April 13, 2005

I always knew it

But now it's been proven.

John Kerry is in fact the World's Biggest Douchebag!

"The Web is abuzz today with discussion of John Kerry's crass call for military hardship stories he can use for his political advantage.

I share Instapundit's, Anklebitingpundits', Polipundit's, Vodkapundits', Ace's, and others' contempt for Kerry's cynical manipulation of personal hardships.

Kerry has sunk so low with this latest ploy that my first thought this morning was "What an unbelievable douchebag!" This spurred me to some serious scientific research. I had to find out: is John Kerry the biggest douchebag in the world?

Google finds 13,000,000 hits for a search on John Kerry. This gives us our baseline Kerry identification level. Then, by searching John Kerry douchebag, we find how many mentions associate John Kerry with a douchebag. The result is 17,500. By dividing this number by the 13 million baseline Kerry identification level and multiplying by 1000, we arrive at the Douchebag Identification Per Thousand(TM) quotient (DBIPT). Kerry's DBIPT score is 1.35, a truly phenomenal rating."

Read the rest to find out how other people scored!

(h/t: Ken)

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:15 PM | Comments (1)

April 19, 2005

Roy Hallums update

Rusty Shackelford has the story of the American hostage you've probably never heard of. In an exclusive interview, Rusty interviews the family of Roy Hallums to discuss his situation and what has and hasn't been done to secure his release. Part one of his interview with Roy's family is here. Part 2 tomorrow, and 3 and 4 to follow.

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:29 PM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2005

Don't support communism

What you probably know is that Venezuela is inching closer and closer to communism. What you may not know is that Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. is the owner of a little company here in the US known as Citgo.

Well, PDVSA has made a bold step embracing communism, this week they moved their corporate headquarters for South America and the Caribbean to Havana. As in Cuba.

Fausta at Bad Hair Blog has the details, including this juicy tidbit:

Venezuela's sending Cuba over 50,000 barrels per day, and that the PDVSA office in Habana will be in charge of commerce, storage, and transport. Venezuela's also opening a branch of the state-owned Banco Industrial de Venezuela in Habana.

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to realize that, since Venezuela's a Caribbean country and already has the necessary infrastructure to carry out all its commercial activity, opening this office and the bank in Havana is simply a means to further merge Venezuela's rapid descent into communism and finance Castro's goverment while avoiding those pesky investigations on corruption scandals and the subsequent calls for financial transparency at PDVSA.

As I mentioned before, Citgo, which has eight refineries and some 13,000 service stations across the U.S., is owned by Petróleos de Venezuela SA. What Venezuela does concerns us directly.

Additionally, Chávez has gone on the record saying that “oil is a geopolitical weapon”.

Read the rest!

Do we really want castro in charge of ANYTHING that has to do with our oil supply? Remember that the majority of our foreign oil imports come from Venezuela.....

Think about that the next time you stop at a Citgo to fill up.... Whose pockets are you really lining?

(h/t: Babalu)

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:36 PM | Comments (13)

June 01, 2005

The Nixonians weigh in

Not surprisingly, the group of bright, once-young men who once made up Nixon's staff and have manged to stay alive and out of jail were making the rounds, talking about Mark Felt (how's that for a pRon name????) and the legacy of Deep Throat and the end of the Nixon presidency.

Pat Buchanan was on Imus this morning, and he and Charles Colson have been all over MSNBC declaring that Deep Throat is not an American hero, but rather a misguided, if not vengeful schemer who violated the ethics of his position, something he would later be tried for in another matter, and brought down a presidency that had the potential to continue to do good.

Ben Stein echoes this theme in today's American Spectator, asking why Deep Throat is Nixon's legacy, rather than opening the door to China and building peace in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Former Nixon chief of staff, Al Haig told The Australian and FoxNews that it was good to "finally be off the list" of suspects.
(h/t Dr. Mental)

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:50 PM | Comments (1)

June 09, 2005

Question Time

The Queen asks the following:

1. Can you name two Democrats and two Republicans that you could really vote for in 2008? Basically, pick the ticket.

2. If you voted FOR Kerry, name one Democrat, a viable candidate for president, that you could never support in 2008.

3. If you voted FOR Bush, name one Republican, a viable candidate for president, that you could never support in 2008.

I said:
1. Joe Lieberman (a class act) and ABH (anyone but Hillary); Condi Rice and TBA.

Honestly I hadn't thought about running mates. And I would LOVE to see the reaction of the MSM and certain traditionally democratic constituencies if a BLACK WOMAN ran for President on the GOP ticket.... Maybe throw in Liddy Dole as a VP candidate just for the hell of it. No, wait, Senior senators from NC don't have a great track record in running for Veep....

2. N/A. Duh. I voted for Bush.

3. John McCain

Six to twelve months ago he was on my short list for "the guy after Bush" but he has run his course. Waving your schlong around in public (even metaphorically) too much is bound to get you in trouble..... Especially if you start playing both sides against each other.

So what do you all think?

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:42 PM | Comments (4)

June 16, 2005

Rusty's had it

Kos has crossed the the line, saying, "The torture
that was so bad under Saddam, is EQUALLY bad under U.S. command."

Rusty Shackelford fights back, with a graphic reminder of why Kos is just so wrong.

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:09 PM | Comments (3)

June 17, 2005

PETA workers arrested for Animal Cruelty

It's not a joke!
From NABR (the National Association for Biomedical Research):

In a stunning development that is fast becoming national news, PETA employees Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle have each been charged by Ahoskie, North Carolina police with 31 counts of animal cruelty and 8 misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals.

During a month long investigation, law enforcement officials observed the two individuals in a white van, allegedly registered to PETA, toss several trash bags into a commercial dumpster behind a shopping mall.

Police confirmed the bags contained 18 dead dogs, including one bag containing seven puppies. An additional 13 dead dogs were found in the van. Both the investigation and surveillance of the shopping center were prompted by four other similar incidents. According to police the animals were from two North Carolina animal shelters approximately 30 miles away, where Cook and Hinkle had identified themselves to shelter staff as PETA representatives from Norfolk, VA. According to the local Animal Control Officer, the two had made claims for the past two months "they were picking up dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes". Cook and Hinkle have been released on $35,000 bond each. Two of the 31 dogs have been kept for an autopsy.

According to accounts just coming to light, PETA may have been picking up dogs and cats from animal control facilities in North Carolina for months or even years and bringing them back to PETA headquarters in Norfolk with the stated purpose of "attempting to find them good homes" when, in fact, they may have been killing and dumping them before they ever crossed the North Carolina state line. The purpose for this particular exercise; how many animals have been exterminated and why they were just dumped in parking lot dumpsters is still unclear. NABR will provide more details as they become available.

The VA Pilot (local to the arrests) story is here.

The AP story is here.

This is frigging sick. Taking poor, helpless animals from shelters or rescue groups that have a good chance of finding homes for them and just killing and dumping them. The poor things never had a chance.

And these people are AGAINST cruelty to animals, huh? Makes you wonder what the really cruel people are like.

It's unbelievably difficult for me to contain my rage right now. These people have the balls to come into MY workplace, look at MY animals and trump up a story about MY colleagues being "cruel" because they didn't euthanize animals properly or some such, all the while their OWN people are killing dogs and dumping them in ditches and dumpsters.


If you support PETA, I hope you look into these charges and seriously reconsider your contributions.

They talk a good game, anti-fur, meat is bad for you and all that, but at the core, they're a group of thugs who terrorize innocent animals. This is simply another example of PETA sponsored animal cruelty, to go along with their previous attempts to set free animals that have no ability to survive outside a controlled laboratory environment. I mean, how in the hell do you expect a BLIND ALBINO rabbit to survive in an open field????

I don't know about you, but I think an organization against animal cruelty ought to REALLY practice what they preach.

: DogSnot and Acidman are all over this too

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:55 PM | Comments (3)

August 06, 2005

I've been waiting for this

Two straight men are pushing the limits of Canada's same-sex marriage act. According to this Toronto Sun article:

Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist -- they're straight men.

"I think it's a hoot," Pinn said.

The proposal came last Monday on the patio of a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two -- both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love -- insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.

"There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through," Pinn said.

Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

Ever since this debate started several years ago, this exact situation has been the pink elephant in the room. Will legislators seek to ban "marriages" that have nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, but that simply seek the various tax and legal advantages that the estate of matrimony provides? How could these opportunistic unions be fairly blocked?

I can just see the Gay Elite blowing a gasket over this one, can't you? Same-sex marriage is an advantage for the gay community, after all. An equality step, if you will. And the "Breeders" are taking advantage of it. "That's not fair!" some will whine. I hate to say it, but you all set up this mess. It's your catch-22. Unless you let the government into people's bedrooms there's no way to tell if Bryan and Bill are lovers or just friends. Hell, I'd suspect that a lot of marriages, gay and straight would look more like friends than lovers in the bedroom...

You can't say that a same-sex marriage is null if one of the parties was previously married, a lot of gay folks have been married because of societal pressure. You can't say that if someone has parented a child the marriage is null, either, because gays of both genders participate genetically in the conception of their children.

I don't think there's a way to allow same-sex marriage without allowing Bryan and Bill to wed too.

A personal example: I have two good friends that I will refer to as A and B. A and B are the best of friends and were roomies all through college and through much of graduate school. During the 6 or so years that they shared accomodations, they acquired a number of joint things, including Costco cards and a shared phone plan. But I digress. It was a frequent joke that their families thought they were "together" since neither had much luck with guys at the time and well, they were pretty inseperable. How hard would it have been for A and B to get some nice tax breaks during the years they shared an address and a phone number but not a bed?

Although I suppose there might have been a fair bit of paperwork to deal with when one of them got married last spring.....

The reaction has already started. The article also quotes a gay activist who says:

"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."

Straight people don't even get married for love all the time. What makes this guy think that same-sex marriage should be held to a higher standard????

So, what's your take? Do you think that a significant number of people are going to take advantage of this "loophole" in Canada's law? What about here in the US, where registered domestic partners have certain rights in some states?

Oh, and BTW, I'm all for same-sex marriage. I just don't like what I expect will be the hypocritical response of the gay movement to this....

(h/t Kate posting at OTB)

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:52 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

September 14, 2005

What a news day....

Judge rules Pledge unconstitutional (again.....)

GOP-controlled House passes landmark anti-discrimination Hate Crime legislation

Car bombs kill over 150 and injure nearly 600 in Iraq today.

John Roberts eats Chuck Schumer's lunch and explains why the Ginsberg rule applies to him even though Schumer thinks he's ahead in the game.

Bet me money that the MAJORITY of tonight's news will be about the Katrina aftermath instead.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The President is Human!

Not a member of some inferior alien race.

The proof? He needs to pee too!

REUTERS/Rick Wilking/Yahoo!

U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York September 14, 2005.

The text of the message reads "I think I may need a bathroom break? Is this possible? Whe..."

I can just see the response from the Chimpy McSmirk crowd......

And yes, I'm sure he is potty trained and does in fact KNOW whether he needs to go or not.
(h/t Kevin at Wizbang!)

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 29, 2005

Congratulations Mr. Chief Justice!

John Roberts was confirmed today as the nation's youngest Chief Justice in 200 years by a vote of 78-22.

Now we move on to the next nominee.... This ought to be interesting...

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 03, 2005

The Harriet Miers Brouhaha

It's been a while since I've weighed in on a political issue. I just haven't had the motivation. Admittedly, I've avoided paying too much attention to any of the foaming-at-the-mouth folks who are completely against this nom. I'm going to try to look at her background and get to know who Harriet Miers is before I decide whether I think she's a good choice or not. Sure, on the surface, I'm a little disappointed, but that's no reason to fly off the handle right away.

Here's my initial thoughts: Is it possible that Harriet Miers is the sacrificial lamb to go before Congress, make the dems look stupid and waste their political capital on the battle? Perhaps Evil Darth Rove has planned this to get her Borked back into her cushy WH job and then he can put up a more well-known, well-qualified conservative jurist who WILL get confirmed.

And who cares if the woman has never been a judge? Three weeks ago you were all singing the praises of a man whose first stint on the bench EVER was as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, and whose second was as the Chief. That's right, Rehnquist was never a sitting judge prior to his nomination to SCOTUS, so the no bench argument is a non-starter for me.

I would have liked to see Bush nominate someone from a "diversity" background, to show that he recognizes diversity, but without putting a "Ladies Room" sign on the back of the chair about to be vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor. By nominating another woman, he has all but painted the chair pink.

The Usual Suspects weigh in. Some eloquently, some not. You decide.
Patterico and the Angry Clam
Scott Kirwin at Dean's World
Gay Patriot
Captain Ed

Got a link? Leave it in the comments or drop me a trackback. I'll take opinions from all sides.

Update: FrankJ agrees. Why all the fuss? He has some interesting little-known facts about Ms. Miers.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:37 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 07, 2005

What would it take?

Goldstein asks, "What would the Democrats have to do to get your vote in '06 and '08??"

His answer:

"In 2000 I didn’t care who won, though I disliked Gore, who seemed impossibly artificial.

But now, after 5 years of listening to Dems, there is absolutely nothing they can do to win me back short of purging their entire leadership and nuking their base from orbit.

It’s the only way to be sure."

I'm not so drastic. Sure, I'd like to see them nuke their base and point out the hypocrisy rampant in the leftist whiner victim movement. But I might consider voting for one if they put Joe Lieberman up for President. And meant it.

I've long said that the problem with the Left in this country is that in an effort to distance themselves from the hot-button issues of the Right (family, economy, safety) they've excluded themselves from the majority of national discourse and focused on currying support from far-left politicos who were leaving the party in droves in 2000. Choosing Whacko Howie as their chair is a great example of this attitude.

That is, rather than recognizing that to run a successful campaign you have to reach across the aisle, the democrats have focused on what they see as past mistakes and party losses.

Even more simply: They should be going for purple, rather than teal.

It wasn't Clinton's centrist policies that lost the election for Gore. It was Gore who lost his own election. By being a boor. There was no need to run to the Green defectors as if the victim whiner movement would save the world from the evil thug republicans.

If the left wants to be taken seriously, they need to drop the hemineglect act and recognize the right side of the political spectrum is a legitimate section of the electorate, not merely ignorant, country, sheeple who love guns and NASCAR and can't be trusted to make reasonable, objective decisions for the country.

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

I told you so

Three weeks ago

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination after coming under all kinds of fire for being a mediocre choice.

Now all Bush has to do is find someone with the right resume, and their politics won't matter. He can line up a hard-core conservative "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" with a strong background in constitutional scholarship, and the Dems will have to capitulate.

What a great plan. Too bad he had to sacrifice his buddy Harriet. The man really is dumb like a fox.

It looks bad for him, but I suspect this was the idea all along.

The usual suspects weigh in:
Power Line
Michelle M
Patterico(with a tasteless gloating headline, courtesy of the Clam). Patterico did some judicious editing. His own response is here.

and of course Hugh Hewitt has much to say, just keep scrolling.

I have to agree with Michelle, actually. Although I was firmly agnostic on this nomination (I was looking forward to hearing Ms. Miers defend herself in the hearings), I too am relieved. But not in a happy-gloating-dancing-like-a-Clam way.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

Watching the PC

This Fitzgerald guy is pretty good. Nominate him for SCOTUS (assumning his politics are in the right place).

He's been on for 45 minutes and has come across as a fair and competent attorney whose only interest is completing his investigation fairly.

I'm glad this is coming down the way it is. Clearly there was no crime in revealing her name, but the coverup will get you every time, right Martha?

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 09, 2005

Holy Crap!

It's no secret that some of this pleases me. I was anti-75 (unnecessary, already required) and DEFINITELY anti-74 (extending tenure won't solve the problem. Ask a teacher. More on that another time, perhaps)

But the COMPLETE AND UTTER REJECTION of ALL of Ahnuld's propositions shocked me.

When I went to bed, 75 and 73 were passing. And I was hoping 77 would pass.

Here's the final tallies from the SecState's page:

The maps are very telling. Go to the returns page, and click the map link for each individual proposition....

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Suicide Bombers Target Jordan

Terrorists attacked three hotels in Amman, Jordan that are frequent stops for American and Israeli tourists as well as Iraqi officials: The Grand Hyatt, the Radisson, and the Days Inn, all in Amman.

At least 18 dead and 120 injured. More details here.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 09, 2006

Quick thoughts on the Alito hearing

1.  It's not "the economy, stupid".  This time around it's all about Executive power.  They think they can shitcan a brilliant man based on one contemporaneous issue.  Kennedy, in particular, was "troubled".  I guess that means it's all good.  (see here)

2.Leahy?  He's an unmitigated twat.  Like it's Alito's fault he's a white male?  Jackass.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More Kennedy Follies

Methinks Ol' Ted should just pack it in while he's ahead.  Between his opening statements this morning, this misrememberation (See, Dubya isn't the only one!) and this, he's about lost it, I think:

"Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May."

You read that right.  The dog's name is "Splash".  Great name for a Portuguese Water Dog.  Bad name for a dog belonging to Ted Kennedy.  Wonder if he has another named "Mary Jo"???

The jokes write themselves on this one, folks.  Good going, Ted.

h/t Prof. Taylor

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 10, 2006

Borking Alito

Chuckie "Hillary's Lapdog" Schumer is currently trying to hang Alito with a noose fashioned of Bork's coattails...

Now he's taking him to task for being an honest dissenter. Maybe we should change Chuckie's nickname from "Hillary's Lapdog" to "Stuck on Spin Cycle".

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 12, 2006

Getting Geological on his ass

I wanna see the rest of the Alito Hearings in Frank J's world:

A large gray thing hit Biden in the face and knocked him to the ground.

"We agreed that Alito was not allowed to bring any rocks to these hearings!" Schumer exclaimed.

"That was a chunk of concrete!" Alito said defensively.

"It's the same thing!"

"Oh yeah?" Alito scoffed. "If a chunk of concrete is a rock, tell me whether it's igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic?"

"He's getting geological on your ass!" Bush laughed. "No wonder people call him and his friends 'wiseguys.'"

Go see what Ted Kennedy had to say....

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Not to be redundant

But Teddy Kennedy is a hypocritical pig bastard.

The man and his self-serving egotistical posturing has made me physically sick. Who the fuck told him that he has the right to set him self up as the Grand Poobah High Inquisitor of Ethics?

Was it Mary Jo Kopechne?

The little fucking toad acts as if he doesn't fart. Which we all know leads to Spontaneous Human Combustion. Can I watch?

I don't recall ANYONE accusing Judge Alito of drowning a woman, or drunk driving (multiple times), or lying about anything. You Senator, on the other hand, have not only been accused of all of the above, but HAVE ADMITTED IT.

Lemme ask you... What's worse: Getting drunk and driving your car off a bridge and leaving a poor defenseless young lady to drown or recusing yourself after the fact from a case involving your mutual funds? What's worse: Lying to the cops during a drunk driving arrest or joining a group that at the time was merely protesting the removal of ROTC at Princeton?

Furthermore, if this wasn't enough evidence that Teddy needs better advice, his ill-informed tirade yesterday on the Rusher documents from CAP proved that a fat drunk bully is always a fat drunk bully, no matter how you dress him up. I about crapped myself when Spector shut him up and then when they came back from recess and Spector announced the documents were freely available without need of a subpoena, and if TK had gone about it properly, he could have had the documents himself already.... and then the killer "No recollection of Mr. Alito, and his name does not appear" HAH.

Even trying to portray Alito as a racist and a bigot failed when he made Mrs. Alito cry.

I am so glad these unbelievably long hearings are almost over. [/rant]

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 13, 2006


An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.


N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd, Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

and Me, Caltechgirl, Not Exactly Rocket Science

And many many others!

Won't you join too?

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I've been trying to avoid the abortion issue, but I had to post this

This post from Wizbang! set me off...

I consider myself a pro-choice conservative.  Mostly because I resent like hell the idea that the government can have the authority to tell me what to do with my body.  They can't even run the country properly, why in heck would I let them decide what's best for me and my body?  Honestly.

However, that being said, did anyone else catch that woman from NARAL testifying at the end of the Alito hearing?  About how she never thought (as a married Catholic) that she'd ever want an abortion, let alone "need" one, but that after her husband (also, presumably a devout Catholic) left her and their 3 children and she found out she was pregnant, she was humiliated because in her state in the days before Roe, a married woman needed her husband's permission to get an abortion?  Did you catch her sanctimonious bellyaching about having to stand before a panel of doctors to admit the failure of her marriage and her inability to care for a 4th child and then getting to the clinic, only to be told that she needed her Ex to sign off, so she had to chase him down too? And yet she still chose to have a legal abortion, even in the face of all of that humiliation.

Oh please, lady.  So you were humiliated.  Wasn't that the point?  Shouldn't most women be humiliated for being in a situation where they "need" an abortion?  I understand that your situation was less of your own making than most, seeing as how your husband walked out on you and 3 small kids, but didn't you have other options?  I notice you didn't choose adoption or seek out the vaunted "back alley"....

Your weakness is telling.  That you LET YOURSELF be humiliated to the point that changed the entire focus of your life, that 30+ years later you are still cowed by the men that you presumed were in charge of your body makes me sick.  Stand up for yourself and take some responsibility.  They didn't humiliate you, you let yourself be treated that way.

So I guess this really isn't about abortion after all, it's about the pathetic martyr/victim nature of the left:  Poor Me.  Look at me.  Pity me.  Fix me.

Yeah?  Well screw you.

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:14 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 30, 2006

Portrait of the Senator as a Loony

Ted Kennedy is many things: a liar, a drunk, a blowhard, perhaps even a murderer, but I never knew he was a stand-up comedian until today.

Kennedy's rant on the Senate floor against Sam Alito was a treasure to behold. You can see the Senator puffing and blowing here.

I swear, the only reason I left it on C-SPAN2 is that I thought he was going to keel over from a heart attack right there on the Senate floor.

All that effort, and cloture passed with 72 votes. Suck it Ted and Johnny. I'm sure Massachussetts is very proud of you.

Michelle Malkin, as always, has more.

Welcome visitors from Expose the Left! Feel free to click around, and come back often if you like what you see.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 31, 2006

The jokes, they write themselves...

So I was tooling down the freeway to work this morning when the traffic began to stop rather unexpectedly in front of me. I quickly started flipping AM stations to find one that might tell me what the traffic situation in front of me was, and somehow I ended up on KFI. Which at 10:15 AM is airing Rush Limbaugh.

For the record, while I used to be quite the Rush fan, I haven't listened to him since Clinton was in his first term. I honestly can't stand him, and most days I would have just changed the channel again, but today he said something that caught my attention.

Paraphrasing here, he said that in the 18 years he's been doing the broadcast, every crazy joke, satire, or parody of the Democrats that he has come up with, they have done on their own, and that after last night, he doesn't see how he can parody them anymore. The jokes it seems, are already being lived by the loonies on the left.

Explaining himself further, El Rushbo cited two things: first, tonight's planned demonstration outside the capital wherein a bunch of idiots (my word here, I believe he called them "60's retreads") plan to stand outside the building during the SOTU speech tonight and bang pots and pans together in an effort to drown out the noise inside the building.

As if. Can you just imagine the Usual Suspects (ELF, ANSWER, NOW, PETA, Code Pinkos, NARAL, et al) standing out there in the cold banging pots and pans together like a bunch of toddlers on crack? How many of them do you think will forget to bring earplugs and cause themselves permanent damage? How do they plan on holding their protest signs with pots in both hands? Or will they "work together" and hold the pots in one hand, banging them against each other's pots, holding their signs of love and peace in the other hand?

Here's the actual website announcing the protest. You too can join in, as these events will be taking place around the country tonight... Like they can hear the noise in DC from Bisbee, Arizona of all places.

The other thing Rush referred to was this article by Dana Milbank of the WaPo. (reg. req. go to bugmenot)

The article is entitled "Tasting Victory, Liberals Instead Have a Food Fight". Here's just a taste:

"Right on cue, liberal activists including Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark gathered yesterday at the Busboys & Poets restaurant and bookshop at 14th and V streets NW for what they billed as a forum on "The Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." But the participants, while charging the administration with "crimes against humanity," a "war of aggression" and even "the supreme international crime," inevitably turned their wrath on congressional Democrats, whom they regarded as a bunch of wimps.

