Friday, October 15, 2004

Susanna's loins

Now that's something I haven't blogged about before. Anyway, lately she's been girding them and stepping into the arena attempting to spread enlightment among the unwashed via the Detroit News. Check it out.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

It's not just for amoebas anymore

So says a Tshirt disseminated by the Asexual Visibility and Education Network.

You see, 1 in 100 of us are asexual.

We may never know why people kill others or themselves, or why they overeat or otherwise behave destructively. But if it has to do with sex, you can bet we'll research it to death.

Well, maybe not in this case. Celibacy has been called the most unnatural of all perversions, and they have to draw the line somewhere.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Give me demagoguery and give me death!

I still think Kerry is worse than Edwards, but maybe no longer if I keep hearing nonsense like this:
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

I suppose that after a career making millions second-guessing doctors for a living one would be tempted to believe that he knew more about medicine than they did. Medical professionals don't seem as positive about the possibilities of embryonic stem cell research as Edwards is.

But Edwards must spread the belief that all we need for scientific progress is more money.

Hmm, maybe I like that idea after all. Gimme the money, Uncle Sugar, and I'll get right to work on that perpetual motion machine.

OK, no one will question that some money is necessary. But money is available from sources other than the govt. Really. And George W. Bush, the first president to release *any* federal money for stem cell research, did not bar funding of stem cell research - he merely stated that such funding would not be coming from the govt.

If Kerry and Edwards are so concerned for Michael J. Fox, the late Christopher Reeve or other big names, why would he make them wait on an act of Congress before seeing their research funded? The govt doesn't have to do a thing - donate the money and we can get started right away! Get famous musicians to hold benefits. Make movies. Recruit billionaires to set up big organizations to influence public opinion worldwide to raise money.

No, that's not the Edwards' way. We can see that where he has a choice between getting the research done sooner to save the lives he claims to care about, and having an issue to misrepresent against the Republicans, he'd rather be demagoguing. In the name of accelerating research, he misses a golden opportunity to advance it. The man is a disgrace.

And while we're at it, what about Michael J. Fox? Why isn't he leading efforts to raise money for embryonic stem cell research himself? Is it possible that he's not aware of the truth - that there's nothing about federal money that affects the outcome of research? Or is it just alien to his Canadian mind that individuals can spend their own money directly on health care?

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Who knew Democrats had scruples?

1974 was quite a year. What I remember most was CB radios, Richard Nixon's resignation, and streaking.

Ah streaking, another pop culture highlight that the twentysomethings might not have heard of. I don't know what inspired it originally, but for about a year or so it was everywhere. Ray Stevens even immortalized it with a song, "The Streak".

Yep, almost everybody was doing it that year, including one Pete Sessions. And his Democrat opponent for Congress has pictures to prove it .

IMO the worst Sessions is guilty of is of being 18 at a strange time - I lived in a small town in the South at the time and *I* knew people who had done it, so believe me when I say it was pervasive. To say as his opponent's campaign does that he "exposed himself to children and strangers", especially from the party that defended Bill Clinton to the bitter end, is a little much to take.

I wonder - if they've had pictures of Pete Sessions like this for all this time, and they knew who it was, why didn't they prosecute? Lack of evidence? Insanity?

I'm guessing that this one will backfire.

Crime vs. war

These guys can't tell the difference either:
"'Disappearances' were a trademark abuse of Latin American military dictatorships in their 'dirty war' on alleged subversion," said Human Rights Watch special counsel Reed Brody.

"Now they have become a United States tactic in its conflict with Al-Qaeda," Brody said.
And I could say with equal accuracy that babbling is associated with idiots and now we're getting it from Human Rights Watch.

Imagine these jackasses fighting a war. "Excuse me, all of you gentlemen in the fatigues will have to line up over here for processing. No weapons are permitted in the office. All of those trucks will be needing license plates, tax stamps and pollution and safety inspections, and the drivers will need chauffeur's licenses and current log books. You'll need a permit for a parade for us to let those tanks and howitzers in...."

They're not through:
"Those guilty of serious crimes must be brought to justice before fair trials," said Brody. "If the United States embraces the torture and 'disappearance' of its opponents, it abandons its ideals and international obligations and becomes a lesser nation."
Yes, if we did, (and the article offers no proof ofc ourse)

Now tell me - what do we become if we let these bastards come and go as they please?


Monday, October 11, 2004

Victimless terrorism, or mass murder as nuisance

John Kerry said something you'll be hearing again and again this weekend:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
As the Volokhs note, he either picked one lousy analogy or he has a strange view of terrorism.

Why is it that gambling and prostitution are low legal priorities? The Volokhs address that here. IMO the essence is that they're victimless. The govt doesn't like for any economic activity to occur without being taxed, and prostitution in particular can become a significant public health threat if not kept within bounds, but for the most part they're simply personal problems. If we were having our kin killed by gamblers and hookers on a regular, random basis you can bet your sweet patootie the hookers and gamblers would be swinging from lampposts until the problem went away.

But that's altogether too dispassionate. Your murder is Kerry's nuisance?

Well, that's not what he meant, right? He's speaking in the legal sense, not the popular sense. He meant that the demonstrated existence and virulence of a cabal of lunatics, dedicated to killing Americans and others by any means necessary so we can live under sharia, is in principle no more serious than your neighbor playing his stereo a little too loud?

