."

Must see video

This little cartoon made my day.  I hope you enjoy it.

 

Protest on the Mall

I was actually there for this thing. Neato.

The news had an interesting clip on the event. Picture a mob of people marching down the street taking the whole width and stretching back as far as the camera'll shoot. Banner across the front, signs waving in protest.

Leader on Megaphone: WHAT DO WE WANT?!?

Mob: DEMOCRACY!

Leader: WHEN DO WE WANT IT?!?

Mob: NOW!!

I love irony. If we give democracy, that's just how it'll be. Sheeple with a loud voice.

An old quotation sums it up for me, "Beware of stupid people in large numbers."

As referenced in CSMDAD

As I said, I have further comment on the Al Gore bit from my other blog.  Well, here goes.

Just so you know I'm not making it up (because you can believe everything you read on the internet):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061213_solar_storm.html

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15400

Last month (13Dec2006), there was a solar flare which hurled radiation in our direction.  Astronauts were ordered into the central confines of the spacestation or the shuttle to avoid radiation poisoning.  I mean this was a rather big mamma-jamma.

Why was this ill-reported here on earth?
Well, luckily for you and me, this type of solar activity has no effect on us here on earth as we are protected by magic fairy dust sprinkled on the clouds (which nasty capitalists are destroying) and this wave of solar radiation will simply go around us.

This being so, how can we possibly blame anyone other than man (fossil fuel burning schmuck) for the increased warm weather here on Earth?

Is it warm out?  Yes.
Is it our fault?  I'd venture to guess no.  I kinda think that if our source for heat and light is getting hotter and is sending more heat our way, then we might just get a little warmer right along with it.

But then, I'm not a scientist.