"Does the Democratic Party want to continue to exist or does it want to ignore what 85 percent of its supporters want?" demanded David Swanson, a labor union official who runs "Impeach PAC" and other efforts to remove Bush from office. Singling out Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.) for derision, Swanson said that Democrats who do the right thing "are exceptions.""

Later on, they discussed ways to remove the President from office:

"After the participants made their urgent calls for impeachment proceedings, John Bruhns, identifying himself as an antiwar Iraq veteran, rose for a clarification. If Democrats don't first "gain control of one of the houses" of Congress, he wondered, "how else can we impeach this monster?"

Swanson had a ready brushoff for Democrats who won't pursue impeachment because they're in the minority: "Just go home if you're going to talk that way." Offering the lessons of 1994, he said: "The way the Republicans got the majority was not by being scared. . . . It was by going out and speaking on behalf of their base and letting themselves be called radicals."

Bruhns, wearing a crew cut and business suit, disagreed. Somebody in the audience called for him to "shut up."

"They didn't answer my question," Bruhns protested after the exchange ended. "How do you get impeachment if you don't win elections? I'm being practical."


"Sheehan, in a sweet voice, condemned the administration's agenda "to spread the cancer of empire."

The first questioner, getting into the spirit of the forum, declared of the administration: "These criminals and gangsters, thugs as I regard them, I believe engineered 9/11."

Many in the crowd applauded. But others were skeptical. "I've heard a lot about accountability" from the panel, said one questioner. "Seems to me the first opportunity we had for accountability was in the last election."

"Elections," moderator Zeese replied, "are not the determining factor.""

[emphasis mine] Read the whole thing.

If I was a Democrat today, I'd be ashamed. Sincerely. If the rants of Kerry and Kennedy yesterday weren't evidence enough, banging pots and an almost institutional inability to do simple addition (not enough votes!) brings me to the conclusion that the Democratic party leadership are nothing more than a bunch of toddlers.

Let's see: Whiny? Check. Unable to add numbers? Check. Irrational sense that their way is the only way, even when it's clearly impossible? Check. A belief that increased volume equates to increased chance of getting their way? Check.

I can't wait to see what childish stunts they pull tonight inside the Capital, too.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:29 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Congratulations Mr. Justice!

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was confirmed as the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States this morning by a vote of 58-42.

He was subsequently sworn in and will make his debut as Associate Justice at tonight's State of the Union Address.

It's nice when good things happen in spite of a**holes, don't you think?

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 01, 2006

An alternative SOTU

From recent bloggy find Aaron of Subject To Change:

"The state of our union could not be stronger. In the year 2001, this nation was brutally attacked by an organization bent on the destruction of our way of life. Yet, just a few short years later the average American is mostly concerned with what's on the TV, especially since it's Oscar season. This demonstrates the strength of the American people. Even the most tragic of events can't stop us from pursuing our dreams.

We have kept ourselves safe by fighting terrorism at its source: Walmart. Walmart's low-low prices are increasing individual's buying power and creating a critical mass of useless crap in every household. Unless this menace is stopped, all of our natural resources will be turned into excessive packaging and landfilled out of existence. So long as we remain focused on fighting the evil empire that is destroying our culture from the inside, we have nothing to fear."

Read the whole thing, especially the New Energy Initiatives......

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 07, 2006

Heh. Indeed.

John McCain lays the smackdown on Barack Obama:

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

This is only the first paragraph, folks.  Read the rest.  And yes, I would vote for McCain/Lieberman (more likely if it was the other way around).  It's not about politics.  It's about balls.
h/t Darleen

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

It's a f*cking FUNERAL for Cripes sake!

Do you do honor to one of the classiest women this nation has ever known by attacking the sitting President of the United States in your remarks at her funeral?

I know you wish it was HIS funeral, but some things are simply beyond trashy, classless, and rude.  Rot in Hell you selfish, pathetic bastards. 

You disrespected not only a strong and well-loved woman, but her husband, and everything he stood for by your remarks today.  He would never have done such a thing, and I bet you wouldn't have dared to do it if he was still alive.

RIP Martin and Coretta.  What you did will always be remembered, long after these jackasses are forgotten.

I heard some of this at work today, and Pam has the links here.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:22 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 13, 2006

Pure Genius

Evil Genius, that is.

I always said Dubya was smarter than most people give him credit for.  Take that Dubai!

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 14, 2006

Don't these people have a staff?

Not that I disagree with the statement, but still.....

h/t Michelle Malkin

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keeping an eye on the Cheese(heads)

The esteemed gentleman from Texas is tracking Cheeshead Feingold's progress in his bid to censure the President:

Results of Feingold Censure Resolution (S.Res. 398): Day 2

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution:0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

h/t(s): Powerline and Gay Patriot

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 21, 2006

I thought he HATED the little guy....

Seems as if the Supremes are about to side 8-1 with the bad guys:

The Supreme Court justices, with the exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sounded Monday as if they were likely to bar prosecutors from using in court the words of alleged crime victims who speak to authorities but later refuse to testify. Such a ruling would greatly strengthen the right of defendants to be confronted with the witnesses against them, in the Constitution's words. However, it would be a major setback for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, who often are afraid to testify against their abusers.
And no, that "1" isn't John Roberts, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

As James Joyner says,

"The bottom line, though, is that the accused's rights to confront his accuser in a manner that allows the jury to judge the demeanor of said accuser is paramount. A 911 call might be quite compelling but lacks a visual component. For all the jury knows, it could be staged by a spiteful ex-lover. It is harder to lie in open court than via telephone.
The irony here is that it is the liberal Justice (and blogger) taking the side of the accuser while the conservative Justice... [is] taking up for the rights of the accused."
What do you think?

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 22, 2006

Your Government at Work

Duck and Cover!

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 24, 2006

Two things

I haven't spoken about this yet, but my own thoughts and prayers are with Abdul Rahman, the Christian scheduled to be executed in Afghanistan simply because he is not a Muslim.  Efforts from the United States and others may keep this man from from being killed, but that isn't yet certain.

Also (and more this weekend) Guillermo Farinas is past day 50 of a hunger strike protesting the lack of something you're using right now (internet access) for Cubans under the regime of fidel castro

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 06, 2006

Hell Officially Frozen Over!

I agree with something said on Kos and Atrios....
From this article:

"Sitting in the oncology ward at Children's National Medical Center on Jan. 19, retired Adm. Joe Sestak and his wife, Susan, awaited the doctors' verdict about the condition of their 5-year-old daughter, Alexandra.

She had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor last summer and given three to nine months to live. The Sestaks lived for four months in the ward. They watched as their daughter survived three surgeries, and as she endured chemotherapy.

But that winter day, doctors told the Sestaks that Alexandra had done remarkably well and that, although the cancer could reemerge, she could resume living like a healthy girl.

Relieved and grateful, Sestak, who retired as a three-star admiral Jan. 1, after 31 years in the Navy, began thinking about what he wanted to do next.


"He's running because he has a personal ax to grind with the Navy leadership," [Rep. Curt] Weldon [(R), PA] said. "When you treat people like dirt, that's an issue."

Weldon [also] attacked Sestak's decision to continue owning a home in Virginia while only renting in Pennsylvania and questioned why Sestak did not move back to Pennsylvania when he was working at the Pentagon. Weldon commutes from Pennsylvania each day.

Weldon also suggested Sestak should have sent his daughter to a hospital in Philadelphia or Delaware, rather than the Washington hospital. Sestak said that as soon as doctors give his daughter the all-clear, he'll buy in Pennsylvania."[emphasis mine - Ed.]

Jesus, you don't attack a man for where he chooses to treat his five year-old daughter's cancer!  That is BEYOND the pale.

No, I'm not going to link to Kos or Atrios, I don't need the trolls.  You can find the links here.

The thing is, both sides do this and I am F***ING tired of it.  There's no reason to deal these kind of low blows.  Toot your own horn, explain why your opponent's policy platform is wrong, and let it go at that.  That should give the voters plenty of reasons to make their decision.

Or maybe there's just nothing worthwhile to say.  In which case, my mother taught me to shut up.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:49 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 19, 2006

How Moonbat Dipshits Get Elected...

From an email from CaltechMom (who broke her foot yesterday....)

Caution! These people Vote

A guy bought a new fridge for his house. To get rid of his old fridge, he put it in his front yard and hung a sign on it saying: "Free to good home. You want it, you take it." For three days the fridge sat there without even one person looking twice at it. He eventually decided that people were too un-trusting of this deal. It looked to good to be true, so he changed the sign to read: "Fridge for sale $50". The next day someone stole it.
These people Vote!
While looking at a house, my brother asked the real estate agent which direction was North because, he explained, he didn't want the sun waking him up every morning. She asked, "Does the sun rise in the North?" When my brother explained that the sun rises in the East, (and has for sometime), she shook her head and said, "Oh, I don't keep up with that stuff"...
She ALSO votes!
I used to work in technical support for a 24/7 call center. One day I got a call from an individual who asked what hours the call center was open. I told him, "The number you dialed is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." He responded, "Is that Eastern or Pacific time?" Wanting to end the call quickly, I said, "Pacific."
He ALSO votes!
My colleague and I were eating our lunch in our cafeteria, when we overheard one of the administrative assistants talking about the sunburn she got on her weekend drive to the shore. She drove down in a convertible, but "didn't think she'd get sunburned because the car was moving".
She ALSO votes!
My sister has a lifesaving tool in her car. It's designed to cut through a seat belt if she gets trapped. She keeps it in the trunk. .
My sister ALSO votes!
My friends and I were on a beer run and noticed that the cases were discounted 10%. Since it was a big party, we bought 2 cases. The cashier multiplied 2 times 10% and gave us a 20% discount.
He ALSO votes!
I was hanging out with a friend when we saw a woman with a nose ring attached to an earring by a chain. My friend said, "Wouldn't the chain rip out every time she turned her head?" I explained that a person's nose and ear remain the same distance apart no matter which way the head is turned.
My friend ALSO votes!
I couldn't find my luggage at the airport baggage area. So I went to the lost luggage office and told the woman there that my bags never showed up. She smiled and told me not to worry because she was a trained professional and I was in good hands. "Now," she asked me, "has your plane arrived yet?"
SHE ALSO votes!
To those who understand ~ No explanation is necessary.
For those who don't understand ~ No explanation is possible

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 16, 2006

Just an incubator?

New Federal guidlines ask health care professionals to treat all women capable of conceiving a baby as "pre-pregnant" from menarche through menopause.

"Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control."
All women, huh?

I have soooo many problems with this one:

First: We should encourage EVERYONE to be as healthy as possible.  Men and women alike.  FOR THEIR OWN WELL BEING.

Second:  I find this utterly demeaning.  As if the SOLE purpose of my body is to carry around my uterus and anything that ends up growing inside it.

Third, and related:  So, basically you're saying that if I choose not to have children or I can't have children, I should be preparing my body to have kids anyway?  That's insulting on so many levels I don't have room here to go into it.  I can just see some poor soul fighting infertility, finally resigning herself to being unable to bear children, and then being told by some twit doctor that she should take prenatal vites and avoid smoking for the sake of her potential children.....

h/t ilyka, who also uses a 4-letter word.

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:22 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 19, 2006

Heil Ahmedinejad!

Sick. Just fucking sick.

h/t Jawa Howie

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:12 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 02, 2006

The Intellectual Left

In an essay looking at the vitriol directed by the moonbats at Jeff Goldstein, Ace nails the core reason why the left is so unhinged:

"The left, to a man, considers itself to be educated and enlightened. It matters not how little actual schooling a particlular leftist may have had, nor how unintelligent the person might be. They all consider themselves intellectuals of sorts. If they dropped out of college after one semester, they just think of themselves as autodidacts whose genius could not be stimulated by the ossified and bourgeois teaching of the academy....

This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated. It's an attractive doctrine for those who wish to conceive of themselves as intellectual and brilliant, for it provides an instant short-cut to the equivalent of an MIT education. If you simply believe these things we tell you to believe, you are one of Us, one of the Intellectually Elite, one of the Cultural Vanguard. Just as giving oneself to Christ, and believing in His power, and accepting the need for and gift of His redemption, instantly makes one "saved" and enters one's name in the Book of the Heaven, so too does accepting leftist tropes and core beliefs make one one of the Secular Elect.

Now, the things the left wants you to believe are not easy to believe. It's hard to believe that, for example, taxing work and investment will not reduce work and investment (especially when one simultaneously believes that taxing the use of gasoline or other energy will reduce the use of gasoline or other energy). Nevertheless, while it may be difficult to believe these things, it's certainly easier to simply give in and believe these things than to, say, earn a Ph. D. in literary theory or semiotics or even something stupid like science or engineering.

So, if one wants to conceive of oneself as an intellectual, one can either actually become an intellectual -- which frankly takes a lot of work and reading, much of it terribly boring -- or one can simply believe what Noam Chomsky tells one....

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's their very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated."

Emphasis mine.  I couldn't just excerpt a few sentences...  Now, for that rant: Read More "The Intellectual Left" »
Posted by caltechgirl at 10:07 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 03, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth

Life's a bitch, War is Hell, and commitments are hard to keep.  We all know this, yet so many people believe that if we simply ignore these  truths, they might just go away.

As if

Cassandra of Villainous Company also nails it:

"If only we could go back to the good old days, when there was no news coming out of Iraq and we didn't have to confront the horror. When we could tell ourselves, even if it wasn't true, that our hands were clean.

I hope one of these smart people, who are so disturbed over our "failures" in Iraq and Afghanistan can tell me what they propose to do when we pull out? What do they think will happen? Why do they think a small minority of Iraqis are planting bombs and practicing terrorism against their fellow Muslims - innocent civilians - in order to prevent a democratic government from being formed?

The insurgents, too, long for the good old days. And right now, we are the only thing standing between them and their heart's desire. And that's an Inconvenient Truth we all too often forget when the media is parading an endless stream of sensationalized stories about Abu Ghuraib and Haditha before our eyes."

It's long, but well worth it. Read the whole thing!

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 10, 2006

Did they or didn't they?

Much buzz in the b'sphere over whether or not Zarqawi may have been "assaulted" by US troops when they recovered his still-smoking, almost-dead carcass.

To paraphrase Bob Uecker's classic line from Major League, "Who gives a sh*t?  [he]'s gone."

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:08 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 13, 2006

I'm dreaming of a white Fitzmas.....

A holiday that will never be...

Suck it, conspiracy moonbats, Rove didn't break the law, and hence WILL NOT BE CHARGED in the CIA leak case.

Why on earth would the President want to bury good news about Rove under his trip to Baghdad?

The day just keeps getting better.

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Spin it!

Two headlines, same story:

1) "Bush May Meet Vow To Halve The Deficit Three Years Early" --Investors Business Daily

2) "Bush Deficit Reduction Plan Falls Off-Schedule." -- Guess who (acc. to Insty, but I can't find the headline anywhere on their site anymore)

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:57 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 19, 2006

Cluck off, Chickie!

Last week, the Dixie Chicks ruffled a few feathers when singer Natalie Maines dismissed her ENTIRE fan base, saying,

"I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," she told Time. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."
This week, she's back, and served up her other foot for another tasty meal:
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."--emphasis mine, ed.
No wonder the Clucks are having a hard time selling out arenas in places like Memphis, Indianapolis, and Fresno.  Yeah, their album debuted at #1, but anyone in the biz will tell you that album sales mean nothing to the artist.  They make all of their money touring.  Cancelling concerts is bad  news on the pocketbook.  Especially the new Louis Vuitton ones, right, Natalie?

All the snark aside, I'd like to remind Ms. Maines and her colleagues that the SINGLE, ONLY, UNIQUE, UNITARY, etc. reason that she has this soapbox, that she's made all the money in her bank account, that she can fly to France or the UK whenever she wants and spout off about this country is that she is a CITIZEN OF THE US.

Don't love your country, Natalie, it's ok.   Really, The rest of us could give a shit.  But don't tell us we're stupid for caring.  Don't tell us that you like your life and then spit in the face of those people who have died or sacrificed much so that you can live the way you do.

Why should people care about patriotism, Natalie?  Well, because patriotism created this country, it sacrificed to preserve out way of life, and continues to do so over and over again every day.  Patriotism is why you can stand on your soapbox and denounce the President.  Patriotism is why you speak English, not German or Japanese.  Patriotism provides you with the security to go about your business and raise your children as you see fit.

The truth is, see, that in the long run, it is the patriot whose contributions will matter.  The small effort of each individual to preserve and prolong the grand experiment in democracy started more than 200 years ago by another group of patriots whose motives were questioned by ignorant fools like you.  Your contributions, your songs, your rabble rousing, your chicken feet tatoos; they'll all be gone with the proverbial wind.  But this country, and the patriots who protect her, will still be here.

What was the most popular song/singer of 1776?  You don't know?  Well, in 2206 I can assure you the same answer will be spoken in response to "Who were the Dixie Chicks?"

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:05 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Irony of the day

Lifted wholesale from Insty:

AL GORE WON'T ENDORSE JOE LIEBERMAN. Comment: "I guess Lieberman would have been good enough to run the government if something bad happened to Gore. But he's not obviously the best qualified to be the junior senator from Connecticut, even though he had the same job when Gore tapped him in 2000."
Wow.  Either being POTUS has lower requirements than I thought, or Algore has just reinvented the internet...  Who needs Algore anyway?  I love Joe, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 06, 2006

Cue Marilyn Monroe....

...but only because I think he'd get a kick out of a sexy, busty blonde cooing Happy Birthday, Mister President....

July 6 is President Bush's 60th birthday, and I wish him many more.

I am truly thankful that W is our President.  The Anchoress explains it better than I ever could.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:28 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 07, 2006

Gee, what a surprise.

You Are Most Like George W. Bush

So what if you're not exactly popular? You still rule the free world.
And while you may be quite conservative now, you knew how to party back in the day!

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?

h/t Ronnie RayGun
Posted by caltechgirl at 09:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 12, 2006

More News you can Use

A fantastic damn fisking by Ken of it comes in pints? regarding estate taxes and the lunatics who think that they are both useful and only for the rich.

Believe me, he knows a lot about the subject, from personal experience.....

Here's Ken's money shot....
After laying out the current law regarding estate exemptions through 2010, he says:

"this piece never mentions that in 2011 the exemption goes back to $1 million (and the top tax rate goes to 50%). Think about how much land prices (both home and farm) have increased in recent years. Think about how many people have IRAs and similar vehicles. How many of those estates will be valued at over $1 million five years from now? A lot of people who don't consider themselves rich are going to be very unpleasantly surprised." (emphasis mine)
Even if you don't know much about the Estate Tax issue, drop by and read what Ken has to say. It's quite an education.

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 17, 2006

Quote of the Year!

"See, the irony is what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive),"-- President Bush in what he thought were private remarks to UK PM Tony Blair
Did I mention how much I love our President? and Mr. Blair, too?
Posted by caltechgirl at 11:55 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

July 26, 2006

el 26 de julio

On 26 de julio, 1953, fidel cagastro and his band of commie idiots led a raid on one of the largest military garrisons in Cuba.

Nearly everything went wrong, the rebels were out numbered, part of the weapons caravan got lost on the way, and more than 2/3 of the rebels were killed or captured.  Several of them ran for it, including the original coward, cagastro.

Oh, and BTW, he WAS captured.  Inept pig that he is, he was found in the jungle shortly afterward and arrested.  cagastro was in fact sentenced to death, but in a head-scratching moment worthy of Dr. Evil and his foul-tempered sea bass, Batista pardoned him in 1955.

Kinda ironic that such a stunning defeat serves as the namesake of the movement that brought cagastro to power, no?

So today is the day that Cuba celebrates her "glorious" revolucion.  The banners and music displayed today continuing the web of lies that turned a humbling defeat into the rallying point of a damned revolution.  Because the truth, in Cuba, depends on your point of view.

For the Cubanos, a proud and once prosperous people, it is a day to pretend their want and hunger are absent, and for cagastro and his cronies, a day to ignore the facade crumbling around them.

For more info on the battle of 26 julio , go here.

For more thoughts on what this day means to Cubans, both in Cuba and elsewhere, try any of these wonderful Cuban bloggers:
El Conductor
Val Prieto

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hey Kofi, WTF?

The lovely Phoenix brings it to Kofi Annan.  Both Barrels.

"Seriously, man! Did you smoke your breakfast, or are you seriously this stupid? It seems to me a foolish thing to do to set up your outpost so close to an outpost of one of the engaged parties. More specifically, it seems beyond foolish - stupid really - to set up that outpost nearer to the likely loser in the fight in terms of technological bang-for-the-buck, if you know what I mean."
There's even more.  Read the whole thing.

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 31, 2006

Is today the day?

Late to the story as usual, but evidently cagastro has passed the keys to Cuba "temporarily" to his brother Raul....

Miami is in an uproar (live streaming video at the link) at the possibility that the chicken lollipop is about to shuffle off the mortal coil.

Val has a good round-up of the details

As usual, check with Babalu for the latest on this story.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 07, 2006

I HOPE this means what I think it means!

Reuters: 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

Peaceful succession under way in Cuba: official

Cuba has set in motion a peaceful political succession, dashing U.S. government expectations of chaos following Fidel Castro's hand-over of power to his brother, a leading Cuban intellectual and government member, Roberto Fernandez Retamar, said on Monday.

"They (the U.S. government) had not expected that a peaceful succession was possible. A peaceful succession has taken place in Cuba," Fernandez Retamar said at a news conference.

The writer and member of the Council of State was the first government official to say a succession under Raul Castro was in motion after Fidel Castro relinquished power a week ago following gastric surgery.

Stay tuned.  As always, Babalu has the latest.
h/t Smash
Posted by caltechgirl at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 09, 2006

It was the Joooooooooos!

Cynthia McKinney and her goons blame the usual suspects for her loss yesterday. 

OTB has the video from Hannity and Colmes here

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 10, 2006

Ben Stein Rocks the House

Again.  Over and Over.

One excerpt:

"The line of the fight between civilization and barbarism runs right along the Israel-Lebanon non-border. If it's not won there, it won't be long until the front line is right here, and then it will be too late. When George Bush stands up for Israel, he stands up for the whole future of mankind. Yes, he has flaws and has made serious mistakes, but right now, he is a hero for the ages."

h/t Gay Patriot

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 25, 2006

Best Post Title of the Day

Dafydd of Big Lizards: "Run Silent, Run Kosher"

It's a great article too, about Israel's new Dolphin nulear submarines

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 28, 2006

The Message we SHOULD be Sending

Today's Editorial Cartoon by Cox and Forkum:

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2006

Friday Quiz -- Politics Edition

You Are a Liberal Republican
When you tell people that you're Republican, they rarely believe you. That's because you're socially liberal - likely pro-choice and pro-gay rights. You're also not so afraid of big goverment, as long as it benefits people and not politicians.
You are the most likely of any Republican type to swing over to the Democrat side sometimes.
What's Your Political Persuasion?

Pretty accurate. Except for that changing sides part .....
h/t Sharon and Deb

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2006

I guess I'm growing up...

As some of you may know, I felt like shit last night.  On top of
whacking my head sunday night, the sinuses on the other side decided it
was time to play catch-up, including a sore throat.  Well, nothing
worked, and even the damn chloraseptic wore off too soon, so I asked hubby
to go out and get us milkshakes to fix my throat.  He got back about 10, just
in time to put on the news, right?

I get about halfway through my milkshake, look up, and there's
John Fucking FlipFlopper KetchupBoy spewing about how his religion
makes him who he is and how that should be important to everyone at
some speech he gave at Pepperdine (he was really in town to raise $$
for Angelides....)

I DID NOT throw my milkshake at the TV.  It was hard.  I DID
manage to grab the remote and change the channel, though.  But my hands
were shaking and I had to actually tell myself to put down the cup and
get the remote.

Hubby said he was proud of me.  Probably because he would have had to clean it up.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:22 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 21, 2006

Democrats say the darndest things....

Someone's been drinking the Kool Aid. In fact, a couple of someones.

Let's start with Charlie Rangel, who once slammed President Bush by saying"[H]e has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all."