No, not that either! He just wants people to accept it, like the weather. (And maybe we ought to get rid of that nasty name "terrorists" too - how about "insurgents"?)

Yes, it's true that we can't eliminate *all* terrorism any more than we can eliminate mental illness. But these creeps aren't mentally ill - they know damned well what they are doing and they're loving it. They love death? Hey, I have a win-win proposition for them....

Sorry, but there's no talking around this one. Doesn't this man have handlers? Or is he just too arrogant to listen to them? Sheesh, I would have expected better from his wife

But it could have been worse - Kerry could have mentioned the real reason why he wants people to forget about terrorism. Democrats don't run well on foreign affairs issues. They can't see spending all that money on activities that won't buy them more votes back home. What's more important - your physical well-being, or their careers?

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Horse balls

They may be bigger than you think. Yes, this is safe for work.


It seems like only yesterday...a couple was filmed to make what they were told would be an innocent commercial. It turned out to be a commercial about herpes. The couple, failing to see the advantage in being immortalized in association with a social disease, sued the producer.

(you want a link? Tough. I'm sure I read it in some paragon of respectability like National Lampoon's True Facts section.)

Now we have the "it's a brand new day" Valtrex commercials. There's the babe talking to the camera about her herpes, and she and her squeeze are frolicking about - just think, if you had herpes your life could be like that too!

It's hard to believe what a big deal herpes was in its short vogue before AIDS showed up. Unlike true love, herpes lasts forever - even now there is no cure. Supposedly the outbreaks become less severe and less common over time, but I still won't be having any, thank you.

Vaughn Bodé, RIP

Good grief, Vaughn Bodé has been dead for almost 30 years. So if you're a twentysomething and didn't have a degenerate older relative like me with a stack of old National Lampoons you might not have heard of the man, or "Cheech Wizard".

Well, it's not like you've missed *that* much. But he's a taste of the late 60's and early 70's, like Peter Max, R. Crumb, and the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.

Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created

Good grief, where do they find these people?

Debate notes

I saw a bit of the debate on Friday. I've been avoiding it deliberately - as I expected, I spent about half the time gnashing my teeth thinking "you let that pass, you should have said this....", etc. I'll just have to trust that the all-knowing Karl Rove tested the answers and knows best. If Rove is half as good as the Dems say, everything is well under control.

Kerry claimed to have voted to "balance the budget" back in 1985. I couldn't recall the particulars, but I was about 95% sure that that was code for "raise taxes". And of course that was 20 years ago in any case.

Bush got an environmental question and I'm surprised that Kerry didn't bring up the old BS about arsenic and other rules that Bill Clinton had sat upon until about the time he pardoned Marc Rich.

Oh yeah, the Kyoto protocol. Kerry kept a straight face while suggesting that people in other countries would dislike Americans because we didn't ratify it. That Botox stuff must be strong. Anyway, Bush failed to note that Clinton blew it off too and that the Senate voted it down something like 97-zip.

I thought Bush handled the mistakes question thing well. He started off ignoring the question entirely, then came back to it saying that the mistakes were personnel appointments and he didn't want to embarrass the relevant people on TV. Slick.

Now Kerry wants to portray Bush's answer as "pigheaded" and "stubborn". Of course to Mr. Flip-Flop himself, holding a position for more than 20 minutes is "stubborn".

Who won? I didn't see it all. Bush didn't impress me, but I don't see why the best debater would make the best President, either.

The Snake

A guy wearing a John Kerry button walks into a bar just as the late news is showing a man standing on the edge of a building. The Kerry guy bets that bartender $50 that the man on TV won't jump. A moment later the guy does jump, so the bet is settled. But the bartender says "Aw, I can't take your money - I saw that clip on the early news". The Kerry guy says "yeah, so did I - I sure didn't think he'd jump again".

Was that a gratuitous Kerry reference? Of course. But then his noncynical followers (assuming he has any) are being asked to believe that he supports the troops when he didn't even support the guys he nominally fought alongside. They're asked to believe that he's not going to raise their taxes despite the long Senate record he's unusually quiet about. They seem willing to believe that Kerry can simultaneously insult our allies while attracting more of them to the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they think that by electing a Veep that has a history of raising medical costs and driving obstetricians out of business they can offer better and cheaper medical care.

They're sure going to be surprised if they get what they vote for and Kerry turns out to be the same SOB he's been for the last 35 years.

And you thought your life was dull

“I really do not know that anything has ever been more exciting than diagramming sentences. I like the feeling the everlasting feeling of sentences as they diagram themselves.”

Training costs

Some years back a man I know says he was leading a crew of bricklayers and laborers building a brick wall several storeys high. They were up a few decks high on the scaffolding when suddenly they felt it give way. Somehow no one was hurt, but you can bet that this was investigated.

Looking through the mess it was discovered that the lowest levels of the scaffolding had had its braces removed. So the laborer who had been responsible for this was questioned, and he told them that the braces were in his way and they weren't working on those levels anymore anyway, so he took them out. Whoops.

So our hero fired that laborer, right? No. As he put it, "Now he knows he needs to keep the braces on all of the levels. I can't afford to teach another one."

And so it is with Presidents. Those suckers are expensive to train. Whatever you might thing GWB and his team have fouled up, he does have that expensive experience. John Kerry and John Edwards certainly do not (and judging by their attendance records they don't have so much Senate experience either).