And then there's Nancy "Botox Babe" Pelosi, who once called him "...a man ... who [has] consistently failed to lead our country on the most pressing issues."

Well, today Rep. Rangel blasted Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for attacking President Bush and calling him the "devil". Hot Air has the video.

This from the man who openly supports Hugo Chavez' best amigo, fidel castro (begins halfway through the clip):

August, 2006

Interestingly, Rangel has backpedaled, issuing a statement that what he takes issue with is merely Chavez' "personal" attack on the President. Yeah, right, Charlie. Keep digging. See quote above.

Or how about this one from Nancy herself: "[his] capacity to lead has never been there. In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none,'' Where was Charlie for this one?

Rep. Pelosi joined in the fun too. Calling Chavez a "thug", she blasted Chavez for "abusing the privilege" of speaking at the U.N. Ha! She's defending a man she believes is "an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader, he's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.'"

Hypocrite much?

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:48 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 26, 2006

Some serious smackdown

...going on over at Babalu.

First, check out George's post on Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace.  Then read the comments!

Frankly, you should know you've lost the argument when you resort to saying things like "Sure wish Bush would have sex with some intern..."

The Babalu smackdown continues courtesy of Condi Rice.

Be sure to check it all out!

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 29, 2006

Ever wonder who the President talks to?

Jim of Parkway Rest Stop and his crack staff have uncovered a transcript!

Drink warning for the end!

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2006

Camille Paglia Tells the Truth

And it's the real truth, not just "truthiness".

And what she has to say isn't easy for EITHER party to hear, but a much needed wake up call for Washington.

It's quite long, but well worth the read.  Some tidbits:

"...I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish....."

"...[G]ay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It's already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You'd expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives."

"There was a time when feminists were arguing, in regard to sexual harassment in the workplace, that any gross disparity in power cannot possibly produce informed consent. All of a sudden, all of that was abandoned for partisan reasons in the Clinton case. I take the European view that any government official has the right to conduct as many sexual affairs as he wishes -- off government property. But Clinton, with all his power, somehow couldn't figure out a way to discreetly meet his chosen women at the mansions of his many friends. I can understand why hotels and motels might have been difficult to manage, with the telltale Secret Service presence. But to use the hallway off the Oval Office for those encounters -- to be serviced by a young woman to whom he gave no other dignity and whom he used like a washrag -- he turned that hallway into a sleazy mosh pit! The Democrats are being extremely imprudent to arouse all those sleeping tigers again -- particularly if their next presidential nomination is Hillary Clinton."

"A big problem is that in the minds of too many Americans, Iraqi culpability for the disaster of 9/11 is still pretty deeply rooted. It's because of the vagueness with which most Americans perceive the map and peoples of the Middle East. It shows how bad education has been in geography and international history at both the high school and college levels. It's highly alarming. The reflex mind-set after 9/11 was, "We've got to do something!" So there was this lashing out at whatever seemed Arab or Muslim."

" And we do face an international crisis of mammoth proportions. What should we do in the face of this ruthless and barbaric Islamic fundamentalism? Is there an answer to the problem of Israel? There was a time when the left's call for a transnational Israel made sense to me, but at this point does anyone really think that, if Israel stops calling itself a Jewish state and opens its borders to all Palestinians who wish to return, there would be instant peace? Because of the shocking upsurge in anti-Semitism in the last few years -- exacerbated by the American incursion into Iraq -- surely such a development would mean suicide for Jews who reside in Israel. Passions have become too inflamed among young Muslims all over the world. I think it will be a century before any of this is resolved."

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 01, 2006

In which I get political

John Kerry is a Tool. A rusty, squeaky, useless TOOL.

Many liberal gasbags have jumped up to defend his dubious honor and attempt to point out that this remark is actually aimed at President Bush:

Because, OF COURSE a US Senator would NEVER insult our brave men and women in uniform, right?

It's not like he's never questioned their intelligence or called our troops terrorists before.....

And as for President Bush, lets not forget that someone else's medals aren't the only things Ketchup Boy would like to throw at the President.

Here's my advice for John Kerry: Go away. Go quietly. No one cares about you anymore, even the idiots who still drive around with your name on their bumper as if the 2004 election hasn't happened yet. You are a joke waiting to explode in someone else's face. No wonder candidates in your own party are distancing themselves from your coattails.

Like he's gonna listen.

UPDATE: The Troops respond:

h/t Alabama Improper

UPDATE II: More soldier's response, here's what CPT Ziegenfuss has to say:

I wouldn't piss on [Kerry] if he was on fire. And that is coming from someone who has *been* on fire.


Posted by caltechgirl at 11:13 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

More Happy!

Happy birthday wishes to the Random Penseur as well!

Enjoy your birthday lunch and your half day off!

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 03, 2006

Hypocrisy lives at the NYT

And we're all a little less safe for it.....

The Grey Lady now claims that not only was the President correct about WMD in Iraq, but posting the relevant documents on-line contributed to Iran's nuclear program.

So which is it?  No WMD or a Security Breach?  Make up your mind people!

Well, in any case....

Jim Geraghty has more pertinent thoughts.

Seen everywhere, but the Robbo the Llama has the most entertaining post!

UPDATE: What Charles Johnson said.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 06, 2006

Calgon Take Me Away!

right click and view image to see the whole thing if your screen is too narrow

The only thing saving me from putting my foot through the TV is Mr. TiVo, who graciously skips all the political commercials.

The only thing stopping me from throwing the phone at something is Mr. Caller ID, who helpfully displays "Political Caller" whenever these idiots try to call....

More on the election later, including my take on who I am voting for.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

California Election Cheat Sheet

For Tuesday's statewide election:

First, a general rule of thumb: "desperate" career politicians get no votes from me (see below)

Governor-- Ah-nold.  I don't like him that much, but Angelides is a tool.  A rusty, John Kerry-like tool who has already declared he will raise my taxes.

Lt. Gov -- Tom McClintock.  Again, not entirely my cup of tea, but Garamendi is also a tool and is covered under the general rule of thumb above.

Sec. State -- Bruce McPherson.  Who is he, you ask?  Well he's the incumbent who stepped in and cleaned up the huge freaking mess Kevin Shelley left behind, and without a lot of press.  Go Bruce.

Attorney General -- This is a toughie.  Poochigian is a class A DICKHEAD.  A career politician that the rule of thumb applies to.  But then again, so is Jerry Brown.  And Brown was responsible for Rose Bird.  Yeah, that Rose Bird.  So I guess Poochigian it is.  I wish I could just vote NO.

Insurance Commissioner-- Steve Poizner. The rule of thumb above was WRITTEN for Cruz Bustamonte.  I mean, do you really want someone SO DESPERATE TO STAY IN OFFICE that they're willing to go from Lt. Gov to freaking INSURANCE COMMISSIONER????  Not to mention he couldn't come up with a better campaign slogan than "I lost weight, I can keep my promises."

Controller-- Tony Strickland.  He sued Gray Davis for the secret dealings that led to the rolling blackouts.  He knows corruption when he sees it.

Treasurer-- Claude Parrish.  Bill Lockyer is currently Attorney General, so he falls into the same category as our friends Cruz Bustamonte and John Garamendi:  Desperate Housewives Career Politicians who get no votes from me.

US Senate-- Dianne Feinstein.  I dislike her, I really do, but I don't think Dick Mountjoy is really the best candidate.  What I want to know is why the Republican party in this state always puts the more electable candidates up against Feinstein.  She's the conservative one.  A Republican has a hell of a lot better shot against crazy ass Barbara Boxer. If Mountjoy had a chance of winning, I'd vote for him just to switch the seat over to the Red side, but that ain't gonna happen, so I'll smile and vote for Dianne and thank God that she's not Barbara Boxer, part II.

State Ballot Measures:
1A-1E: YES.  I realize that bond measures aren't always the best way to go about funding these projects, but it increases the revenue stream in the short term to get a number of BADLY needed projects going, including freeway improvements and education programs.  For example, 1D sets aside funds to build new school buildings from elementary through college, pays for new science labs and equipment, and restores CA's badly needed vocational education programs, which have all but disappeared in the last decade.
83-- YES.  Jessica's Law: Increased restrictions and monitoring for sex offenders
84-- NO  Do we need this right now?
85-- YES Parental Notification is NOT CONSENT
86-- HELL F*CK NO.  This is a revenue direction scheme masquerading as a cigarette tax.  When several professional medical associations line up AGAINST an anti-smoking measure, it probably sucks.  This one sure does.
87-- HELL F*CK NO AGAIN.  This is that alternative energy thing Bill Clinton is shilling for.  Frankly, it will only end up raising our gas prices and taxes.  It will bankrupt the CA economy by making it too expensive to do business here.
88-- NO WAY JOSE -- Increases property taxes in attempt to circumvent Prop 13.  If it wasn't for Prop 13, my parents wouldn't be able to afford to own their home.  Would you??
89-- NO.  More regulations won't clean up corrupt politicians.  Period. Perhaps poison...
90-- YES.  This is CA's Kelo response.  Keep your hands off my body AND my property.

Or you can just do your duty as a Californian and vote NO on everything, since you didn't really even pay attention to which measure was which in the first place.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 08, 2006


It's called being a gracious loser.

Three Examples:
1) Jonah Goldberg's email correspondance
2) Jim Geraghty's response
3) President Bush's response (the first 2 minutes of the PC) (will pop up Real Player)

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 17, 2006

Ah the Hypocrisy

It's a subject we haven't visited on this blog since The Breck Girl™ and Ketchup Boy lost the election, but the hypocrisy of John Edwards is back in the news again.

Of course he says it's all just a mistake made by an underling.

Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union-backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex-senator's family.

Earlier Thursday, Edwards had said in a statement e-mailed by spokeswoman Kim Rubey: "We instructed no one to contact Wal-Mart on our behalf."

From Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., company spokesman David Tovar said the Edwards staff member left a voicemail at the Raleigh store and identified himself as an Edwards staff member.

When the manager returned the call, the staff member again identified himself as working for Edwards, and Wal-Mart said it confirmed it with Edwards' office. The retailer issued a written statement Thursday accusing Edwards of not wanting to wait his turn.

"While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Sen. Edwards wants to cut to the front," the Wal-Mart statement said.
So much for putting America first, huh, John?

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:34 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 20, 2006

Cuba as a solution to LA's healthcare woes?

The two things I hate most are ignorance and hypocrisy. This event promises to deliver both. IN SPADES.

Since when is a health system that is so short on drugs that patients must get drunk rather than have an anesthetic held up as a model of what to do in this country?

I realize that the residents of South Los Angeles are USED to substandard health care (witness emergency room closings and the state of the former King-Drew hospital), but to actively seek to model a health system that looks good on paper, but in reality provides no relief to the suffering is inexcusable.

This is a real Cuban hospital. Do we really want to look to this for answers to our healthcare problems?

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 07, 2006

It's a child, not a political plank

The Vice President's daughter is pregnant and due in late spring.

I am overjoyed for what seems to be a close and loving family, by all accounts, to be adding a new member.  I am beyond happy for Mary and her partner Heather that they are about to realize their dream of becoming parents.

Seems a lot of people can't feel that way.  On one side, they're too busy blaming the VP for supporting policies that go against his daughter's (and her partner's) interest.  On the other side, they're panicking because a conservative leader is about to have a grandchild with homosexual parents.

Every article I've seen on this goes out of its way to point out that Gays and Straights are both up in arms over Mary Cheney's bundle of joy.

You'd think it was the second coming, or at least a new Brangelina baby for all of the fuss going on out there today.  Or maybe that you'd picked up an old newspaper.  Didn't we go through this when Melissa Etheridge and her (then) partner Julie Cypher had children a decade ago?

Can't we get past this and just say that a healthy baby is a blessing to a family, no matter how traditional?  Can we admit that two stable parents are always better than one, whether it's two moms, two dads, or one of each?  Can we agree that this child will have some wonderful role models for strength and integrity?

I am disgusted.  These opportunistic political vultures have taken what should be a happy occasion for the entire family and turned it into a political fracas.

For myself, I will say this much:  Congratulations to Mary and Heather and their families.  I wish you a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby, and all the joys that come with that.  Anything else that anyone has to say on the subject is bullshite.

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:59 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

December 11, 2006

I love Tony Blair...

... and I always have.  I will miss him when he steps down.

I wish some people in this country could be this direct and honest:

"People want to make sense of two emotions: our recognition of what we legitimately hold in common and what we legitimately hold distinct. When I decided to make this speech about multiculturalism and integration, some people entirely reasonably said that integration or lack of it was not the problem. The 7/7 bombers were integrated at one level in terms of lifestyle and work. Others in many communities live lives very much separate and set in their own community and own culture, but are no threat to anyone.

But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.

But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.


We must respect both our right to differ and the duty to express any difference in a way fully consistent with the values that bind us together.

So: how do we do this?

Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.

Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

Here's the MONEY QUOTE, though:
Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect.

The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.

h/t Cop The Truth

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Matt and Trey: Prescient or just Damn Smart? You decide.

Shamelessly stolen from Armed Liberal at Winds of Change:

Over at HuffPo, Alec Baldwin, (of the "Film Actors Guild") speaks out on what's wrong, and what we need to do about it. One of these is real, and one is a line from a puppet movie. Can you tell which is which?

Quote #1: "By following the rules of the Film Actor's Guild, the world can become a better place; that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning; that, is the fag way. One day you'll all look at the world us actors created and say, "wow, good going, fag. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, fag?" "

Quote #2: "There is an answer to this problem. There is a way to defeat terrorism while building new and better alliances in the Arab world. It will be an enormously complex and difficult diplomatic puzzle. But the first step might be oddly simple. Get rid of the CIA, which has outlived its usefulness and is an embarrassment to this great country, and rebuild and reform US intelligence capabilities to fight this new type of threat. I think our hopes must begin there."

Answer below the fold, in case you didn't know

Read More "Matt and Trey: Prescient or just Damn Smart? You decide." »
Posted by caltechgirl at 09:39 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

December 14, 2006

Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you...

Ban Ki-moon was sworn in today as the 8th Secretary General of the United Nations, officially ending the decade-long term of his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

Today, Mr Ban pledged to "be mindful of... loyalty, discretion, and conscience" and to "set the highest ethical standards..."

Even if all he does is remind people that taking bribes is a bad thing, he'll already be miles ahead of Mr. Annan's repugnant term at the helm.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal reminds us of the words and deeds of the UN under Annan's direction:

...When Mr. Annan was named Secretary General 10 years ago, he did so as the U.S.-backed candidate of reform. Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Mr. Annan that "if you choose to be an agent of real and deep-seated change, you will find many supporters--and even allies--here in the U.S. Congress."

Senator Helms's expectations were not met. Seven years later--thanks to U.S. military action that Mr. Annan did everything in his power to prevent--we learned that he had presided over the greatest bribery scheme in history, known as Oil for Food. We learned that Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's trusted confidant in charge of administering the program, had himself been a beneficiary of Iraqi kickbacks to the tune of $160,000. We learned that Mr. Annan's chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, had ordered potentially incriminating documents to be destroyed. We learned that Mr. Annan and his deputy, Louise Frechette, were both aware of the kickback scheme but failed to report it to the Security Council, as their fiduciary duties required. However, we haven't yet learned whether the senior Annan illegally helped his son Kojo obtain a discounted Mercedes, an issue on which the Secretary General has stonewalled reporters.

Earlier this year, Mr. Annan was also forced to place eight senior U.N. procurement officials on leave pending investigations on bribery and other charges. Vladimir Kuznetsov, the head of the U.N. budget-oversight committee, was indicted this year on money-laundering charges. Alexander Yakovlev, another procurement official, pled guilty to skimming nearly $1 million off U.N. contracts. The U.N.'s own office of Internal Oversight found that U.N. peacekeeping operations had mismanaged some $300 million in expenditures.


Mr. Annan came to office after a stint as head of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The period corresponded with the massacre in Srebenica of 7,000 Bosnians and the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, both of which were facilitated by the nonfeasance of peacekeepers on the ground. It was later revealed that Mr. Annan's office explicitly forbade peacekeepers from raiding Hutu arms caches in Rwanda just four months before the genocide.

The world's worst man-made humanitarian catastrophes have since taken place in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Congo and Darfur. Mr. Annan has been mostly silent about the first two, perhaps on the time-honored U.N. principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states other than the U.S. In the Congo, U.N. peacekeepers haven't stopped the bloodshed, but they have made themselves notorious as sexual predators.

Funny what can happen when a ball-less, incompetent, selfish mis-manager takes over a large organization, no?

These are the facts, folks.  Under Annan's "leadership" the UN has failed.  In Darfur, in Congo, in Somalia.  In Kosovo and Rwanda and the middle east.  And these failures can all be traced to one person: Kofi Annan.

In a global community the objective SHOULD be the protection of human rights and promotion of tolerance and communication.  Under Annan, the UN's objective appeared to be "anything that makes the US look bad". 

By default, that attitude prevents the neediest among us (like the Darfuris) from receiving the help that would otherwise be freely offered.

Ask the Kosovars.

Mr Annan has singlehandedly brought the UN from an organization of hope, that had the possibility of effecting real global change to a mockery of its former self.

Opinion Journal says it more eloquently than I can:

Mr. Annan came to power at a moment when it was at least plausible to believe that a properly reformed U.N. could serve the purposes it was originally meant to serve: to be a guarantor of collective security and a moral compass in global affairs. Mr. Annan's legacy is that nobody can entertain those hopes today.
So Long, Kofi. Please enjoy a very restful retirement somewhere far away from the media. And while you're at it, see if you can convince your buddy Jimmeh to join you.

h/t Lex

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 29, 2006

Is it 10 PM EST yet?

Tick tock, tick tock......

According to Iraqi sources the murderer will dance at 10pm EST.

h/t Fausta

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:50 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 04, 2007


In anticipation of today's Friday F*ck Off, here's a list of people I'd like to tell to F*ck off:

LA Drivers
Leftards who let power go to their heads
People who pick on the weak
assholes who don't pay their child support
People who slam their siblings in public
People who don't pick up their dog poo
Cashiers who don't know how to use their registers
jackass house guests who complain for a week.  About EVERYTHING
Fucktards who drive SLLLLLOW in the left lane.  Especially on the Arroyo Parkway.
cagastro and pals
that little ronery North Korean fuck, too
TV network executives
Sales tax
Stuffed shirt bureaucrats
the replacement mailman
idiots who wash their sidewalks.  Talk about wasting water. Fuckers.  This is CA.
dook basketball
Nick Saban
Dan LeBatard.  Where the Fuck is Wilbon, goddammit??
the NIH study section who told me that they love my science and acknowledge that I have the expertise to do the work, but they don't think I have enough experience.
Ads on the delete screen on the TiVo.  WTF is that about?  I pay enough for the fucking service as it is.
Sorority Chicklets
The Girls Gone Wild guy.  And all the little sluts on those videos too.  Cheap much?
vegan evangelists
Clueless fucks who think that if they keep those Kerry/ Edwards bumper stickers on, that they can live in denial that the election is over.
John Kerry
John Edwards
sheeple who actually believe the media in all instances without question
and did I mention fucking stupid LA drivers?

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:54 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

January 11, 2007

I think the bunny got to him, finally.....

14 members of the Carter Center Board of Councilors resigned today in protest of Jimmy Carter's recent views on Israel.  In response to Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.", the 14 councilors wrote:

"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position," the letter to Carter said. "This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."
"We are deeply troubled by the president's comments and writings and are submitting the following letter of resignation to the Carter Center,"
Perhaps most telling, however, is their indictment of Carter for,
"[abandoning his] historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side." and "[confusing] opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy,"

Kenneth Stein, the first Executive Director of the Carter Center resigned a month ago over this same book.

Perhaps Mr. Carter should re-think his strategy here.  Continuing to be "relevant" will do far less for his legacy than returning to his roots in fair-dealing. 

Or maybe he's tired of hiding his true colors.

Update: This brings to 16 the number of advisors that Carter's book has alienated. Professsor Melvin Konner declined the honor even before joining the committee, saying in part:

"I am now carefully rereading parts of this very puzzling and problematic book, having read it through once quickly. I am not going to point out again here all the mistakes and misrepresentations pointed out by others (to take just one example, his flat contradiction of the accounts by President Clinton and Dennis Ross of events at Camp David at which they were present and he was not)none of which he has answerednor explain the grotesque distortion caused by his almost completely ignoring Jewish history between ancient times and 1947 (he devotes five lines on page 64 to that millennial tragic story and mentions the Holocaust twice; his "Historical Chronology" at the outset contains nothingnothingbetween 1939 and 1947). However, I will call your attention to a sentence on p. 213 that had not stood out for me the first time I read it: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

As someone who has lived his life as a professional reader and writer, I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger. "-- Emphasis mine, Ed.

Give it up Jimmah. It's time to go.
h/t Fausta

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:04 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Everything you ever wanted to know about The Surge*

* but were afraid to ask...
Dean Barnett has a great FAQ about the new Iraq strategy posted at Hugh Hewitt.

Here's a brief sample:

1) How in the hell are an additional 20,000 troops going to make such a big difference when we already have about 140,000 troops in Iraq? It makes no sense! Cut and run!!

First, calm down. We're going to walk through this analytically, not sprint through it hysterically. The current troop level in Baghdad is only 13,000. Most of the 20,000 new troops are going to be headed to Baghdad. That means we're going to increase our troop complement in Baghdad by roughly 150%. In other words, as regards the Battle of Baghdad, this is an enormous tactical adjustment, not a symbolic gesture.

Now go read the rest!

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 12, 2007

So which is it, Senator?

Barbara Boxer and her ilk have gotten where they are by pushing a simple mantra:  Women are Equal to men.  Women should push through the glass ceiling.  Women have the right to have a successful career.

Evidently this is no longer good enough: in attacking Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice yesterday, Senator Boxer said,

"Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Yeah, so because Condi focused her life on a remarkable career and chose to make that a priority over marrying and having children she has no right to ask other people's children to sacrifice themselves for our country?  Give me a fucking break.

No wonder American women are conflicted.  We now MUST be superwoman.  We can't be an important part of the political discourse of this country unless we're wives and mothers, evidently.

Ironic turn of events, no?  100 years ago wives and mothers were thought to be the least fit to have a political opinion.  Now, according to Mrs. Boxer, the only women fit to make political decisions are wives and mothers.

And I guess this distinction even includes lesbians, since the democrat agenda is for them to be able to marry legally, and science makes it possible for any woman to have a baby without a man in the picture.

I am disgusted, frankly.  Could you tell?

More on this, and far more eloquently from Darleen and Beth MVRWC

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:37 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

That stench in NYC the other day?

It was emanating from the NJ statehouse...

"For World War II veteran Sam Stia, a legislative proposal that would cease requiring New Jersey schools to teach about Veterans Day and Memorial Day can be summed up in two words.

"That's wrong," Stia, 83, said Thursday from his Hamilton home, where he flies an American flag at half-staff to honor fallen soldiers. "We're just giving our flag away and our patriotism away."

Stia and other veterans are steamed about the proposal, which the state lawmakers unanimously passed last month and now awaits action by the governor. It was included as part of a larger measure designed to help control property taxes, mostly by abolishing some laws on school purchasing and public hearings.

Other holidays about which schools no longer would be required to teach include Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, Arbor Day and Commodore Barry Day, which commemorates Revolutionary War hero John Barry.

New Jersey schools must observe the holidays under a 1967 law designed to promote "the development of a higher spirit of patriotism." Florida, Nebraska and Washington are among states with similar laws."

Observe the holiday without understanding why, eh?

If you're a Jersey taxpayer (Jimbo, Kate, et. al.) maybe you should let your reps know how unacceptable this is.

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 14, 2007

I *heart* Chris Muir

ClickClick now.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 15, 2007

cagastro update: the doctors come up with a plausible excuse

After the Spanish specialist made them look silly (or was paid to say that it wasn't intestinal cancer) the Cuban doctors treating el barbudo have finally come up with a suitable explanation for his condition without mentioning the C word:

"Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in serious condition after a series of three failed operations on his large intestine for diverticulitis complicated by infection, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Monday.

Castro, 80, suffered a serious infection that worsened to peritonitis, the newspaper's Tuesday edition said, citing two medical sources at the Madrid hospital where a surgeon who visited Castro in December works. The report was posted on the newspaper's Web site on Monday.

Castro's prognosis is "very serious" and he is being fed intravenously, the paper said."
Either way, he ain't long for this world.

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 18, 2007

I am ashamed of my church and you should be too!

This is just wrong on so many levels:

A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush's presidential library.

The petition, on a newly created Web site, http://www.protectsmu.org, says that "as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate." [emphasis mine -Ed.]

What the F*ck happened to "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors", huh?

I guess it only applies to liberals.  F*cking hypocrites.

I am done with the United Methodist church.  DONE.  Period.

See, I grew up in the UM church.  My Dad is a lay minister in the church.  We were married in a UM church.  But no more.  I stopped going to church a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, but I always loved the UM church for its very laissez faire approach.  Gay?  No problem.  Divorced?  No problem.  Female?  Who cares?

I would agree with these "pastors" if they were excluding him on the grounds that he had done something famously immoral.  A church (or church-sponsored school) shouldn't associate itself with someone immoral.  But because you don't like his politics?

Give me a f*cking break.

It's a church, people.  CHURCH.  Politics stops at the f*cking door.  Not to mention that it is located in central Texas, Mrs. Bush went there, and the Bushes are IN FACT Methodists.

You never would have heard a PEEP from them if it was Clinton's library.  And we all know the things HE did that ministers are supposed to frown upon.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 19, 2007

This, Folks is why.

Many people have asked why we don't have kids and aren't planning on them for a while.

Other than "It's none of your business," which most people don't appreciate, try this on for size:

California would become the first state to explicitly ban spanking for children younger than 4 under legislation to be introduced next week.

Slapping, smacking, whacking or kicking also would be outlawed.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, a Mountain View Democrat who is crafting the measure, said corporal punishment victimizes helpless children and contributes to a society "addicted to violence."


"To my mind, there's no amount of physical force that's appropriate on a child 3 years old or younger," Lieber said.

This is a normal spanking she's talking about, or a slap on the hand, or something similar. Abusive BEATING is already outlawed, you know.

Sorry folks, but I believe in occasional corporal punishment. There's nothing wrong with a swat on the butt from an open hand every once in a while. And the threat of such a swat goes a long way when a kid KNOWS that the adults in their lives will make good on it.

But let's get back to what she said, specifically that part about corporal punishment contributing to a "violence-addicted" society. Umm, Ms. Lieber, I think an EVEN better argument could be made that as the use of corporal punishment has declined, violence has SKYROCKETED.

I would make mention of the fact that Ms. Lieber is childless, but I won't stoop to Barbara Boxer levels, so I'll simply ask her what qualification she has for telling parents how to raise their children, since she has no personal experience and is not a child therapist or pediatrician?

h/t Darleen

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:31 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

January 23, 2007

For tonight's festivities

How to get through the SOTU.

h/t Emily

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Aaaaaugh, THE PRESIDENT's ON!!

Well  not yet, but holy sh*t Pelosi looks scary.  My reaction and a round up later.  Maybe.

Also: The Good Cap'n is liveblogging the speech, there's an open discussion thread at LGF, and Aaron gives us his version of what the President WISHES he could say tonight!

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Quick reaction

WTF with Pelosi blinking all the time?  Damn distracting.

Best line "You did not vote to lose"  NICE

Nice summary of what is going on in Iraq.

What did you notice?

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:19 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 25, 2007

My new FAVORITE website

PETA kills animals.com

Check back early and often for updates!
h/t Malkin

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An interesting take on the War in Iraq

From a former diplomat specializing in the area.  The writer begins:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, "I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war."
The author of this Op-Ed goes on to point out several basic facts that Mrs. Clinton and her ilk on both sides of the aisle seem to have forgotten:
We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.

Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.

Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.

Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away....

Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.

Clearly all points that we should never forget, especially that our apparent weakness emboldens our enemies, at home and abroad.

You can not negotiate with Terrorists unless you speak their language: senseless violence and unwavering resolve.  Read the rest of this fabulous piece here.

The author of this piece?  Liz Cheney, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.  And yes, that Cheney.

h/t Dafydd

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:45 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

February 05, 2007

Global Warming - don't believe the hype

The words of a REAL CLIMATOLOGIST, which has nothing to do with inventing the internet.....

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Here's the summation for those of you who zombied at the very idea of such a long passage:
-- It is UNBELIEVABLY PREMATURE to state that people are the main cause of Global Warming. PERIOD.

-- Thirty years ago many of the same scientists raising a ruckus today were DEAD SURE we were headed for a man-made ice age FROM THE SAME CAUSES (greenhouse gasses, etc.)

--Consensus is different from fact: 95% of 4 year olds believe in Santa, but this doesn't make him REAL, does it?  So why should we believe something just because a majority of pinheads with PhDs do?

And yes, for the record I too have a PhD.  So what?  But I'm not a pinhead.  Doesn't make me a sheep, either.

Please read all of Dr. Bell's article (yes, there is more. A lot more.),  It is a fascinating look at how popular politics colors even the most rigorous of disciplines.

h/t Q and O via RWV

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:19 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

February 07, 2007

Joe Lieberman is my hero

I've been on record for years saying that I'd cross party lines to vote for him for President, but the left seems to be too stupid to realize that UNITING this country means appealing to all facets of the political spectrum, something Joe seems to do almost universally.  Sure, the wingnuts hate him because he's a socially liberal demotard, and the moonbats hate him because he's a hawk and anti-abortion.

But his is the only consistent voice of conscience on the Hill, and for that, I respect him.  For this statement made to the Senate on Feb. 5, I respect him even more:

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America's security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.


What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.


We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.

But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution "by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake" confirms our enemies' belief in American weakness.

This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?

And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops, but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.

Read the Senator's entire statement here

Thank you Senator, for having the courage of your convictions to stand up and remind your colleagues that politics and personal pettiness should always be secondary to the support of the men and women who defend our freedoms.


Posted by caltechgirl at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 13, 2007

Why am I against the new HPV vaccine?

This is why.

This is the SECOND rotavirus vaccine to cause these problems in young children and infants.  In 1999, the Rotashield vaccine caused the same problems.

Until we know FOR SURE that the Gardasil vaccine is safe, it is entirely irresponsible to mandate it for every female child.

Furthermore, Rachel makes a good point here:

"We (the collective) do not want the government to pass laws about our right to murder our unborn children, but we're not up in arms about the government forcing us to inject foreign matter into our little girls' bodies?"
Intellectual Disconnect much?

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:16 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 15, 2007

head shaking...

And it's not because of the ear pain.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Moonbattery at its FINEST:

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called "free" country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.

The whole thing is insane.  This paragraph in particular, is a MASTERPIECE:
These military and mercenary terrorist-students are trained in terrorist training camps all under the USA, funded by American taxpayers. In fact, people under the USA are "sacrificing" their healthcare and their children's educations while donating their tax dollars to these terrorist training camps. These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power
hungry US corporate war lords.
The author of this quasi intelligible twaddle is June Scorza Terpstra, Professor of Social Justice at Loyola University in Chicago.

Read the whole thing.  No really, I'll wait.

People like this woman give all academics a bad name.The same free speech and social justice that she worships for the poor, the downtrodden, and the left, she refuses to extend to the very ones who allow to keep those freedoms.  The irony drips.  How naive do you really have to be to think that what our troops are doing in the Middle East is all about Greed and Power and Neocon ego-stroking???

I have just one question for this so-called social justice proponent:  Which is better, social justice-wise: To live in the US as it is today, with Freedoms of Speech, Press, Religion, etc; where women are free to wear as many or as few clothes as they like, drive, speak their minds (including YOU, lady), and vote; where you can walk about (in the daylight at least) in most cities without fear of imminent death; etc, etc?  Or would you like to live under sharia law as it is practiced in much of the Muslim world?  Would you like to wear a burqa or hajib, have NO rights under the law, be vulnerable to rape and murder on a whim, be uneducated, and unable to drive, choose your husband (or not), or go anywhere alone?  Do you want to live in fear of terrorism or the secret police who come after you just because they don't like you?

These "war criminals" allow you to keep you job, your lifestyle, your right to vote.  In case you forgot, 20 of those fuckers came over here and told us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS 5 years ago that they mean business, and they don't care.  If the terrorists out there are willing to sacrifice themselves, their children and old people, and everything they have to end our way of life, then we must be EQUALLY DETERMINED to keep it.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.  You cannot use diplomacy in the face of nuclear weapons. Or even IEDs.

The lesson of Vietnam is NOT that we walked away.  The lesson is that walking away leaves chaos in its wake.  And we cannot afford to do that this time around.

h/t Smash

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:01 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

February 18, 2007

Calling the Democrats' Bluff

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Dear Sir and Madam:

You have said often enough that you don't believe in the war in Iraq and that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don't mean what you say about ending the war or that you're just playing political games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.

Now if you're serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.

You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported them and you truly think the war is wrong, you'd bring them home or either dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them get the job done.

You can't have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the responsibility.

Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it's too late, so you'd better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you'll need to deal with that. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the Persian
Gulf, you'll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a plan?

The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945. Do you have a plan for dealing with that?

The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don't believe you have the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap. Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.

Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling anybody into thinking you're anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election?

What you're doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don't like what's going on, chang

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
February 16, 2007

H/T Linda SoG

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Real Hero

Unlike these 17 cut-and-run pussies (scroll down at link for the list).....

h/t AWTM and Denny via C&S

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 09, 2007

Two Myths

Shamelessly stolen from Da' Mox:

A Myth about Liberals

I've noticed a lot of name calling going on lately. But because I am a scientist, I did some research.

Liberals are not all pussies. I discovered that liberals do indeed have penises. But only the women.

A Myth about Republicans

All Republicans want to screw the poor.

This commonly held belief is absolutely untrue. The Right is very picky about sexual partners, they much prefer to screw (many times a night) other like-minded rich people of the opposite gender.

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 31, 2007

The Best Monument

The best F**k YOU indeed. America as it should be: Bigger, Better, and more Bacon!

NSFW! Just to be clear.

I love Penn and Teller.

h/t my man Denny.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:17 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 17, 2007

Your Taxes Explained!

Courtesy of Denny:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men --- the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the
$20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night
the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had
beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:15 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 22, 2007

F*cking Turkish Pigs

No Armenian genocide, huh?

Tell that to my grandparents.  Tell that to my Dad's stepmother, who saved her seven children by WALKING from the mountains of Turkey all the way to Beirut, dressed as an Arab widow.  WALKING.  With seven children.  Hundreds of miles on dirt roads with no shoes, cutting across country to avoid the soldiers.  Stopping and doing sewing jobs for money whenever they could.

You pigs say that 4 million Turks died?  Could that be because you're counting the Armenians born in Turkey?

Whole villages, rousted from their beds in the middle of the night. All of the men and boys made to line up in the town square, and then SHOT one by one.  The women and girls raped by turkish soldiers.  The survivors starved to death slowly.

I'll have more on this on April 24, Armenian Martyr's day.  Until then I leave you with the words Adolf Hitler used to justify the holocaust:

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
h/t Kyle

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:48 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 24, 2007

Armenian Martyrs' Day

April 24th is the day we remember the victims of a forgotten genocide.

On April 24, 1915, turkish soldiers arrested 250 Armenians in the first of hundreds of raids designed to wipe out the Armenian population of turkey.

Armenian villages were rousted one by one, and the men ordered to leave at once and serve the turkish army.  Boys as young as 9 or 10, and men as old as 70.  Many never made that far, as turkish soldiers often took these "new recruits" not to the army camps but out to the woods, where they were summarily executed.  The women and girls, thus undefended, were easy prey for the turkish soldiers.

Those who remained behind were forced from their lands, homes, and belongings, and force-marched to "settlement camps" in remote areas.  Many died along the way from exhaustion, starvation, and exposure to the elements.  According to French scholars Joel Kotek and Pierre Rigoulot, there were up to 25 such camps.

But the Armenian's plight was nowhere near as unknown, even in that day, as it is now.  Despite the lack of internet, video cameras, and TV screens, in 1915 the plight of the Armenians was a worldwide topic of discussion.  US Consular officials, as early as July of 1915, were concerned enough to beg the US government to step in. 

(click to enlarge)

No less than Winston Churchill, then Britain's First Lord of the Admiralty noted, "the clearance of race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act could be...There is no reason to doubt that that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons. The opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race opposed to all Turkish ambitions."  And he was then in the midst of the "war to end all wars" against Germany!

During 1915, the New York Times paper published 145 articles about the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the massacre as "systematic, "authorized" and "organized by the government." In 1918, Theodore Roosevelt called it "the greatest crime of the war."

But today, no one even knows it happened

Denialists of all stripes, from US and EU officials who find turkey's past "annoying", to the turks themselves who believe such raids were justified to "pick up deserters" (yeah, little old men, deserters.  right.) have managed to decrease the general public's awareness of these atrocities.  But they happened.  There was no Photoshop in 1915.  All of the horrible pictures you see here are real.

Despite missions from the US and UK, Austria, France, and others, the plight of the Armenians faded off the radar screen as war in Europe intensified.

Looks a lot like Germany around 1942, huh? 

In fact,  Adolf Hitler said of the Armenian Genocide: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"as his justification for the atrocities carried out on the Jews and others during the Nazi's reign over Germany.

We did not forget.  We do not forget.  We will always remember.

My previous remembrances here.  This stays on top all day.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:50 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 01, 2007

Consider the Source

Former Senator Fred Thompson has something to say about the criticisms heaped on the US by her "allies":

It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.

But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a world war going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can't help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

There's more. Read the rest, including why he considers criticism form our allies as a badge of honor.

For someone "not" running for President, he sure as hell acts like he is.

Run Fred Run!

h/t los de Babalu

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:01 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 02, 2007

Fred Nails It AGAIN

Fred Thompson either needs a paycheck SO badly that he's settled for making political commentary, or he's setting himself up BRILLIANTLY for a presidential bid in '08.

Today Fred tackles "healthcare" (**cough, bullshit, cough**) in Cuba, and a possible documentary on same by Michael Moore:

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore's talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

While this PR stunt has obviously been successful -- here I am talking about it -- Moore's a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created -- one of the most successful public relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

The truth is that Cuban medical care has never recovered from Castro's takeover -- when the country’s health care ranked among the world's best. He won the support of the Cuban people by promising to replace Batista’s dictatorship with free elections, and to end corruption. Once in power, though, he made himself dictator and instituted Soviet-style Communism. Cubans not only failed to regain their democratic rights, their economy plunged into centrally planned poverty.

As many as half of Cuba's doctors fled almost immediately -- and defections continue to this day. Castro won't allow observers in to monitor his nation's true state, but defectors tell us that many Cubans live with permanent malnutrition and long waits for even basic medical services. Many treatments we take for granted aren't available at all -- except to the Communist elite or foreigners with dollars.

For them, Castro keeps "show" clinics equipped with the best medicines and technologies available. It was almost certainly one of these that Moore went to, if the stories in the NY Post and The Daily News are true.

Nothing about this story inspires doubt, though. Elements in Hollywood have been infatuated with the Cuban commander for years. It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro. And, regular as rain, they bring up the health care myth when they come home.

What is it that leads people to value theoretically "free" health care, even when it's lousy or nonexistent, over a free society that actually delivers health care? You might have to deal with creditors after you go to the emergency ward in America, but no one is denied medical care here. I guarantee even the poorest Americans are getting far better medical services than many Cubans.

The Cuban "official" story is one of a model of public health success: increased longevity and quality of life based on a preventative health focus.

Folks, the only reason Cuban "healthcare" focuses on preventative medicine is that once people get sick, there's very little available treatment.  The truth of the matter is more like this. (pictures and MORE references, if you can stomach them at the link.  Let this serve as your warning.)

Fred continues here describing his take on Hollywood's love affair with the cagastro regime, and the hypocrisy of people like Michael Moore.  It's well worth the read.

Honestly, the more I hear from Fred, the more I like.  Run Fred Run!

h/t the Babalusians, who are also Fred fans!

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:51 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 04, 2007

The GOP debate

Yeah, I missed it last night (I've watched parts of it, since).  It was pointless.  For two very important reasons:

1. In one hour, 10 guys get about 5 minutes each, which isn't really enough time even for soundbites.

2. No Fred.  Why should I watch a debate over a YEAR AND A HALF before the election if it doesn't even include the guy I suspect I am going to get to vote for?

Turns out, I was entirely right in my thinking about this.  Michelle Malkin, who liveblogged the whole thing was "getting whiplash" trying to keep up.

From what I've seen/ read, looks like (as expected) Giuliani was the big loser.  Didn't prep well enough and stumbled through the few hardball questions he was tossed.  Tancredo may have helped his cause by focusing on his major issue, and the other "small dogs" probably helped themselves by getting their names out there more.  Romney and McCain, the other "tall dogs" either stayed steady or lost a bit.

The whole thing was mostly unremarkable except for the puerile questions.

Sister Toldjah also has a pretty in-depth liveblog post.

If you didn't see it the video is here (behind a commercial, and a disclaimer that doesn't apply), just hang on for the video. When the first video is over, it will tell you which is the next segment, so just click.

On the Fred front, he'll be speaking tonight to a gathering in Orange County, CA, to be shown on C-SPAN.  Catch the best non-candidate in the race live!

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Where is the outrage?

Today Fred asks the tough questions about gender oppression in the Middle East and elsewhere:

One of the worst examples of this gender oppression was Afghanistan during the Taliban days. Women were not allowed to go to school, to work outside the home or even go out in public without a male family member. A woman with a medical emergency, but no male relatives to take her to a doctor, was expected simply to suffer or die. An aged woman with no one to bring her food was expected to starve. Too many did.

Life for women under the Taliban and similar governments ought to inspire anger and indignation in everybody, especially human rights advocates. Im constantly surprised, however, by the apparent apathy among many who say they care about the rights of women and other minorities.

I doubt, for example, that our television networks have spent as much time exposing the horrors of life for millions of women in pre-liberation Iraq and Afghanistan as theyve spent covering Abu Ghraib. For some reason, everyday atrocities such as the endemic beatings, honor killings and forced marriages of women just dont seem to be newsworthy.

The other side of that coin is that we also rarely hear about dramatic improvements in the lives of women when they come about due to American actions.

Fred's right.  Where is the outrage at the perpetrators of these crimes?  Where is the praise for those who come in behind and right the wrongs?  Whether the hero is from the US or anywhere else?

Why does the media CONSISTENTLY portray the US as the world's only bad guy?  Because we supposedly know better than the savages who live in other, less-advanced countries?  Are they saying that people from other countries are STUPID?  Or just that we should expect this kind of behavior, as we would from children, or animals who don't know any better?

Evil is evil.  Cruelty is cruelty.  Period.  It shouldn't matter whether it's a battered wife in Peoria or a widow starving to death in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.  Everyone should be brought to task for their bad acts equally.

On the other hand, good is good, too.  And it should be praised.  Yet we never hear the good stories, the uplifting moments, the people and programs that reach out.  All we hear is the bad, when it finally gets reported.

We should challenge ourselves to do as Fred ultimately suggests, to look at both sides of the story and ask "Where is the outrage?  Whence comes the help?" and put these events back into real-life perspective, rather than seeing them only in the harsh blue glow thrown off by the boob tube.


Posted by caltechgirl at 01:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The MOST important column you will read this year

Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari makes a compelling case for the continued support of Iraq by the US and her allies:

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

It's a fantastic piece that tells the side of the story that we rarely ever hear. The rest is excerpted below the jump.

Hey Dummocrats, you really think we should leave now?

h/t Kim at Wizbang

Read More "The MOST important column you will read this year" »
Posted by caltechgirl at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 05, 2007

That Fred speech I was talking about? -- UPDATED

UPDATE: This video is a series of highlights. The full speech is presented in four parts below the jump.

Here's last night's Fred speech, as mentioned below:

Also, Weekend Pundit has a great roundup of recent Fred links.

Read More "That Fred speech I was talking about? -- UPDATED" »
Posted by caltechgirl at 11:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Shout Out to the Milbloggers!

The second annual Milblog conference was held today in Washington, DC.

I participated via web feed and the live chat room, and it was a privilege to interact with many of the leading voices of the Military Blog community.  The folks who participated in the chat are here.  I enjoyed speaking with all of you!

One of the highlights of today's conference was the opening address, presented via video by President George W. Bush:

Kudos to Andi for putting the whole thing together so brilliantly. Thanks to all the panel participants and speakers for sharing your thoughts. And last but not least, thanks to BloodSpite and Mrs. Greyhawk for running the live chat and streaming video!

RG has pictures of the Tiara Gals who were present for today's festivities.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 09, 2007

Today's Fred

In today's column, Fred responds to George Tenet's questionable recollections about National Security and intelligence in the days leading up to 9/11.

Interestingly enough, Fred seems to take issue more with the MEDIA and their handling of Tenet's claims than with what Tenet has to say for himself.

Some excerpts from the piece:

I havent read the book, but I have followed the media accounts. My attention was drawn to Tenets statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States.

Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that. Its attention is on any differences Tenet had with the administration. The medias premise is that Iraq should not have been considered a real threat to us and that the administration basically misled the country into war. While one may take issue with Tenet on several things, I was intrigued that on some very important issues, Tenet did not follow the media script when answering Russerts questions.


On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, although Iraq undoubtedly had such weapons in the past, Tenet acknowledges that everybody got it wrong as to whether they would have them at the time of the invasion. On the nuclear issue, he said that the CIA thought that Saddam was five to seven years away from a nuclear capability unless he was able to obtain fissile material from another source.

A couple of things occur to me here. In the first place, is five to seven years that far away? Since four years have passed since the invasion, that would be only a year from now if we had not invaded. If he had been able to obtain fissile materials, the time could have been much shorter. There are over 40 countries in the world with fissile material sufficient to make a nuclear bomb and much of it is unguarded.

The CIA could have been on the short side or on the long side of the estimate. They have underestimated the capabilities of hostile nations before, such as North Koreas missile technologies. Also, Tenet acknowledged that before the Gulf War, the CIA had underestimated how far along Saddam was on his nuclear program.

All of this hardly fits with the notion that Saddam posed no threat. As Tenet made the media rounds, he may have helped the administration as much as hurt it, but he was in no danger of having that fact highlighted by his interviewers.

I think Fred makes an excellent point here about CIA intelligence. We KNEW. KNEW. that Saddam had WMDs. The evidence is overwhelming. Just because he didn't have very many LEFT at the time of the initial conflict DOES NOT MEAN that he wouldn't attempt to restock. Or get newer, more dangerous toys.  And the fact that they thought those "new toys" were coming in 5-7 years doesn't detract from the danger.  Ladies and Gentlemen, The CIA's "5 years from now" is NEXT YEAR.  Probably less than 12 months, even.  And what if that was an OVERestimate.

I don't even want to contemplate THAT in the context of the United States NOT going after Saddam.  Do you?

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:39 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 15, 2007

Putting it into perspective

Ladies and Gentlemen, the wussification of America, illustrated:

Lost cause my ass.  Kudos to our troops and their commanders for pursuing the LEAST bloody war in this country's history.  Quit whining you pussies and step in and support the men and women out there who really put themselves on the line FOR YOU.

h/t Michael Totten, who found it here.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:02 AM | Comments (41) | TrackBack

An Open Letter to Michael Moore

Dear Mooreon,

You really shouldn't attempt to play big boy games until you are potty trained and no longer wail for Mommy at the drop of a hat.  Oh, and BTW, not that you care, but you can't hide behind Mommy's skirts and question her parenting skills at the same time....

Love and Kisses,


Friends and Neighbors, if I wasn't 100% behind Fred before, I am now.  Not only did he best the Mooreon in HIS OWN MEDIUM, it was a timely, witty, and on-point response. 

Can you imagine a President with this kind of response to our enemies?  Fred gets it.  He totally gets it.  For more on this, see Bob Krumm's commentary on Fred and the OODA Loop.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:53 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

May 18, 2007

Who said this?

(you can look here for the answer and the rest of the piece if you don't want to guess)

"Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it's clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That's why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together, but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it."

Sounds like someone who should run for President, doesn't it?

h/t BethC

Run, Fred, Run!

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 22, 2007

Political round up

Here's what I've been thinking about politically lately:

Fred on the UN:

I'm never particularly surprised when the United Nations seems to oppose human freedom rather than promote it. At least a third of its member nations aren’t democratic themselves. Many that claim to be, are only barely so.

An organization that treats democracies and dictators equally cannot be expected to be a pure force for good. When Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il have as much say in U.N. matters as the entire populations of Poland and New Zealand, you’re going to have problems.
Fred on the immigration bill:
The immigration reform bill worked out late last week by Senate Republicans and Democrats likely will fail, former senator and possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson said here Sunday.

Thompson, speaking at the National Restaurant Association annual show, said the bill will not win the support of the American people because they don't trust senators' promises to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.
"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," said Thompson, who was greeted with hoots and applause from the 2,300 convention attendees who filled a ballroom at the McCormick Place convention center.
Thompson also was harshly critical of China, saying the military and economic threat the country poses is among the critical issues - along with untamed growth in entitlement spending - that are not being dealt with while the U.S. is fixated on the war in Iraq.

"I call it 'The Day After Iraq,' " Thompson said. "It's not a pretty picture."

He said China is "making deals with every bloodthirsty dictator they can" to feed its growing economy's need for energy.
And finally, the best explanation of the immigration issue I've seen yet, by Cobb, comparing immigration to traffic:
I don't think we have too many cars on the road, but everyone who subverts the system destroys the commons and undermines the rule of law as well as respect for it. The only way to establish respect for the process of immigration in America is to insist on enforcement for the law. You simply cannot drive around with no plates and tags. If this system isn't fixed for real, then there is going to be road rage.
There's much more, and this brief quote doesn't do the analogy justice.

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 01, 2007

Fred vs. the Commies

Run Fred, Run!

Today's editorial (too good for a short excerpt):

Well, he's done it. Hugo Chavez was already systematically silencing criticism of his autocratic rule through threats and intimidation. Journalists have been threatened, beaten, and even killed. Now he's shut down the last opposition television networks in Venezuela and arrested nearly 200 protesters, mostly students. It's a monumental tragedy and the Venezuelan people will pay the price for decades to come. Americans are also at risk as he funds anti-American candidates and radicals all over Latin America.

It's equally tragic that the U.S. is in no position to provide the victims of this emerging dictator with the truth. There was a time, though, when Americans were on the frontlines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the "surrogate" broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."


Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan's efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public-relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy. They had sources and networks within those countries that sometimes outperformed the CIA. When Soviet hardliners and reformers were facing off, and crowds and tanks were on the streets of Moscow and Bucharest, the radios were sending real-time information to the people, including the military, and reminding them of what was at stake.

Then we won the Cold War. The USSR collapsed in 1991, and America relaxed. Military downsizing began and the Radios began to reduce broadcast air time to target countries.

Now, of course, we know that the Islamofascists, many trained by the old Soviets, were making plans and plots of their own. Unfortunately, the plans to broadcast a pro-freedom message into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Kurdistan, and Ukraine were shelved or diluted. Reagan's ideological audacity was replaced with a more "diplomatic" tone.

And see where it's got us? Not only has Islamic totalitarianism spread without a true ideological challenge, many of the freed Soviet bloc countries are slipping back into repression. Russia is making the same old threats and even protecting Iran's efforts to build nukes.<

We'll never know if Afghanistan might have rejected al Qaeda if America had actively engaged that country as we did those Eastern Europeans. We can't know if Venezuelans would have chosen liberty over the false security of authoritarianism if they had been challenged to face the issues. I do know, though, that it's time for a new generation of Americans to stand up for freedom — like others before us. And this time, we’ll have a whole new set of media technologies.(emphasis mine --Ed.)

We'll be there to stand up.  I can promise you that, Senator.  Just give us the leadership we have been sadly lacking for so long.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 02, 2007

And Fred supports Israel, too!

Wednesday's Townhall column:

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego -- and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy's side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

He's damn right. Read the whole thing. Fred nails the situation EXACTLY.

Run, Fred, Run!

h/t Brian the Sailor at Pereiraville

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 05, 2007

Ask Fred...

Not invited to tonight's debate, but I'm sure he'll have something INTERESTING to say.

Fred will be on Hannity and Colmes (known as "Sean and Fish Face" in our house) tonight after the debate.

Frank J (another Thompsoniac) says:

Fred Thompson will be on Hannity & Colmes after the Republican debate that's going on as I type. My suggestion for what he should say:

"It was a great debate, but there's one thing I can say that none of those candidates can..."

He turns to face the camera and it zooms for a close up.

"I'm Fred Thompson."

Woo Hoo! Run, Fred, Run! He's already #2 in the polls, and he hasn't even declared yet!

Oh, and as for Scarborough's comments on Jeri Kehn Thompson: Get a life, jackoff. How would you like it if someone asked if your wife or mother "worked the pole"?

One more, here's an interesting Fred story from John Fund in today's Opinion Journal.

Yeah, yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to post, but I had to tell you to watch FRED.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 06, 2007

Maybe that sign should read "No Blood for Gas" instead?

I got yer "No Blood for Oil!" right here:

Red Cross Offering Gas For Blood

Lucky Winner Will Get $3,500 In Gasoline

American Red Cross officials are offering the chance to win free gasoline as an incentive to get more Pennsylvania and New Jersey residents to donate blood.

This summer, each donor will automatically be entered in a drawing to win $3,500 worth of gasoline. Entries for the first drawing, July 23, are already being accepted. An identical raffle will start July 23 and run through Sept. 16. Every day, the Red Cross also will award a $25 gas card to a randomly selected donor.

Can't you just see the tinfoil hat brigade protesting the Red Cross?  I wouldn't put it past them.....

idea stolen shamelessly from BR

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 13, 2007

Fred has a blog and he's not afraid to use it!

New to the ImWithFred site, as of today, Fred's Blog. It has a feed, too.  If you're a "Friends of Fred" member you can log in and comment, too.

Here's what Harvey usually refers to as the "obligatory sucky first post":

Folks, I'm on the road, but wanted to drop you a note of thanks for making the ImWithFred.com website launch a huge success.

Also, I'd like to mention that I'll be appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" tonight, June 12. So stay up with us and watch, or record it to watch at your convenience.

You heard the man: Fred. With Jay. Tonight Last Night. I am an idiot. Be there.
If you missed it too, this might be an acceptable substitute: Fred at the Hoover Institute.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:17 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 15, 2007

Fred! vs the Commies

I find it very interesting that one of Fred's strategies so far has been to talk about the subjects that other candidates shy away from, including Israel and communism in Latin America, most notably in castro's Cuba.  Fred takes on castro again, in this piece, which puts castro AND hugo chavez into some historical perspective:

We're coming up on the 45th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis and I think it's worth talking about. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy faced down the USSR, risking total war, and forced the Soviets to remove ballistic weapons from Cuba. Missiles located less than a hundred miles from America were aimed at the US.

A lot of people, I think, have forgotten. Most schools don't even teach about it in any real detail. Judging by the indifference that many people have to the nuclear arming of Iran, I think it's a lesson almost entirely lost -- except among Cuban-Americans.

Over the years, they've never stopped watching "el Comandante" -- or warning us about him. At the same time, they've been criticized by people who say that Castro is really no threat. Current events in South America, though, have proven that we should have been listening to our Cuban-Americans friends.

Last week, when Hugo Chavez officially killed press freedoms, even a big part of Venezuela's far left seemed to realize that they’d created a monster. Unfortunately, it may be too late. He's already packed Venezuela's high court, legislature and military with his loyalists. Right now, he's operating without any check or balance.

During his rise, Venezuelans say that Chavez spent hours a day on the phone with Castro. Additionally, Castro sent thousands of his Communist apparatchiks to help transition Venezuela from a free country to a totalitarian state.

Without Cuban “help,” Venezuela wouldn’t be in the terrible mess it is today. Castro, after all, has been at this since the 1960's and he's given Chavez the benefit of his experience.

There's one big difference between Venezuela today and Cuba then, however. Castro needed Soviet aid to push his so-called "revolution." Chavez does not. One of his first moves was to bolster the Cuban dictatorship with oil subsidies -- a hundred thousand barrels a day to the tune of two billion dollars a year. One of the main factors preventing Cuba's transition towards democracy is Venezuelan oil wealth. On June 26, that wealth could increase significantly, as Chavez says he’ll nationalize the petroleum industry on that date.

Interesting, no? And most people probably don't remember the backdrop to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Just the outcome.  Sad really.  Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it, right?

h/t Marc Masferrer at Babalu

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2007

Ah-nuld gets it right

The Governator told a gathering of Hispanic journalists on Thursday that mainstreaming recent immigrants means taking off their language crutches:

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.

Schwarzenegger was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academically. Many journalists for Spanish-language organizations in the audience were surprised by the remarks.

The best part? The predictable response:
"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that," said Alex Nogales, president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Hispanic immigrants need Spanish-language media to stay informed and "function in this society," Nogales said.
I'd just like to point out that this dude is the one keeping his people down, ok. It's not the Man. It's the Hombre.  I should remind Mr. Nogales of a couple of things.  First, Mr. Schwarzenegger DIDN'T have the "native" language resources that you and your colleagues provide.  And somehow, he managed to learn enough to be informed enough to be THE FRIGGING GOVERNOR of the richest, most diverse state in the US. 

How much more functional than the Governor do Hispanic immigrants need to be in this society, Mr. Nogales?

Second, I'd like to invite Mr. Nogales to take a look around.  What language was that interview conducted in?  Oh yeah, English.  What language is spoken in classrooms in major Universities?  What's that?  Yep, also English.  What do you really want Mr. Nogales?  From my perspective as an educator of Hispanic children, I see you doing them and their parents a disservice by making it easy on them to remain in a shadowy "other" realm, LA's second city, where English is rare and education and resources are low.  Let's face it. English is the de facto language of business and academia in this country.  There are limits to what you can do if you do not speak it.  Period.  And the best way to learn English is to be immersed in it, as for any other language.

Props to Ah-Nuld.  He's been there and he accomplished something great, therefore he has the right to share the benefit of his experience.  But to say (essentially) that his opinion is unwelcome because he didn't have the resources available to Spanish speakers in CA today is ludicrous, and furthermore to call him naive and out of touch because he didn't need crutches to get there is selfish and self-serving.

What is your real goal, Mr. Nogales?  To force-feed non-English speakers your bullshit propaganda?  To keep your people down so that they will foment a revolution? Or to make this country as Spanish speaking as Mexico.  Ironic that, as the Spanish language itself was imposed on Mexico about 500 years ago.....

h/t Mikey

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:50 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

Cheap DSL Internet!

AT&T is offering $10/month DSL service to some eligible customers as part of a deal brokered with the FCC to garner approval for their takeover of BellSouth:

The $10 offer is available to customers in the 22-state AT&T service region, which includes former BellSouth areas, who have never had AT&T or BellSouth broadband, spokesman Michael Coe confirmed Monday. Local phone service and a one-year contract are required. The modem is free.

The plan was not mentioned in a Friday news release about AT&T's DSL plans, and is slightly hidden on the AT&T Web site. A page describing DSL options doesn't mention it, but clicking a link for "Term contract plans" reveals it. It's also presented to customers who go into the application process, Coe said.

The service provides download speeds of up to 768 kilobits per second and upload speeds of up to 128 kbps, matching the speeds of the cheapest advertised AT&T plan, which costs $19.95 per month in the nine-state former BellSouth area and $14.99 in the 13 states covered by AT&T before the acquisition.
If you're interested click here for more information (AT&T and/or former SBC customers) or here and scroll down to "Term contract plans available" (former BellSouth Customers).

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:55 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The "Nuge" Speaks!

Ted Nugent rocks.

... Especially here in the great Republic of Texas, a smiling, drooling preference for succulent, protein-rich, nutritious backstrap over aromatic mesquite coals is as American and natural and right as Mom, apple pie and the flag. It's beautiful, really.

But a culture war rages against such universal, self-evident truths. It would be laughable if it were not so deranged. Some weirdos actually are on a crusade to outlaw the consumption of flesh.

I have musical touring associates who have been fired from their jobs with ex-Beatle Paul McCartney for sneaking a hamburger.

You heard that right. Fired for eating meat by an animal-rights maniac, hard-core vegan bass player.

The entire agenda of the gazillion-dollar-financed joke known as PETA literally is dedicated to outlawing meat.

Neither I, nor any hunter or meat eater on the planet, has any desire whatsoever to influence any vegetarian's choice of diet or to force them to eat meat. We are the friendly, tolerant Americans.

This is but one of many issues that represent the line drawn in the sand between liberals and conservatives.

There's more. Check out the rest here. Be sure to note Nuge's views on the Left in this country, and how much their rhetoric sounds like the commies...

h/t el Pitbull at Babalu

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:40 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 28, 2007

Guns don't kill people. Global Warming kills people...

Fred Thompson pulls no punches with the U.N.:

Recently, the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the root cause of the current genocide in Darfur is [wait for it...] global warming. Now if you've been following the tragedy of the Darfur region in the African nation of Sudan, you know how absurd that statement is.

There's not room here for even a good summary, but let me make a few points. Sudan straddles the line between Christian African and Muslim Arabic cultures, bordering Egypt and Libya on the north. Bloody regional warfare stretches back centuries but, in modern times, the country has been in pretty much of a constant state of war since the 1950s. It's safe to say that millions have died in wars that are often aimed at control of the rich oil fields in the South. Today, however, the vastly reduced African Christian population isn't even involved. Two Muslim factions, divided along racial lines, are fighting for control of Darfur.

Now it's true that the return of cyclical droughts has made agriculture and life more and more difficult for the people in the region. The impact of the weather, however, doesn't approach the destruction that generations of warfare have worked on the land and the people. With peace and freedom, the economy of Darfur could have easily adapted to any climate change no matter the cause.

Why, then, would the new UN Secretary General blame climate change? I think it's pretty obvious.

Blaming the Islamic government and groups that have manipulated events in Sudan will get him nothing but enemies. Blaming global warming, however, is basically the same thing as blaming America. America is by no means the only major source of greenhouse gases, but we've taken the most political heat. The reason is that congress rightfully balked at ratifying the Kyoto international climate treaties during the Clinton presidency.

There is simply no downside to blaming America, because Americans don't punish their ideological foes. From the UN, we don't even require sanity sometimes. And there might even be an upside to blaming us, since there are Americans who suffer from such ingrained feelings of guilt, they'll support increased aid to both the UN and Sudan.

There is a lesson to be learned here, though. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is arguably the most powerful man in the international community today. We know he's unwilling to blame those who actually gave the orders to commit genocide in Darfur. And apparently he's happy to shift the blame for ongoing deaths to those living peaceful, productive lives in the West.

Now hopefully we can work toward international cooperation with regard to environmental policies that make sense. It's not very encouraging though when the head of the world's leading international body uses climate change as an all purpose excuse in order to avoid hard realities.

This is the NUMBER ONE reason why I will vote for Fred, given the opportunity. He'll stand up to the international community, and especially the UN.

And I'd be happy to put the title of this post on my car as a bumper sticker, together with the phrase "Fred Thompson '08".

There's nothing I can add here.  Fred calls out the absurdity better than I ever could.

Run Fred Run!

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:22 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 02, 2007

Fred Thompson "gets" the new media

If the left tries to push the "Fairness Doctrine" down people's throats, the market will simply migrate to new media: Podcasts, web radio, and the like.

We've been hearing threats to use the obsolete Fairness Doctrine to go after talk radio ever since the left-leaning talk radio network, Air America, failed. Ironically, I think Air America might have had a shot if its target audience hadn't already been served so well by many in the mainstream media. But regardless, giving the government veto power over radio stations' programming decisions is wrong. I don't think forcing the one sector of the media where conservatives have a clear voice to provide equal time to liberals is the American way. At the very least, it has a chilling effect on station owners.

I understand how the left feels though. For most of my life, the big broadcast television networks and almost all the major newspapers and magazines presented only one side of a lot of issues. Talk radio is a relatively small part of a bigger media picture, but I imagine it aggravates the new congressional majority to hear their opposition's arguments without the old filters.

I would remind them, though, that a few Republicans were elected even when the entire mainstream media was painting us as heartless Neanderthals. I would also remind the current congressional leadership that they managed to win the last election despite talk radio.

Americans are smart enough to recognize news that's biased -- even when journalists pretend they're not. New polls show that more than seven in 10 people recognize that the news comes with an agenda. So maybe we should welcome a new Fairness Doctrine. We could start by requiring that every broadcast television news show be co-anchored by both a liberal and conservative; and all major newspaper staff be evenly divided.

Not much chance of that happening. Nor should it in a free country -- but I'll tell you something that those who want to control the media apparently don't know. Everyday, more people are listening to streaming radio on the Web and downloading podcasts. Some popular talk shows skip radio altogether and go straight to the Internet. You can even hear talk shows on Web-enabled telephones if you want, and that will get much easier and cheaper quickly.

If the current stars of talk were pushed off the radio dial, they'd get their audiences anyway. The era of controllable media is over, and nothing will ever bring it back.

I agree 100%. A free media is NOT controlled by anything but the market. And the market will seek out whatever outlets it can for the exchange of ideas. Including the web. And Fred gets it. Which, I suspect, is why Fred is the ONLY major candidate doing any of the blogging himself.

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 04, 2007

Who knew?

A Prius can do 100 MPH!

The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for allegedly speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m..

A subsequent search yielded a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. There were no prescriptions found, he said.

Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Center in Santa Ana, about 34 miles south of Los Angeles, on $20,000 bail, he said.
Well, that answers a burning question of mine.... I was wondering if the Prius had any guts. Turns out that it might not be worthless as a vehicle, after all,

As for algore, junior, MWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Moron.

h/t Steve-O

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 11, 2007

Moonbattery, Hypocrisy, Idiocy: Three of a kind

The "crack young staff" of the Hatemonger's Quarterly is on to something:

It's funny how people who claim to care so much about the Bush administration's supposed assault on the proper functioning of our representative democracy seem to care so little about ensuring the proper functioning of our representative democracy.
Reading this, I was reminded of a day, back in 2004, just before President Bush was reelected. It was summer, probably August or September, after the national conventions. The time when the partisanship really started to get out of hand, and bitter.

My own office was on the 7th floor, and it just so happened that there was a lovely, big Wendy's on the second floor. Every day around 11:30 I would head down in the elevator to beat the crowd for my grilled chicken sandwich, baked potato (no sour cream, but lots of chives please!), and Diet Coke.

On the day in question I entered the restaurant to find a girl in line in front of me wearing a white doctor's coat tied about her waist, green scrub pants, and a t-shirt emblazoned with "Fuck the Electoral College".

I was so disgusted, I lost my appetite and went back up to my office. Honestly, the bit that bothered me the LEAST was the fact that she was clearly an intern or resident, and she thought it was proper to dress like that in front of patients. I mean., she probably wore her coat buttoned.... What chapped my ass was the 100% ignorance of what the Electoral College is all about, and why we have it in the first place. That she would proclaim publicly (in effect) "our system is broken because the wrong guy won, so let's trash it and keep changing it until the right guy wins."

But getting back to the HMQ piece, which is about the "Impeach Bush" movement. Answer me this: What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is he guilty of? What laws did he break?

I can't hear you. Maybe because you can't answer.

The truth is that the Moonbat brigade are vindictive bitter losers who CAN NOT accept the fact that (1) the majority of Americans disagree with them and (2) Their poster boy was impeached for cause. He lied to Federal investigators.

It's clear to me that this impeachment nonsense is no more than a tired game of tit-for-tat. You impeached our boy, we'll impeach yours. Except it isn't anywhere NEAR that simple. You can't impeach someone because you think he's stupid or you disagree with him or (OMG!) he's a Christian. (Which BTW, Bill Clinton claims to be too!). He has to commit a crime, which Clinton did, and Bush has not.

h/t Phoenix

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:57 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

July 13, 2007

Charlotte Mayor won't apologize for telling the truth

Pat McCrory, Mayor of Charlotte NC tells it like it is:

The NAACP wants Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory to apologize for remarks he made about African American youth after last week's arrests during Fourth of July festivities in uptown.

Ken White, president of the Charlotte Branch of the NAACP, on Wednesday called the mayor's comments "insensitive" and said he's concerned they painted "African American youth with a broad swath that cuts deep in many of our communities."

McCrory's comments came July 5 in a letter to the city manager congratulating police on their efforts the night before, when 169 people were arrested in uptown. McCrory also wrote that "too many of our youth, primarily African American, are imitating and/or participating in a gangster type of dress, attitude, behavior and action."

Later Wednesday, McCrory said he won't apologize.

Why not?

"Because my comments were accurate. Period."

Mayor McCrory's comments, as discussed above, were in regards to many arrests at the city's 4th of July celebration. From the Charlotte Observer:
The uptown crowd was primarily African American, as were most of those arrested: Of 143 adults arrested, 122 were black. Police later noted that those arrested comprised fewer than 1 percent of the uptown revelers.
Mayor McCrory went on to explain both his statements, and why he refuses to apologize:
McCrory ... cited statistics showing more than 60 percent of Charlotte's gang members are African American. And, he said, the victims of gang violence also tend to be black.

"One thing we agree on is that it is a horrible stereotype," McCrory said, "but it's being perpetuated by those who continue to dress like, behave like and act like gang members. It's not productive to our community, our neighborhoods, our schools, or to those individuals who are doing it."

Kudos for Mayor McCrory for saying the truth, and refusing to back down from it. Too often in this society our leaders back down from a stand because powerful opposition groups (in this case the NAACP) start threatening them.

But I must echo LaShawn Barber and ask: When did it become more of a crime in this country to SAY that something is wrong, than to do the wrong thing?

LaShawn goes on:

Too many black youth eschew education and decent living, while embracing a lifestyle that glorifies criminal activity, triflingness (yes, theres such a word), and having illicit and zero-responsibility sex with as many women as possible. The resultant children are sentenced to fatherless homes and instability. That, too, makes me sick to my stomach.


Blacks cannot complain about what white people may or may not be doing to them when they dont even care about their own children. Ive lost patience with it, and I advise everybody no matter what color you are to stop being afraid of the truth or of black people making demands. Take it from an insider: the bark, as loud and annoying as it is, is much worse than the bite.

It's my hope that more of our leaders, of ALL colors, stand up and ask the tough questions and give the tough answers about what's wrong in our communities, following Pat McCrory's example.

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:49 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 31, 2007

Fred on Kelo

Yep. Preach it, Senator:

Our Founders placed respect for private property as a key principle when writing our nation's Constitution, and the protection of private property resulted in the United States becoming the greatest economic power in the world and a beacon of freedom to all. This principle is even more important today, as homeownership has become an increasingly integral part of our citizens' aspirations for a better future for themselves and their loved ones. If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge.
There's plenty more. See it here.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:58 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 09, 2007

Ends Justify the Means? I don't think so.

It's official.  The Democrats have decided that Fred Thompson will be the Republican candidate in 2008.  How do I know this, you ask?  Well, lets see:

1.  First they gossiped that Mrs. Thompson was nothing more than a trophy wife, and tried to insinuate that she was the reason his first marriage broke up... except that she's brilliant and professional and Fred didn't meet her until more than a decade after his divorce, and after several serious relationships after the marriage.  (many links here for more info)

2. They tried to paint Fred as a flip-flopper on abortion.  Nice trick there, but it didn't work that well, did it?

3.  Now they're trying to link him to the KKK?  Hey Henry Reynolds, I know you live here in LA la land, but there IS a difference between reality and TV.

So I ask the Democrats: You've got like 9 people running on your side of the aisle.  Are you trying to say that NONE of them measures up to Fred where it counts? (that would be on the record, dirtbags)  Or just that your scared spitless because you didn't see him coming?

Funny how Fred didn't matter to you until he showed you he was a master of YOUR milieu as well as his own.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 06, 2007

Fred's In!

He announced last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno!

(if the video won't load, here's a transcript of the segment)

And here's the "official" announcement, from Fred08.com:

Click to play

Run Fred Run!

Win Fred Win!

BTW, if you want to know why I'm a Fredhead, I'll sum it up for you in two words: Testicular Fortitude. Fred has it. The others so far don't seem to. Even McCain who ought to have TF in spades, given his history, but he's just as wimpy and consensus driven as the other used car salesmen in the race. If Fred proves me wrong, then I'll be voting for ABH/O (Anyone but Hillary/Obama)

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:36 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 10, 2007

Truer words and all that....

I think a person's politics are defined mainly by which nutjobs piss them off the most.

   - Exgaucho Ben

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 19, 2007

Why Shrillary is scared of Fred

and just one more reason why I'll be voting for him.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 27, 2007

I got nothing, but Fred sure does

You asked Fred what he stands for, asked him to lay it all out there. Well, here it is:

Anyone who has heard me speak knows my firm commitment to what I call "First Principles." These grow out of the documents of our Nation's founding and the wisdom of the ages. They are core beliefs that guide my approach to the issues that are crucial to our Nation's future. I believe in--

Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.

Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.

Free Markets . Free people are best equipped to order their own affairs, and the common interest benefits from and is improved by the aggregate success of all. We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations to continue to expand the economy and bring increased wealth to all Americans give.

Limited Government . Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.

Federalism . Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.

Protecting our Country . The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation and the American people. There is no more important task. We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.

Traditional American Values . A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage: the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.

The Rule of Law . We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law. We owe to ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not. A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.

Conserving Our Nation's Resources . Each of us is put on Earth for a limited period of time. We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.

We live in the greatest country on earth. We have been truly blessed. This blessing carries with it an obligation: to keep it that way and to leave this country at least as strong, prosperous, and united as when we entered it.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 28, 2007

In Quest of Democracy

Pray for the freedom of Burma:

picture by AndreSTGT
Where there is no justice there can be no secure peace.
...That just laws which uphold human rights are the necessary foundations of peace and security would be denied only by closed minds which interpret peace as the silence of all opposition and security as the assurance of their own power. The Burmese associate peace and security with coolness and shade:

The shade of a tree is cool indeed
The shade of parents is cooler
The shade of teachers is cooler still
The shade of the ruler is yet more cool
But coolest of all is the shade of the Buddha's teachings.

Thus to provide the people with the protective coolness of peace and security, rulers must observe the teachings of the Buddha. Central to these teachings are the concepts of truth, righteousness and loving kindness. It is government based on these very qualities that the people of Burma are seeking in their struggle for democracy.
-- Aung San Suu Kyi

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 09, 2007

Why am I not surprised? Fair for me but NOT for thee.....

The American Spectator reports:

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

Now that's creepy.

But not surprising.

Let me sum this up for you, in case you don't understand just what's at stake here: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented by the FCC in the earliest days of TV and radio, when small media markets were dominated by a handful of stations, or in many cases, just one station. And, as is often the case when you have a media monopoly, FCC regulators were concerned that all views wouldn't be broadcast fairly and some candidates for office might lose out because of a lack of coverage.

Fast forward to 1987. It was the end of the Reagan era, and the rise of mass communications in the US. In 1987 the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine because the market had grown so much that there was enough market pressure to allow for opposing viewpoints to be presented, not to mention an increased expectation of such presentation from the media-consuming public. With so many opportunities for coverage and so much media to keep track of, enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine became obsolete and the policy was ended.

In the two decades since, the US has seen an exponential increase in the amount of political speech broadcast through the media. Commercials, debates, opinion and news shows, radio talk shows, etc. have all increased the public's awareness of political issues and political thought. Admittedly, much of this increase has been on the conservative side of the fence. However, the financial disaster formerly known as "Air America" clearly highlights that this is likely due to purely market forces; that Americans want to hear conservative political thought in the media more than they want to hear liberals.

You can come up for your own explanation for that one. I'm sure it's not hard to think of a dozen reasons why, but left-leaning media (other than, it can be argued, mainstream "news") is simply not commercially viable in this country.

Faced with the fact that they can't compete in the open marketplace, what do the liberals do? As usual, they try to level the playing field... to their advantage. If the market won't admit "liberal" political thought, then it's time to simply break down the doors to the market. With the Fairness Doctrine bulldozer.

While it might seem, naively, that the more speech accessible to the masses, the better; in reality this is nothing more than censorship. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of political speech that can be presented for either side to an amount that can be feasibly presented by the media in consideration of their need (under the FD) to present opposing viewpoints. Is that what we want? Sound bites and snippets? Well, if that's all you're getting anyway, and your opposition has a three-hour talk show, you might just say yes, and damn the consequences.

Let's look at this economically, too: the consumer prefers conservative media (e.g. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), and we know this because these ventures are commercially viable. By limiting the supply of the preferred goods, and forcing the consumer to take some non-preferred goods (Liberal media) instead, the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine forces the consumer's choice. Sounds a lot like Communism to me...

Let me ask you this: Why is it ok to have NO Fairness Doctrine for 20 years while the left consolidates their power base and makes in roads into the MSM, but the SECOND that conservative media shows some strength, it's time to put it back? Why is the playing field level until the other team goes ahead? Why didn't ANY of these things matter until people started to challenge the status quo?

Funny how the First Amendment gets bought and sold by the left like so much cattle, depending on whether they're winning or losing.

h/t FRED who makes his own case for a Free Press.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

While we're on the subject...

Dafydd laments the loss of honest debate and cross-party friendships.  You might disagree with his theories, but you have to admit that a lot of conservatives have lost a LOT of liberal friends to BDS over the last 7+ years....

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 12, 2007

An Open Letter to new Nobel Laureate algore

Dear Former Vice President Gore,

First of all let me congratulate you on winning this year's Nobel Peace Prize.  Of course, that accomplishment would be so much more meaningful if the award hadn't become synonymous with the "Annual Best Politically Correct Jerkwad" award, which the Nobel Committee seems to have merged their award with. I suppose, however, that sharing this honor with the last American to win the prize, former President Jimmy Carter, gives you a real sense of just what this honor means, and how your legacy will be cherished in your decline.

But I have a serious question for you.  What in hell does your Global Warming crusade have to do with promoting Peace on Earth™? I mean do you believe that the only way to stop war is to make it so cold that we'd all rather stay in our own caves rather than shoot someone? Or maybe you believe that anecdotal psychology theory that aggression (which is of course, anti-peace by definition) increases as the temperatures rise? Let's grant for the purposes of this argument that your incoherent, incomplete, and hypocritical pseudoscience is correct, and that people DO make the Earth warmer by a significant amount. Given that, your crusade against Global Warming is admirable, even, perhaps noble. But this is the Nobel PEACE Prize. Not the Nobel "Make the Earth Happy" Prize. It's October, not Earth Day. Explain to me how your actions have anything to do with peace.

Unless somehow being against global warming is really just a fancy synonym for "Troops out of Iraq Now".... because that has something to do with peace. But it really doesn't rise to the level of a Nobel Prize. And here I speak from experience. I went to Caltech. I've met Nobel Laureates. I've been taught by them. And here's the thing: They are FREAKING BRILLIANT. They are committed to their science without any hope of reward, which is what Alfred Nobel left the $$ to recognize in the first place: tireless champions of the greater good, representing different disciplines of the Humanities and Sciences. Not attention seeking environmental hypocrites who champion the environment because it is a safe niche to occupy in the cutthroat social darwinist biosphere of US politics.

I have another question, but this one is for the Nobel Committee, so be sure you pass it along to them when you go for the medal ceremony: If algore has contributed significantly to "Peace on Earth", then why did you recognize him for the Global Warming Awareness crusade? I would think his MOST significant achievements lie in other fields. After all, he invented the internet, technology which has contributed more towards interpersonal, international, and intercultural understanding than any other scientific or humanitarian contribution of the modern age. Isn't that important enough?

I know you're a busy man, especially as you now have to plan a trip to Oslo and contemplate running for President again to add to your incredibly busy fundraising schedule, so I'll close here. However, in closing, I'd like to thank you for the endless amusement you and your family have provided me over the years, not mention answering my questions about the top speed of a Prius (let your son know how much I appreciated that one, will you?). Keep it up!


Posted by caltechgirl at 09:47 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

October 18, 2007

Why Fred Thompson Rulz

My Mother always told me that people who pick on you are just jealous. Same applies to the Presidential race. Jackie Mason NAILS it:

h/t Fred, of course. Well, Sean Hackbarth blogging at Friends of Fred.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 24, 2007

The Rules

Some rules are real, and some are fake. The trick is knowing which is which. Fred evidently has a knack for this. From Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics:

There are two types of rules in the world. On the one hand, there are real rules. These are the rules that you need to follow, or you will be in big trouble. Stay in school is one of them. You can't do much without a high school diploma - so that is a real rule. On the other hand, there are fake rules. These are rules that most people follow because they think there are negative consequences for disobedience, but actually there are not. In fact, the ones who break the fake rules are often celebrated as trail blazers.

Bob Dylan comes to my mind when I think of those who break the fake rules. In the mid-60s, there was this rule that songs could only be three minutes long, and they had to have three verses and a chorus. But Dylan did these six minute songs that had five plus verses and no chorus. And whose ears don't perk up today when they hear the first bars of "Subterranean Homesick Blues?" Another rule said that folkies could not play rock. That just did not happen. But Dylan hired Levon and the Hawks, and went electric. At first, he was booed everywhere he went (except in the South). Eight years later he went on tour with the exact same group - now called the Band - and received 6 million ticket requests for 600,000 seats.

If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.

I think Thompson might be breaking what really are fake rules. As I mentioned above - the perpetual campaign is only a means to the real campaign. You play the game by the rules of the media to earn your way into the real contest. But there may be other ways to get to the real campaign. If there are, the media's rules are indeed fake. There are no consequences to breaking them. If you find another way into the real campaign, you can break them all you like.

I love that the MSM can't get over Fred doing things HIS way, not their way. Since when is the campaign supposed to be about the Media? I thought it was about the Message.

On a side note, if Fred handle Congress just 1/10 as well as he handles the media, we might be in business.

Read the whole piece. Jay has interesting things to say about how Fred is winning over voters and turning the tables on Rudy Giuliani in the polls. Personally, I suspect the ONLY reason Rudy is ahead in the polls and backed by strongly conservative voters is that they thought he was the ONLY one who could defeat Hillary/Obama. And really, that's how many Republicans see this primary season: pick the strongest candidate. Fred is clearly a strong contender who has the potential to beat whoever the Dems put up. So as Fred brings out his platform, more and more folks agree that he might have the winning horse in the race. And they're walking away from Rudy in DROVES.

h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit, who has a great round up of recent Fred-related buzz

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:52 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 13, 2007

Who said this?

"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular,"

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest,"...

Bet you can't guess. Answer below the jump!

h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit

Read More "Who said this?" »
Posted by caltechgirl at 11:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 15, 2007

Some days you just get it...

Thanks for the laugh, as usual, Chris:

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 04, 2007

Talk about your Airport Park-N-Ride!

In the 80's and 90's we had Limousine Liberals.  Now we have Gulfstream Greenies:

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.--emphasis mine, Ed.
I thought they were meeting to try to COMBAT Global Warming. Hypocrites.

h/t The Pirate, via IM

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:12 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 27, 2007

When you're done with those presents...

Tony over at A Red Mind in a Blue State has some interesting thoughts on the state of the economy and how it's reported:

Will it stop? The unending media hysteria about the economy?

The story this morning is that Internet plus brick and mortar sales are up 2.4% this season.

Given the incessant drumbeat of bad economy, bad economy, bad economy-- I thought the tag on the story would be, hey, not bad!

But no. For whatever reason-- incompetence, latent Bush-bashing, the inability to ever report good news-- the headlines were mostly negative. Sluggish. Poor. Disappointing.

How could 2.4% growth in the "teeth" of this mortgage meltdown, etc. be deemed disappointing?

Read the rest, including some interesting facts about gift card sales.

I think Tony has a point. Sales ARE up. Doesn't that mean people have the $$ to spend? Or does it mean that they'd rather sink farther into their credit bills so the kids can have the Wii and the computer and the new iPod?

Either way, it means they plan on having a place to keep what they bought, so people must be somewhat more than negative-feeling about the whole housing/mortgage/ interest rate business.

Even more interesting was the item about gift card sales. I wonder what the total figures would be with those included. Especially as sales of gift cards increased ALONG with the direct sales increases reported.

What do you think?

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:26 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 02, 2008

Of Parades and Politics

So you may have seen that there was much hoo-hah about a float honoring the 2008 Beijing Olympics in yesterday's Rose parade.

I was front and center for the spectacle, and my take on it may surprise some of you.

We left the house at 5:15 am, drove to a nearby church, parked the car and had a lovely pancake breakfast, then we walked to Colorado and Orange Grove, where our seats were located in the Grandstands, just to the side of the HGTV booth.  We were asked to be in place by 6:30 AM so that the Parade organizers could stage the "opening number".  We were in our seats at about 6:15.  I people-watched until the parade got going, and hubby took a catnap or two, wrapped in our warmest USC gear and sitting on a thick blanket instead of a cold metal bench....

What happened was that a protest was organized wherein people were supposed to stand and turn their backs on the float as it passed, a sign that you disagree with China and it's human rights abuses.  There was a pro-float group on our left, and an anti-float group on our right.

Here is the very beautiful and fun float in question:

First of all, where we were, VERY few people stood other than the few who were present specifically for that purpose.  Most of us were too busy taking pictures of an adorable float and the acrobats and dancers hired to accompany it down the parade route.  The few who did stand were real assholes about it, getting in front of people taking pictures and trying to be dickheads.

Which really detracts from a message of human rights and peace, in my book.

I hadn't really known how I was going to react.  I am no fan of China's human rights practices, but at the same time, I had no animus against the float itself or the actors and dancers paid to make it fun.  As the float passed us, and the spectacle unfolded, I came to a realization:  The Rose Parade is not a venue for politics.  The parade is about fun and spectacle and celebration.  It's a moment for the thousands of kids who raised millions of dollars  JUST TO BE THERE IN THE PARADE to enjoy their (cold) morning in the sun.  It's a celebration.  It's for the kids.  Kids and politics shouldn't mix.

There were two beautiful little girls sitting in front of us.  They were enchanted by the lion dancers and plate spinners and acrobats.  As the float in question passed, and the little girls couldn't see it, they were debating their favorite floats.  One preferred the circus float and the other preferred the Princesses and Rose Queen with their bouquets and big pearl crown.  They could give a crap about China.  They just wanted to see the floats and dance to the bands.  Which is what the Parade is all about.

So keep the politics out of the Parade.  Protest before the parade, stage a vigil at the float viewing sheds tomorrow and the next day, but keep it away from the magic of New Year's Morning.

Our kids have so little innocence anymore, and are severely short on magic.  The Rose Parade gives them at least a couple hours of kid fun.

And for the record, this protest was, IMO, a truly cheap political stunt.  Why, you ask?  Well, first of all the float wasn't funded by the Chinese government, it was funded by a coalition of American companies and individuals, most notably the Avery-Dennison Corporation, a worldwide manufacturer of paper and office products based here in Pasadena.  Furthermore, the float didn't promote the Chinese government, either.  It promoted the 2008 Summer Olympics, which will be held in Beijing.  And don't the Olympics themselves promote equality and human rights?  So if they were protesting the idiocy of the International Olympic Committee being bullshitted about human rights improvements by the Chinese government, I'd almost understand the sentiment, but protesting China just makes it a cheap, opportunistic stunt staged for the TV cameras.

More pictures of the Beijing 2008 float can be seen along with the rest of my 2008 Rose Parade pictures here on Flickr.

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 14, 2008

Kudos to Fred!

Fred was the VERY FIRST candidate to submit a position statement on Cuba to "Candidates on Cuba" a forum on Cuba sponsored by Babalu Blog.

But you expected as much from the man who made this video.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 22, 2008

Why, Oh Why did you NOT run a real campaign?

Goodbye, Fred.

You should have punched more hippies. God knows somebody needs to.

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:47 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 29, 2008

Swallowing my bile....

Fred was the man.

Let's face it.  Dropping all the hype and the hyperbole, Fred was the only candidate LIKELY to punch the hippies.  And turn the terrorists into nuclear waste.

Because the truth is, I am a one-issue voter:  National security.  As far as I am concerned, the rest of this bullshit can take care of itself.

Abortion? I could care less what you do with your body

Gay Marriage? See above.

The Economy?  Market forces will foster self-correction.  Together with greed, that's how the market stays afloat, not some shitty presidential policy.

So for me, it's all about Security.  Iraq, terror, the border, all of that.

With Fred out of the race there's no candidate that I trust to have the balls to pull the big trigger.  Period.

Forget the Democrats. They're tripping over their ownselves trying to beat each other out of the middle east, and forget regulating the borders, after all, they want Mexican votes. And they'll say whatever they need to say to get them.

And what about the Republicans?  Huckabee is a whiny-ass pussy, Giuliani is not really sure what he wants, Romney is a slick used car salesman (AND he was Governor of Massachusetts, so his conservative credentials seem rather fake to me), and that leaves John McCain.

Eight years ago, I was on the McCain train when he ran against GWB for the nomination.  Then, he seemed like Fred, the only one who was willing to kick ass and take names.

Which frankly, IS the best job description for the President of the United States, IMO.

Today, I am not so sure.  McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14 antics, among other things, have made me re-think my McCain-iac status, but all in all, today, I think he's the best candidate with regard to what I consider to be the PARAMOUNT issue facing our nation. He's the only one that I think would NOT be a pussy.

So I'll be supporting McCain.  With a little "s". 

Fred, why oh why were you such a lazy asshole?  You could have won the whole thing.  Late start or no.

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:12 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

February 05, 2008

Super Duper Pooper Tuesday

It's Mardi Gras!

Oh wait, wrong post.  Today is Über Tuesday, the biggest primary election day in US history, as the reporter so breathlessly spewed on the AM news show today.

In the past, the single best thing about the-election-day-formerly-known-as-Super Tuesday was that it meant the END of the primary campaign.  Most years, the nominee is well and established by the end of TEDFKAS Tuesday.

So I find it more than ironic that the closest primaries in many years come down to what I will henceforth refer to as "Breathless Tuesday", given all the hype.

I suspect that this means that the few states that actually chose to hold later primaries are doing the "Nyah Nyah" routine.  We shall see.

From my sheltered vantage, high on the cliffs of denial, it looks like McCain is a shoe-in over Mitt Slick-ney and I am really unsure where the Democrats are going.  If anything, I suspect the "blue" picture will be MORE muddled than previously, after today.

Speaking of the Democraps, I heard a mind-blowing commercial this morning.  The gist of it was "Vote for Hillary, because she is not beholden to special interests"

I literally sat up in bed and screamed at the radio (at 5:30 AM, mind you): "What the fuck kind of crack are you smoking and where do I get some?  Do you know what the fuck you just said?"

The (still dozing) hub was clearly not amused.  Of course, at the end of the commercial, the speaker introduced himself as a descendant of Cesar Chavez and announced that Hillary loves farmworkers and poor people, so vote for her.  And I had this moment of clarity.

Of course he doesn't see her as beholden to special interests!  He IS one.  Know your source, peeps.  Know your source.

On the other hand, the same morning news show provided what was perhaps the single most insightful news story of the election. On the ballot today in CA are a series of propositions (94-97) which would force four very large indian tribes here (mostly in SoCal) to hand over a LARGE chunk of their profits to the state in return for being allowed to install more slot machines.  Most folks are actually FOR these measures in that together they will bring the state several hundred million dollars in new revenue without raising taxes on ANYONE (except the gamblers, so to speak).  The opposition is mostly funded by some Vegas casino owners and some racetracks that also have gaming.  Clearly, this would be HUGE competition for them, so they are naturally against it.

Both parties are officially "neutral" on these propositions, and a lot of people are confused as to what they mean.  So the local NBC channel did some investigating...

What amused me, though, was that the reporter cut right through the BS in reporting the story.  He explained the meat of the propositions, laid out who the supporters and detractors are, pointed out that the propositions require state audits of the casinos, and summed it up by saying "Some people say we should ask the casinos to give the state MORE of their profits, but supporters point out, this is more $$ than the state is getting now"

But back to Breathless Tuesday.  I will likely not vote, as my registration is not updated, and even after filling out the proper forms at my old polling place, LA county would likely discount my vote anyway.  But we shall see.

If I were voting today, this is what I would be voting for:
President: John McCain (but with much regret.  FREEEEEEEEDDDDD!)
Prop 91: No
Prop 92: No
Prop 93: No
Prop 94-97: YES

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I voted!

No problem at all.

Except that I had to physically stop my hand to keep from marking "Fred Thompson".

And while I am on the subject, the "I voted" stickers are the most awesome thing ever. Especially for those of us who grew up with the idea that getting a sticker is a reward for a job well done.

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

A Black Sheriff President?

Sorry folks, it's the best title I could come up with... even though this is mostly about HRC....

Steve of Hog on Ice sums up my feelings on the Democratic primary today quite succinctly, and honestly, far better than I imagined I'd ever read on the interwebnetoobs:

It looks like Hillsy may get her big butt beat in today's elections.

I find myself having mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, Obama is kind of a zero, and he's also a socialist, and socialism is evil and stupid and causes terrible suffering. On the other, you have to feel good, seeing a black candidate do this well. I mean, hell, this is progress. As long as he doesn't win, I mean. Socialist and all that.

And then there is the pleasure of seeing a Clinton eat it.
yep. pretty much.

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 19, 2008

Entitlement Blindspot #1213821639216 Michelle Obama

I am BEYOND TIRED of idiots (of all political stripes) and their entitlement attitudes. Mrs. Obama says that she is


Proud of this country and proud to be an American.

Give me a f*cking break, Michelle.  Do you have pride in your position, your career?  Your ability to go and come as you please?  The wealth you and Barry have amassed?

Sounds like pride in your country to me.  Because, really, did you ever stop to consider than you wouldn't have ANY of those things if you DIDN'T live in this country??

But Pete puts it more succinctly:

I am retired from a job that no honest man could ever expect to become rich. Honest men in foreign countries in my line of work live in small apartments and bicycle to work. I live in a paid for home on a half acre near the lake. My car is paid for. We are officially in the lower third of income levels here and I am writing on a (paid for) computer. Suppose Mrs. Obama was living where her husband's father lived. Suppose too that she were not wealthy. Would she have a good job? Would she even have all her girl parts?
Read the rest, and let Pete know what you think!

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 09, 2008

Check this out

It's a Schmap. Keep up with the Delegate count, and where the delegates come from. Hillary and Obama also available.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 02, 2008

Universal Health Care: THIS is why not

When Linda O'Boyle wanted just a few more months with her family and chose to pay out of pocket for a drug that would work against her colon cancer and allow her to do that, she was dropped from Britain's National Health Service coverage:

Mrs O'Boyle was operated on in January last year for colon cancer and the doctors found it had spread to her stomach lining.

The former NHS assistant occupational therapist, who has three sons, twins
Gerald and Anthony, 37, and Mark, 33, as well as grandchildren Luke,
four, Finn, three, Jemima, two and Darcey, two, then had six weeks of

She continued with this until September last year when she and her husband were told the devastating news there was little more doctors could do.

However, her consultant recommended Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.

It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.

Mrs. O'Boyle's decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend 11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital HS Foundation Trust.

Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.

'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'

He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort.

'We were lucky we had the money, it's the people who have no recourse to it that struggle. It is wrong that they are denied the chance.'

Mr. O'Boyle, who said he was convinced the drug had extended his wife's life by three months, added: 'If these guidelines were changed it would be a wonderful legacy for my wife.'

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

You see, having a two-tier system wouldn't do. Linda couldn't use NHS services and ALSO pay for a drug that others couldn't afford. How much did she really want to live? Enough to burden her husband with a mountain of debt for all her care for just a few months more?

Cake Eater Kathy lays it all out.

Nice, huh? A lifetime of taxes to pay for a health care system that actually employed this woman and her husband, only to be betrayed in the end because she was willing to pay out of pocket for a few more months on this Earth. She wasn't looking for a cure. She knew that was beyond her. She was simply looking for a palliative treatment which could extend her life a bit. Just a bit.

She was asked, "How badly do you want to live?" And she replied that she wanted just a few more months with her family. She paid the price for a drug that wasn't available under universal healthcare, and she did it gladly, only to be smacked with a frozen mackerel in the end. Her actions would create a "two tier" health care system, and that, apparently, cannot be allowed, because that would mean she wasn't receiving lowest common denominator health care, like everyone else does with the NHS, and the NHS cannot stand that. She thought she had the right to choose what her healthcare was worth to her, and that she wasn't going to be penalized for her decision. One would suspect, with universal healthcare, that that would be a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

And yet this atrocious system is what some people would have us install here in the US. This is what some people want because their health insurance premiums are too high, and they would prefer not to have to pay them, but would rather let the government run things. It's tidier in theory, but absolutely disgusting in practice.

Again, how badly do you want to live?

Governments with nationalized healthcare systems don't want to give their citizens a choice. Patients are blackmailed, ultimately, into going with the lowest common denominator treatment if the the choice is between that or nothing at all because they don't have spare millions on hand to pay for private care.

My friends, this is what Universal healthcare means. Like anything else, when you cater to the lowest common denominator, the quality decreases. That's what the "lowest" part means.

But Kathy says it better than I ever could. She has lived it. Go read about what Universal healthcare means for Ovarian cancer patients in Europe compared to the treatment she recieved here in the US. It's shocking and frightening. Definitely something to consider as we go to the polls.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:58 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

June 04, 2008

More Schmap

Check this one out:

Let me know what you all think!

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 05, 2008

Dear America,

I am amused at you. Amused in that sort of bemused way, but not really smirking. Funny, but not really worth more than a half smile.

A year ago you were all screaming at each other: "Hilllary!" and "Anyone BUT Hillary" and today that's a moot frickin' point. Kind of like all of the articles/ commentaries/ blog posts that posited "Can anyone beat Hillary?" "Why the Republicans don't have a chance", and my personal favorite "Is the US ready for a woman as President?"

Yeah, guess not.

Of course, Senator Clinton brought this one on herself. She's a bitch. I say that in the most positive way possible. She has balls of brass, and an iron will and frankly, she made Evil Overlord mistake #1: (no, not monologuing....) she showed all her cards too soon.

I've disliked Hillary as long as I can remember, something about these type-A balls-out bitches really bothers me. Now, as most of you know, I'm a real bitch, myself. I don't take shit and I play the game as hard as I can. But I have standards. I can take a note from Laura Bush's camp, too. More flies with honey, and all that. There are lines I won't cross.

Those lines don't exist for women like Hillary Clinton. I have known many women like her. They're determined to step on the top rung of the ladder at all costs. It certainly has cost Hillary a lot. Even more than possibly the presidency. Friends, family, self-respect.

And after this loss, I feel sorry for her. She played the game hard. As hard as she could. She simply got outplayed by a force she couldn't counter, an opponent who possessed a power she couldn't touch: Mystique.

Because really, I think that's what this primary season was all about on the Left side of the aisle. Hillary is a known commodity. We've seen every bad hair day and every fake smile for a decade, and we've seen her get twitchier and bitchier as the years have gone on. We saw her fail at Universal Healthcare and flip flop on the War on Terror. We saw her move to New York just to run for office and stand by her Philanderer-In-Chief.

Barry, on the other hand is a mystery. Black, half-muslim, native Hawaiian (born there, not ethnically), grew up in Indonesia, married to a crazy racist lawyer bitch (allegedly)... Now there's a story. He says a lot of "great things", he gets a lot of airplay, but who the hell is he really? I don't think even HE knows.

The fact that he managed to keep that from us, that he allowed the media to build up a "Barry the Great" persona is likely the single biggest factor in his winning the nomination (presumably). You won't hear this on the news or in the commentaries, but I am convinced that "Barry Almighty" is why voters marked his name more often than Hillary's.

Will he choose her as his running mate? Some say he should, to pick up her constituents and prevent a last minute fight at the convention. I am of two minds on this. On the one hand I think he should strike out boldly, bring in a new running mate and effectively tell Hillary to "make like a tree and leave". On the other hand, the Barry and Hill show would appeal to a lot of their party and give Hillary the spotlight she craves. At least until the AQ jackasses decide to blow up the US again and President Barry has to stick her in Dick Cheney's former "secure, undisclosed location."

Of course, if he's really as bright as they say he is, he'll dump her flat. After all, we all know how badly she wants to be President, and well, we all remember Vince Foster.

So, my friends, you have done THIS ONE to yourselves. At least if Hillary was the nominee, we wouldn't have the prospect of race wars when McCain wins in November. On the other hand, if Barry wins y'all can never pull the race card again.

Thanks, folks. I'll be the one in the corner with the popcorn.


Posted by caltechgirl at 10:40 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 06, 2008

Sandra Day O'Connor blazes another trail

The former Supreme Court Justice has a new project: She's a video game developer. In an effort to educate American kids about how the justice system works and the role of the courts, she has been working with Georgetown University and Arizona State to create a program for 7th through 9th graders called "Our Courts."

Sandra Day O'Connor, 78, who served as U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1981 until her retirement in 2006, said she never imagined she would be asked to address a conference about digital gaming.

She said she got involved with developing the project called "Our Courts" out of concern over public ignorance about the judiciary and partisan attacks on what should be an independent institution.

"In recent years I've become increasingly concerned about vitriolic attacks by some members of Congress, some members of state legislatures and various private interest groups ... on judges," O'Connor told the Games For Change conference on using gaming technology for social improvement and education.

"We hear a great deal about judges who are activists -- godless, secular, humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us," she said. "Now I always thought an activist judge was one who got up in the morning and went to work."

She said it was worrying to see members of the Senate requiring nominees to the Supreme Court to state how they would rule on certain cases during the confirmation process, and to see special interests trying to influence the election of state judges in states where such elections are still held.

"With partisan attacks and political pressure mounting, it's much more difficult to achieve fair and impartial judgments from the judges who are serving," O'Connor said.
The project will develop both interactive materials for classroom discussion and a stand-alone downloadable video game that kids can play on their own. According to Justice O' Connor,
The second part of the project will be for young people to use in their free time, O'Connor said, noting that studies showed children spend around 40 hours a week using media, including computers, television, videogames or music.

"If we can capture just a little bit of that time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction," she said.

O'Connor said she had seen from her own grandchildren that technology was the best way to inspire children to learn and it was vital to speak to them in their own language.
The games and other materials will be available at www.ourcourts.org starting in September.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Cotillion Sister Makes a Difference

Jane Novak, who some of you know from her own blog, Armies of Liberation, and also from her frequent postings at My Pet Jawa, was on Fox and Friends this morning talking about her efforts to work for regime change in Yemen. Nice Deb beat me to the video editing and posted Jane's interview on YouTube, so check it out (below) and then go sign the petition! Learn more about Yemen and more reformers in the Middle East here. Finally, tell Fox how happy you are that they highlight these issues and talk to bloggers! Leave a comment here for FoxNews' Alisyn Camerota (who Jane tells me is very, very nice!)

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 09, 2008

Yemen Update

Rather than the death sentence that could have been imposed, imprisoned journalist Abdul-Karim al-Khaiwani was sentenced to 6 years hard labor. This "lighter" sentence is 100% due to pressure from the US media coverage of the story. Keep talking about it, keep blogging about it.

Jane has all the details here.

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Depends on your definition of "a lie"

All over town this weekend, on overpasses and chainlink fences along the freeway there were hand-lettered signs "The war is a lie." and "Bush Lied". I've been seeing them for months now, but it seems there was a concerted effort to add new signs this weekend, as there were more signs in the afternoon than in the morning along the same freeways.

These signs are highly amusing to me. Along with their partners "Impeach!" Impeach who? Yo Momma? Seriously. Finish your thought, ADHD child. Of course, some of the signs DO say Impeach Bush, but I have to ask, why? I mean, the man has about 6 months left in his term. How much of that time is actually useful political time? ZERO. And how long would it take to go through an impeachment process? Probably more time than he has left as President. Get off it.

But the "lie" meme perseverates. And congress commissioned a study of the available intelligence to determine whether the President actually lied. Senator John D Rockefeller led the Select Committee on Intelligence in this investigation. In a statement Thursday, the senator announced, "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent[.]"

But is that really what the report says? Not really. Clearly the information at hand was overinterpreted, aka SPUN, into the message that the Bush administration wanted to present. Probably in an effort to convince the American people to get behind the push to war in Iraq.

However, the report finds that in many circumstances, and on a variety of subjects, the President's (and other administration officials') statements on the war "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." These subjects include Iraq's nuclear weapons program, biological and chemical weapons capability, overall WMD capability, and support for AQ terrorists.

Which to me, raises a very important question, namely, How did our intelligence get so far off base? Did our operatives buy into the lies that scientists and supervisors were passing on to the regime? Or did the CIA et al. deliberately mislead both the Clinton and Bush administrations? Where is the actual failure, then? If the President is essentially parroting what the intelligence community tells them is fact?

So then what can we do with this knowledge, that our intelligence is, at best, flawed? How do we use it to plan and implement strategies for dealing with our enemies and their plots to thwart us? Knowing that such critical intelligence may be wrong makes it extremely difficult to build support for military endeavors, regardless of the import to national security.

Which brings me back to lying. Which is the lie then, Sen. Rockefeller's statement that the report finds that "Bush Lied", or the actual text of the report which shows that the intelligence community "lied" and Bush and Co. believed them?

h/t Babalu

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:53 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 04, 2008

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one
People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Signed by ORDER and







Happy 4th of July, everyone!

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:02 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

July 07, 2008

The NEW Racism: Picky Eating

A government-sponsored organization (organisation) in the UK now says that picky-eating toddlers may be "exhibiting racist behaviours" bt refusing to eat or saying 'yuck' to flavorful foreign foods. A daily Telegraph article says:

" The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".

Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."

OFCS*. Are you KIDDING ME??? A three year old says "yuk" to spicy food and automatically they're considered little KKK-wannabes?? Some of those words, sure, those are clearly racist, but even then it goes a bit too far to suggest that a TODDLER has malice in their heart for a specific group of people.

If a three year old hears a group of people called "apples" or "chairs" they'll use that word just the same as if it was (as mentioned above) "blackies" or "pakis". All they understand is the LABEL, if that. They are incapable of attaching racist meaning to it at that age because they are incapable of understanding (in an adult sense) what race is.

Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that a toddler can associate foods with races. Oh, I don't like curry because THEY eat it, where they is some other group.

As for the other labels mentioned in the article "those people" is a way that small children break down the world. These people vs those people, us vs them. It's an easy way for their young brain to learn to classify people and things, to sort out their environment and make sense of everything around them. It's not evil. It's not denigrating, it's just a baby brain learning to work.

I think my favorite of the report's objections, and the one that best demonstrates nanny-ism run amok, though, is "they smell."

Let's face it, small children are absurdly honest and have no politeness filter. they say what's on their mind. Including that some people smell funny to them. It's clear that different cultures come from homes that smell differently. Some burn incense or use flavorful, aromatic spices in daily cooking. To a toddler unused to those smells, someone who comes from that environment WOULD smell funny. Again, not racist, just honest.

The bottom line here is that kids are kids. They are simple, funny, honest, and open. Because they haven't learned how to be polite or appropriate yet. They don't understand that what they say can hurt. And frankly, if a toddler wants to insult you, they're more likely to say "poopyhead" than "blackie" or "paki". A kid who is rude or insulting should be dealt with, but not as an incipient racist. They should be disciplined accordingly, and taught that ALL rudeness and insult is unacceptable, including racism. We should explain why it's not nice to say that another child smells funny without pointing fingers and shouting accusations.

This report, in sum, says a WHOLE LOT MORE to me about the agenda of the authors than the intent of the toddlers.

This whole debate about racism and children is funny to me. Children today are so unaware of racism. They get their ideas about it from what WE (the ADULTS) project on to them. Kids are blissfully unaware of race problems until we tell them that they should be experiencing them.

This brought to mind a more local story. Charter Oak High School in Covina recently discovered that parodic African-American sounding names ("Tay Tay Shaniqua," "Crisphy Nanos" and "Laquan White") were printed in the yearbook under a picture of the Black Student Union, apparently as a racist joke.

I can't help but wonder if the motivation was really racist in nature or just bad taste, and a joke gone sadly awry. Do teenagers really harbor the kind of overt racist feelings implied by these actions? Was it entirely about race? Or were they just making fun of some kids they didn't like, by badly ripping off certain black comedians?

The community is up in arms and the parents are demanding action, but I have to wonder if we're missing something. Are our kids racist? Did WE make them that way? If not, why do they do and say racist things? Is it because they are SO OVER racism, that it CAN be a joke for them. Wouldn't that be considered a good thing?

It's like that classic South Park Question: How long does it have to be with us before AIDS is funny? When can we laugh? Can we EVER laugh about racism? And if we do, who gets to laugh? The opressed? The reformed opressor? The subsequent, non-racist generations? When does it get to be OK? For whom?

*Oh For Christ's Sake!

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:39 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

July 30, 2008

Wonderful weekend

This weekend was our un-official staycation. We went out and had fun on both Saturday and Sunday.

Saturday evening, Hubby's college roomie and his wife joined us for dinner and a movie. Had some terribly overpriced Mexican food at Paseo Cantina and then wandered over to the Paseo theater for a moderately over priced film. $21 just for the tickets. Ouch. Especially considering the last time we went to movies regularly, we'd get in for just $10. For both of us. Of course, this is was Sunday afternoons in Chapel Hill, not Friday night in Pasadena.

In case you're wondering, we saw the X-Files movie. It wasn't terrible. I'd give it 3 stars out of 5. Mostly because there was nary an alien to be found. It was, has our friend described it a "monster-of-the-week" episode, albeit a long one. Mulder-Scully shippers will truly appreciate the film, because (spoiler here, sorry) it pretty much answers the "Are they or Aren't they?" question once and for all, portraying our favorite odd couple in a long term, somewhat committed, and intelllectually intimate relationship. My take: It was a good X-files fanfic. But I appreciate that as a Mulder/Scully fan.

On Sunday we drove out to Simi Valley and took in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. We also met Jen and Beau and Jesse "Speaks" there! They are in CA on vacation, and were staying with family in Santa Barbara, so we met in the middle!

Jen and Beau are both as fun and awesome as you would imagine from their blogs, and that little Jesse is a charmer. If a bit shy.... although he seemed to really warm up to DH and even let DH hold him for a bit in the elevator!

The museum itself is really amazing. It was a lot like the Presidential Gallery in the Smithsonian, but more up close and personal. My favorite exhibit, other than Air Force One, which deserves its own post, was the Reagan Diaries display with his personal diary on the desk, laid open to March 30, 1981, the day he was shot. At the top of the right-hand page, he wrote "Getting shot hurts."

DH was also a big fan of the doodads and geegaws and random things that were given to the Reagans as gifts from people around the world. The sheer randomness of some of it was just unbelievable.

A funny story: The former president oversaw much of the construction detail, especially the White House replicas (the South Portico, Colonnade, and the Oval Office), and he was very concerned when the contractor indicated that the Oval Office would be an exact replica of the White House, except for the ceiling, which would have to be 2.5 feet lower in the museum due to the building's engineering. Never one to back down, Mr. Reagan replied, "Well, if you can't raise the ceiling, lower the floor." And indeed, you must go down a ramp to the Oval Office, and then up 4 stairs to the rest of the museum and the gardens.

We took lots of pictures, which are posted at my Flickr page. Most of them are public, so click over!

After the museum we headed over to Marie Callendar's for dinner. Now, I know it's maybe not the nicest place in town, but I knew where exactly 3 restaurants were in Simi, and they have Applebee's and Chili's in Virginia! So Marie's it was. Food was good, company was better, and we had a nice meal. And pie. Until Jesse got tired and his dad had to take him out, so we finished our pie and said goodbye to the Speaks clan, knowing Jesse would conk out in the car on the way back to SB.

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 03, 2008

Follow the Guerilla Congress on Twitter!-- UPDATED

Even though I know it's little more than a publicity stunt, I appreciate the Republican Congress critters who are trying to do something about the energy price crisis and the economy. They'll be staging phantom sessions throughout the Congressional recess, and you can keep up with what's going on even though C-SPAN won't be covering the proceedings.

This message came tonight via the Facebook Group "Let's Rock The House!":

On Sunday, over thirty Republican Members announced that they would return to the House of Representatives to continue the Guerilla Congress's phantom sessions. Members will continue to discuss the need for an 'all of the above' energy plan with visitors, and keep the pressure on the Democrats to reconvene the House and allow a vote on offshore drilling.

The session is expected to begin around 10 AM Eastern. The designated Twitter hashtag for who are stepping up to get footage from the event is #rth, and Eyeblast.tv has offered to promote any media uploaded to the website. The Twitter feed #dontgo, accessible at http://dontgo.us, will be used by members and other observers to relay information about the event itself outside the Capitol.

If you plan to report from the event, be sure to stick to #rth and upload to Eyeblast.tv. From there, we will need all of you to alert the media about the Eyeblast content and promote it as much as possible.

Be sure to follow http://dontgo.us and Rock the House for continuing developments tomorrow.

You can follow the action via Twitter or on the web here. The revolution may not be televised, but it sure as hell will be Twittered!

UPDATE: Cotillion Sis Nicki has a pretty good list of Congressional Twitterers posted today. Check it out!

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 01, 2008

Weighing in on Sarah Palin

I've been quietly cheering behind the scenes since Friday's announcement, waiting to see how things would shake out.

Day after day, the more I learn about Gov. Palin, the more impressed I am. Why you ask? Because I am convinced that she is a genuine person who is committed to the ideals of public service that this country was founded on.

Remember the movie Dave? How Dave is motivated to be involved in making a difference because he sees how important it is after pretending to be President? I am convinced that Sarah Palin feels that way. She started out in the PTA, and then the city council before being elected Mayor. Her track record shows that she is interested in fair government, small government, and reform above all else.

I am excited to have a politician on the national scene for once who "gets it" , and who is in fact a public servant, rather than a self-serving politico, although I have some concerns about some of her views.

The other thing I like about Sarah Palin is that she is just normal. She's a mom, juggling work and her 5 kids with the help of a seemingly devoted husband. It pisses me off that some would insinuate that her husband is incapable of helping her take care of the kids. He may be a man's man (from all appearances) but he also seems to love being a dad and relish the chance to be involved with his kids' lives. And so what if her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Does that really reflect on the parents anymore? Is it a shameful thing these days to have a child out of wedlock?

I'd argue that it doesn't and it isn't. And furthermore, whether Palin is elected VP or not, I'd say that Bristol and Levi's baby is starting his/her life with a lot more on the plus side than most babies born to teen moms and dads.

If anything, Bristol's pregnancy and her parents' support reflects positively on the Palin family. That they love their daughter and support her in the face of what must be an incredibly difficult time for her. Some might say that Gov. Palin is selfish, campaigning and putting her daughter in the spotlight while she copes with the difficulties of being pregnant and the idiots who would rebuke her for being so young and unmarried. And yet it seems that this would be Bristol Palin's fate anyway. After all, her mom IS the governor. And anyway, having a baby is a blessing, not a catastrophe.

I can't wait until one of the attack dogs representing the Obamamama campaign tries to make Bristol Palin into this year's Mary Cheney. That's when the metaphorical excrement will be hitting the air conditioning...

Yeah, I like that she's a conservative and that she is an NRA member and all that. But that's not what makes her so refreshing as a candidate, and it's not what is energizing the party.

And the left is energized too. I mean, they must be so scared they're running in circles. They can't criticize Gov. Palin. They can't find trash on her, so they invent stories. Some of which are so far off base that they're scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. I laughed out loud at Alan Colmes' insinuation that poor prenatal care was the cause of Trig Palin's Downs Syndrome.

This is the voice of the left, my friends, shrill and irrational, grasping at any straw to tear down their opponents, regardless of party. It's almost like Colmes felt so compelled to say something, ANYTHING, that he opened his mouth to get in on the dead air first. That he spoke before he even knew what he was saying.

If the liberals are reaching so hard that all they can do is make shit up, we on the right have every reason to rejoice and support a ticket that CAN win in November.

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

More on Sarah Palin

If you only read two articles on Sarah Palin, you should make time for these two by Time Magazine's Nathan Thornburgh.

"Where Palin Made her Name":

The news of Palin's selection is an intoxicating mix for the people here: pride in a hometown hero, good news (finally!) for a scandal-racked Alaska, and, for this deeply red part of the state, relief that the Republican Presidential ticket just got a lot more conservative than it was.

No wonder T-shirts saying Go Sarah! started sprouting up by mid-afternoon. Beagley's own homemade batch of 150 McCain/Palin t-shirts arrived at 2 p.m. and were sold out within the hour, leaving Palin fans sifting in vain through piles of shirts that say Grim Reefer and Chicks Dig Me. In town, businesses have been putting up exuberant messages of support, as if Sarah! was once again on the high school basketball team, headed off to state finals.

"In Wasilla, Pregnancy was no Secret"
So his name is Levi. That's about the only thing that I didn't know about Bristol Palin's pregnancy. The rest of the details I picked up almost without trying, while talking about other things with townsfolk — some who know the governor and her family well, some who don't. It was, more or less, an open secret. And everyone was saying the same thing: the governor's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, the father is her boyfriend, and it's really nobody's business beyond that.
Great articles about the Governor and her hometown. A genuine portrait of a small town.

Posted by caltechgirl at 03:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dear Libtards,

I didn't intend on more Sarah-blogging today, but you people are making me swear (profanity alert below)....

Seriously? Are you seriously gonna run with this whole Sarah Palin is an irresponsible mother thing? The "Sarah the Hypocrite" meme?

Give me a motherfucking break.

First of all, would you be so "outraged" if the mom in question was Hillary Clinton, and the daughter a teenaged Chelsea? I fucking doubt it. And yet, the Clintons ran on a family values ticket, too. Maybe not as conservative as the Republicans, but I've heard Hill trumpet that family values thing a million times and so have you. No use denying it.

Second, you show me a parent, working or otherwise, who is going to sit on their 17 year old daughter 24/7/365. Kids do dumb shit. We all did something stupid or wrong as teenagers. We had sex, we drove too fast and recklessly, we drank, we smoked, we did drugs. If our parents never found out, it's because we just got lucky and got away with it, whichever of the above that we did before we turned 20. Bristol Palin just wasn't so lucky. Every parent who has ever been a child knows that no matter what you tell your kids, or how often you tell them, some things they are just going to do, from day one, and some lessons they have to learn for themselves. From "stoves are hot" to "sex is how you get pregnant".

Tell me how it makes you a hypocrite when your kid fucks up? I assume Sarah and Todd have told all their older kids about the consequences of sex. If they told her, and continued to reinforce their values, what else can we ask of them? It's not like Sarah held Bristol down and forced her to sleep with her boyfriend.

And what of that relationship? It looks like Bristol and her boyfriend are planning to do the responsible thing and marry and raise their child. Shouldn't we encourage that? Shouldn't we applaud a young couple with the maturity to face the consequences of their actions and face life head on? Chances are very good that this young couple will be better situated to succeed academically and otherwise given that they both appear to have supportive families who will help them in this time of extreme transition.

Don't tell me you don't know anyone who has ever been in this situation, either the teenage mom/ dad or their parents. It's a tough thing. I'll bet you weren't so harsh and judgmental towards the people you know. I'll bet they told their kids (or were told by their parents) not to have sex, too. They didn't listen either.

And you didn't go off the deep end. You were probably understanding, caring, even, maybe said a prayer for healing. You were probably willing to forgive the mistake and move forward. For your friendship's sake. For your family's sake.

So why the hatred towards Sarah and her family? Is it because you're terrified she can defeat your Messiah of Hope and Change? Is it that her political "inexperience" still beats your guy's "experience"? Is it because she singlehandedly knocked your guy out of the news cycle ALL WEEKEND?

It's kind of silly, the way you people look. Foaming at the mouth is unbecoming, and especially so when it's so out of proportion as a reaction.

According to the record, Sarah Palin has been nothing but a caring mom trying to do her best by her state and her family. Maybe that's too much for you to handle and it confuses you. I don't know. But then again, if your brains were working properly you might be asking the same tough questions of Obama and Biden that you demand of McCain and Palin.

Otherwise, just don't go there. And hopefully that's the last I will have to say on this subject, except to wish this young couple and their baby all the best in a long happy life together.

Posted by caltechgirl at 05:27 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 03, 2008

Why, Fred, Why? (Day 2 RNC speeches: Thompson and Lieberman)

Why didn't you run? I damn near peed myself watching you kick so much "pinkytoe" (to steal a sarahk-ism). This was among the best political speeches I have ever heard. I really hope John rewards you with some kind of role. In any case, I look forward to your time on the campaign trail....

And, Joe, my man, your Democrat friends are taking you off their speed dials tonight. That took serious balls. My hat's off to you for going through with the courage of your convictions and backing your friend for President.

Can't wait for the Sarah-Cuda tomorrow. I really look forward to hearing what she has to say for herself, and how she responds to the rivers of BS that have been spewing since Friday.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:05 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Sarah Palin Delivers: Updated!

I am blown away. Just blown away.

Maybe because I agree with almost all of the things she said tonight, but she is a dynamic speaker with a common, inviting manner that makes you WANT to listen to her.

I loved her speech. I still want to hear her speak to Troopergate, and why she filed an ethics complaint on herself. I want to know more about her earmark requests and whether that's consistent with McCain's position on pork.

But I think she did a masterful job of introducing herself, avoiding distasteful issues, and SKEWERING the Democratic ticket on a number of issues.

I look forward to more from Sarah as the campaign continues, and I think she'll continue to prove just why John McCain picked her as his running mate.

UPDATE: Here's what some of my Cotillion sisters thought of Sarah's speech:

BSCBeth blogging at RightPundits


See Jane Mom

Right Wing Sparkle


Zoey at Blatherings

BethW at Yeah, Right, Whatever

Little Miss Attila

Kat at Cat House Chat

And here's Sarah herself. All 45+ minutes of her speech:

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:44 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

September 04, 2008

John McCain: Service, Sacrifice, Substance

John McCain did what he needed to tonight. He was positive, forward-looking, and highlighted why HE was the best candidate for president. He pointed out differences in his platform and that of the Democrats, but he didn't really go after Obama. Which was a SMART move.

Certainly, it was not as electric as Gov. Palin, but in my opinion, he drew people in and hooked his audience pretty well.

I liked that he had some substantive nuggets of policy. That he will push comprehensive energy reform, looking to new and cleaner sources of energy, as well as taking advantage of our OWN resources. That he favors school choice which includes public school options, and not just vouchers for private schools. That he wants to retrain American workers for modern jobs instead of chasing down the long-gone factories, because they sure as hell aren't coming back.

Most of all, I loved that he said this:

I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.
That's such an amazing statement. Humble, thankful, and sticking it to Obama (the "anointed" one, the "chosen" one). All in the same sentence.

Yeah, he may be a complete asshole, but he talks good. And I want to see what he and Sarah will do in Washington.

See for yourself:

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:02 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 06, 2008

Technology and your candidates

Betanews has summarized (pretty fairly, I might add) the technology issues records of both sides' POTUS and VPOTUS candidates.

Interestingly, Betanews reporter Ed Oswald found that Sarah Palin has championed distance learning programs and tele-medicine development as Governor of Alaska, and has used the internet to make her administration more transparent.

Find the candidates' records here:

John McCain
Sarah Palin

Barack Obama

Joe Biden

h/t Slashdot via Twitter

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2008

In my quest to amuse myself, I found this

Now this is an EFFECTIVE political commercial!

Love the wolves! And the slowly sinking text.  Masterful!

h/t Teh Llamas

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 16, 2008

Excuse me? (Profanity alert)

Further proof that the Left has lost their minds.

Wendy Doniger, professor of Divinity at the University of Chicago on Sarah Palin:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
EXCUSE ME?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?  Of course Sarah Palin is a woman.  Last I checked she has all the requisite parts, including (most importantly) TWO X CHROMOSOMES.

Why the fuck do I bother anymore?

Posted by caltechgirl at 07:06 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 22, 2008

Funny, I was going to blog something

Damn cold medicine. It makes me loopy, so just a few quick takes for y'all

It has become increasingly clear to me that the Democrats are scared shitless of Sarah Palin. The sheer amount of vitriol being flung around (BTW, anyone know what vitriol REALLY is?) combined with the increasing hysteria about the fact that they can find any dirt that seems to stick is becoming increasingly laughable. Memo to the MSM: when hardcore BDS suffering Liberals begin to feel that the all-out, anti-Sarah barrage is TOO much, it's time to back off. And on a related note, so what if Sarah won't sit don for yet another hit-piece interview? Who said she had to let you piss in her sandbox? Or that she had to play your game? Especially when the rules change more frequently than Calvinball and the only thing that stays the same is that Sarah loses...

ESPN makes me happy. Not sure why, but there's really something comforting about being able to turn on something on the TV that sounds like the news, but won't make me scream and throw things at the TV. I need the "audio/visual wallpaper" when I'm working. Usually I have FoxNews or the local news on, but I just am so tired of knowing more about the story being reported than the editor or reporter who write and read the news scripts.

Anyone else think Kenley's dress on Project Runway last Wednesday looked like something Betty would wear on Ugly Betty? Yeah, me too.

Fake sudafed is for shit. It works about 1/10 as well as the real stuff, and they don't make the formulation that works for me with the real stuff any more. AARRGH. So I suffer. Benedryl ain't cutting it either, and I am sneezing every 5 minutes. Not to mention waking up every 45 minutes and sleeping badly in between...

Just waiting to see if shit rains down on my head about coming home early. I met all my responsibilities for the day, I taught my class and picked up HW and went to my meeting, where I also sat far away from everyone so I wouldn't give them germs.

I still have a hell of a lot of work to do, and a million small personal things to get taken care of. But I think it's nappy nap time.

Two quick links before I go:
1. Check out the investigative journalism done by the fine folks at My Pet Jawa regarding anti-Palin "viral" videos

2.wRitErsbLock went to see the Sarah Palin rally at the Villages, FL this weekend, check out her pictures.

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:11 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 08, 2008

Overheard in my house last night during the debate (R-rated language)

Obama is a tool.
He's really a dick. 
He should go swallow a dick. Wait, he is a dick.
Go swallow yourself, Barry.

Hysterical laughter, choking, and tears running down my face

(with one finger raised, as a finger puppet; in a cartoon voice) I'm a tool.

Hysterical laughter, choking, and tears running down my face.  Pain in my guts from the laughing.

Obama (on TV):
blah, blah, vote for me (pauses)

(same finger puppet and voice) Because I'm a tool!

Hysterical laughter, choking, and tears running down my face, hiccupping, now running for the bathroom...

Perhaps you either have to know my usually mild-mannered unflappable husband to get it.  Or maybe you had to be there.  Either way, I am still giggling 12+ hours later.

I love you, hon!

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:41 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 16, 2008

As an aside...

if McCain can't pull this thing out of his ass, it will a hell of a lot of fun to spend the next four years shouting at President Yo Mama.  At least until they take away my right of Free Speech.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 17, 2008

The Alfred Smith Dinner Roasts

If the whole campaign was just a giant roast, it would be no contest.

And maybe we wouldn't get so tired of election years.....This is frigging hilarious. McCain brought down the house, and Obama was a hoot, too, though he was clearly less comfortable with the comedy.

John McCain:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Barack Obama:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:24 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

October 21, 2008

kill me now - a rant with F words....

If I see one more fucking commercial for another proposition I will rip out my eyes. Particularly that fucking Jamie Lee Curtis Prop 3 commercial. You are SO not conducting those kids, get off it.

And that fucking Gavin Newsom quote anti-Prop 8 commercial on the radio. It's highly effective. I hate him so much I'm thinking of voting yes just to spite him. Says the girl who stood up at the wedding of her(gay)dear friends. Legislating marriage is bad law, and I was thinking of voting yes for that reason, anyway.

And seriously, I notice that it's only the McCain/Palin signs and "Yes on 8" signs that are getting stolen and defaced. I thought it was the LEFT who were supposed to be the peaceful, non-violent, tolerant ones.

yeah, right. Just fucking kill me. Or at least put me in a coma for 14 days.

Posted by caltechgirl at 06:08 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 23, 2008

A Democrat challenges the MSM

Hugo-award-winning author Orson Scott Card, a lifelong democrat, presents a challenge to the MSM to restore their honor.  You've probably seen it everywhere by now, but it is masterful, and bears repeating.  I excerpt here the last section of the piece (at length, sorry, but it's worth it), but the whole thing is worth a thorough and thoughtful read.

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
Card's words so eloquently describe my own feelings on the matter, and I also agree with the reasoning behind his choice to vote Republican.  He describes his feelings here, from 2006:
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

[...]What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.

While if we elect any of the Republicans who are extremist enough to please the Hannity wing of the party, our resulting belligerence will likely provoke Islam into unifying behind one of the tyrants, which is every bit as terrifying an outcome.

I hope somebody emerges in one of the parties, at least, who commits himself or herself to continuing Bush's careful, wise, moderate, and so-far-successful policies in the War on Terror.

Meanwhile, we have this election. You have your vote. For the sake of our children's future -- and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future, too -- vote for no Congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war. And vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war.
It applies today.

Card's arguments, though slightly dated, still hold, and represent a thoughtful contemplation of the outcome. Will we be better off finishing the job, or running out on the world like a bunch of pansies? Will that affect our lives here at home? And mainly, who's really calling the shots in each campaign?

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Thar she blows! (now with Profanity!)

Finally, I rant on the election (in stream of consciousness at 1am, so please excuse the grammar and typos and occasional lack of punctuation):

First up, John McCain.  I'm going to set aside any personality issues I have with him, and even issues with why he is the candidate, and grant, up front, that he is the candidate for the republicans.  He's tough, smart, clearly qualified for the job, and probably ready for it.  He's also plenty healthy or he wouldn't be jumping around the country like a 12 year old, so fuck off to all you twits who say that he can't live out the term.  I really have little else to say about John, except that I can't believe his temper hasn't got the better of him yet, and I wish we had a better candidate, rather than the default guy (Fred!  I miss you!  You would have stuck it to Obama every chance you got instead of smiling like a pansy!)

Which brings me to Sarah Palin.  You have all underestimated her.  All of you naysayers, Republicans and Democrats alike.  The woman is NOT stupid.  I repeat, NOT STUPID.  She is very bright, and like many clearly bright people, is counting on her intelligence to pull her through an experience she was NOT prepared for.  What you see is a classy chick trying to hold up her end of the bargain and do the job she KNOWS she can do as VP, even though maybe she wasn't clear on what this campaign would be like.

I have no doubt that she would be a good VP, and even, God forbid, a good President.  There's nothing wrong with her that can't be said of the 3 dudes on the tickets.  And seriously, all this hoohah over $150,000 for clothes and makeup?  Are you kidding me?  How much did Hillary or Barry spend on the same things?  I know he wears makeup; I can see it on the TV.  And how much were Biden's teeth and hairplugs?  I mean come ON. If you're going there, I can too. 

How fucking scared are the Democrats when all they can pull on her is that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant (but remember that according to them this is pregnancy #2 and she delivered Trig while knocked up with this baby) and her supporters spent a lot of money so she could look nice.  Give me a motherfucking break.  What about Obama and Bill Ayers?  What about the ex- Fannie Mae CEO that ran Fannie into the ground and left in disgrace (but $90 mil RICHER) before Obama asked him for advice.  Can we please put this in perspective?

Why does she scare you people so?  Is it because you can't remember how to deal with people like the Palins?  Or maybe that she's smarter than you?  Or (gasp) that voters see her as real, approachable, and sensible in the ways that your candidate is not?  And we're talking about the potential VP here, not the POTUS candidate.

Honestly, if Sarah Palin was really as much of a non-entity, in that milquetoast-vanilla-Dan Quayle way, as the liberals are foaming at the mouth to portray her, would it be WORTH all the effort?  I mean let's face it.  Dan Quayle was a fucking farce. A joke.  From DAY 1.  DAY 1. And Bush, Sr. knew it.  But he got away with it because Dukakis was a joke as a candidate too.  Sarah Palin is no joke.

Verily, I am amused at the sheer panic, the slavering, the need to get a dig in at her.  To make people feel bad about supporting her.  Why do that if she's Dan Quayle all over again?  Seriously, if she's a joke just let her shoot herself in the foot.

Let's step over to another Sarah issue: Trooper-gate.  This might have some teeth, and could be a real issue, but you notice no one in the media is pushing this very hard, even though hearings are taking place.  Why?  Because there is NO there there.  The person who asked for the initial inquiry isn't even the guy who was fired.  It's the sour grapes guy who lost to Sarah in the gubernatorial election.  Don't believe me?  Do the Google search yourself.  Look at the articles in the Anchorage paper and the verified supporting documents posted all over the internet.  The evidence is all out there.

I think the real problem with Sarah Palin is that a lot of smart people like to think they succeeded in life because they are smart, and they automatically assume that all the fuck-ups in this world are the not-smart ones.  People like President Bush, and Sarah Palin, who present themselves to the world as less than uber-intelligent, and succeed ANYWAY, threaten that world view. 

I can see some of you squirming.  I know you.  I went to school with you.  I work with you.  Hell, I AM you from time to time.  I know what I am talking about and there's no denying it.  I freely admit to having an occasional elitist moment.  Smart people often have a certain world view about intelligence and ignorance: tolerance and acceptance is intelligent, rejection and exception are not; Environmentalism is intelligent, questioning or denying global warming is ignorant; Getting a college education is intelligent, going without shows your ignorance.... I could go on and on.  Smart people are (or at least THINK they are) informed and tolerant, they want to give back and save the world and make everybody equal.  And if you don't agree with those simple, wonderful things, you're ignorant, too.

Well, then kiss my ignorant PhD-covered ass.  Because I don't agree. 

People are amazing, and intelligent without a college degree or a fancy job or shared beliefs.  That's the whole principle of Academic Freedom.  We learn from each other by sharing our diverse ideas.  Not by censoring, or dismissing out of hand the ones we think are ignorant.  Ignorance is bliss after all.  And the paradigm shifts born of ignorance have generally changed our world for the better.

Sarah Palin and George Bush clearly don't fit the paradigm.  And well, we fear that which we do not understand.

And another thing about this election, a question I am DYING to ask my students (but which would reveal my own political leanings, something I am careful NOT to do.  They pay me to teach Biology, not politics), or any democratic voter, is WHY do people love Barry Obama so much?  Do you know what he stands for?  Or are you only voting for him because of his position on the War?  Do you even understand the implications of THAT?  Are you voting for him simply because he's the Democrat?  Because he's not George Bush?  What did Bush do to you anyway?  Do you understand what that means (in a real sense, not linguistically)?  Do you even know what the Republican platform says?  Hell, what the Democratic platform says? When Obama says change, what does that mean to you?  How do you think that will work?  What can he change, how will that help you?  How exactly has Obama demonstrated to you by his actions that he is ready to be President?

As an informed voter, I can answer all of those questions with regard to why I am voting for McCain.  I would guess many McCain supporters can, but that may be a personal bias.  what the fuck, though, it's my blog, my opinion.

I would also guess that many Obama supporters can NOT.

Look, I think it's great Obama is running.  I love that our country has become so colorblind that any person of color could run for any office.  And yet, Obama's supporters focus on the negative: that racism is the only reason keeping people from voting for him.  Give me a fucking break.  Could it be that we disagree with him?  Are black conservatives racist, too, because they choose to vote for McCain?  I figure it this way if Obama wins, no one can ever pull the race card again.  I mean, is there any greater measure of how far we've come than to elect a black man as our President?  I mean holy shit, a black man and a woman running against each other! (yeah, yeah, I know, but you can excuse the conflation of the tickets to make my point)

I wish people wouldn't bring up race.  We'll always have racism until we stop talking about it.  My words included.

I wish I understood people's motivations better.  Hence the questions, above.  Maybe then I wouldn't be so angry at the political discourse that seems so full of invective.  More this year than I can ever remember.  Except for one occasion when I saw a young lady wearing a t-shirt that still haunts me.  But that's a rant for another post on why the electoral college is important.

I have a number of friends who are voting for Obama.  I am proud that some of them can actually answer the questions I have posed, and I respect them for making an informed decision, and politely disagree.  I just wonder what percentage of voters on both sides actually can.

Posted by caltechgirl at 01:18 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

October 27, 2008

Dear African American "Community Leaders",

You are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites.  That's right.  I said hypocrites.  I call BS on you and, as they say in South Park, I declare shenanigans!

Some idiot with bad taste and a worse sense of humor hangs a Sarah Palin doll from a noose and you don't respond?  Dare I even suggest that you think it's funny because she's running against your Obamessiah?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 10 years ago you all were so mad about a BEAR in a noose that you forced USC to abandon a decades old student tradition of hanging bruins (the UCLA mascot) from tiny nooses.  LITTLE TINY TEDDY BEARS. In UCLA shirts.  You said it was racist.  You said that it was reminiscent of the lynching of black men by the KKK.  You said you were offended.  So we stopped hanging TEDDY BEARS.

I get your point, though.  Hanging people is not a joke.  It's MURDER.  And that's never funny.

And now, these people have NOT A BEAR, but a life-size mannequin of a woman, dressed as Sarah Palin, hanging from a noose in their yard and you say not one word.  Why?

I'll bet my house that if it was Barry Obama swinging from the yardarm you'd have had 3 press conferences already, and called the police out to arrest these homeowners for a hate crime.  Perhaps for racial intimidation.

And yet you say nothing about this.  I'm offended by it, and I'm clearly not black.  Not as a conservative, or because I am a woman, but because I think it's disgusting.  Hanging a bear, or a skeleton, or something clearly not representing a particular person is one thing, demonstrating by your Halloween display that you wish someone a painful death is quite another.

And I still want to hear your outrage.  If you all could muster that kind of vitriol for a few teddy bears, I bet you can come out and preach it about this Sarah Palin mannequin.

I'll be sure to be there to support you when you do.


h/t Flap

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:08 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

November 03, 2008

Head in my hands, Heart on my Sleeve

I've been thinking a lot about Prop 8.  It's the only ballot measure I haven't yet decided on.

My head tells me to vote yes and tell activist liberal judges to get a fucking clue.  That CA's registered Domestic Partnership law provides the same rights to gay couples who register as marriage does to straight couples.  That marriage is a construct not of the state, but of the church, and really the RDP law should apply to gays and straights both as a "civil union," a mere contract.  That "marriage" is solemnized and consecrated by your belief system, whatever that is, and abides by those rules.  God's rules.  Or gods' rules.  Whatever you believe.  Not the state's rules. 

I worry about the consequences for churches and ministers who are against marrying gay couples, for whatever reason.  Will they be breaking the law if they refuse?  Will they lose their 501 status? Will anyone be allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong or state that belief?  It may be bigoted, but in this country, people have a right to believe as they choose.  We call it Freedom of Religion.

And you know, I just am so tired of all the in-your-faceness of the Prop 8 fight.  I just want to vote no to say HA!  Keep your "whether you like it or not" and all your Gay PDA on TV (for the record, all PDA on TV makes me sick, we've just seen a lot of it with this Prop 8 thing).  It makes me want to be perverse and give all the Prop 8 opponents the finger.

But my heart tells me differently.

As I've mentioned many times on this blog, one of my dearest friends is gay, and he married his partner about 5 years ago in one of the most beautiful, heartfelt weddings I have ever seen.  I was proud to be a "bridesmaid" and stand up for them, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.  I remember feeling so clearly the love between them, and seeing how precious they were to each other.  I could never take away from them the things that DH and I have, the comfort of knowing we are each other's first and last resort, that we make each other's life and death decisions, that we share the rights and responsibilities of our life together for better and for worse.

I received this today, via email.  I hope my friend won't mind me sharing it with you in part, and with the names redacted, of course.

Hi Everyone,

As you know, we're barely a day away from the most historic election of our time. But as you are also probably well aware, there's a lot more at stake than the Presidency.

Here in California, one of the most important -- and one of the closest -- issues you can vote on is Prop 8.

Prop 8 seeks to eliminate fundamental rights for one group of people. If passed, Prop 8 would take away something very close to Nick and me: our marriage. I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights -- from anyone -- is unfair and wrong.


If you want to help but don't have much time, here's something simple you can do:

The simplest thing you can do is to call everyone you know when you have a few free minutes on Tuesday and bug them to go vote if they haven't. Even if they say in advance that they'll vote, call them on Election Day to make sure they've voted. Even if it looks like the Presidential contest is over nationally by 5 or 6 pm our time, it's still critical that everyone goes to the polls to vote NO on 8. And even if it's raining, and even if the lines are long ... that shouldn't matter.

Finally, please modify and pass along this e-mail to everyone you know in California.

(And, no, you don't need to call N or me on Election Day -- we have both already voted by absentee ballot.)

Thanks so much for all your support!

A (& N)
I just can't tell them no. As much as I think this whole issue is screwed up and proceeding ass-backwards and I want to vote yes to make a political point, I don't think I can look my friend in the eye and tell him I voted to take away the marriage that means so much to him in favor of a lousy, meaningless contract. Unless you give me one of those lousy, meaningless contracts, too.

So this girl's in an unfamiliar quandry: head or heart?  I can't tell which makes more sense.

Posted by caltechgirl at 02:23 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

November 04, 2008


Well, it's over for me anyway.  As of 7:15 this morning.

Our polling place is at a little church a block or so away, and we thought the lines would be small this morning, so we decided to chance it.

Arriving at just before 6:45, this is what we found:

The mother and daughter directly in front of us (blue and black jacket, respectively) were perusing the Democrat Voter Guide, which irked the crap out of my husband.  He kept muttering "think for yourself!" and "know what you're voting for" under his breath...

According to the numbers on our ballot stubs we were #29 and #30 to vote at our precinct.  It took about 30 minutes to get to the door, where the check in was, and to get through the ballot.  Then I had to wait because the lady in front of me (in the blue jacket, above) voted twice on Prop 10, so she had to decide whether to re-vote a new ballot, or just ask the computer to accept her ballot and NOT count her Prop 10 votes (she decided for the latter)....  In any case, we were both done by 7:20, and despite the worst morning traffic I've ever seen in The 'Dena (two Sigalerts on the 210 so everyone was on the streets!), I got hubby to school on time and I am back home prepping for my lecture this afternoon.  Or at least I will be as soon as I finish this post and get my bagel out of the toaster.

Go vote.  It doesn't matter who or what you vote for, as long as you vote your conscience.  I did.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Put away your race cards

That argument doesn't hold water anymore.  This country just elected a black man as President.

It's gonna be an interesting two years.....

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:04 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

November 05, 2008

The Fresh Perspective of Morning

I went to sleep around midnight, after gorging myself on the scant hour of local returns coverage we got, courtesy of overzealous networks that wanted to rehash the historic events of yesterday.

On waking this morning I found myself very reflective. How am I going to respond to what happened yesterday.  Instinctively, I reach for Pollyanna: everything will work out great! But I know better.

The truth is, I would like to spend the next four years nitpicking and slamming and treating Barack Obama with all of the disrespect that was lavished on George W Bush for the last 8 years, and for the same non-reasons.  But I can't do that.  The man IS the President-elect, and let's be honest, he ran a hell of a campaign.  I'm not saying it wasn't dirty, or race-baiting (hell, all you have to do is turn on a TV and see a crying black person exalting about "we're" in the White House to know that), or that it was the best campaign ever.  I'm just saying he did more, had a better strategy, and all around out-foxed the other guy and his people.

Last night's speeches were probably the best of the campaign, particularly McCain's heartfelt concession, which I thought was the ultimate in class.

President Bush's speech this morning was also thoughtful and classy, and it struck me as one of the best from him in a long time.

He and Senator McCain must be so relieved this morning.  That it's over!

I honestly don't know what's going to happen.  My own prediction is that the Democrats will soon be victims of their own success.  With such large legislative majorities, they can't blame it on the Republican whipping boy anymore.  Combine that with the deep divide in the party that began with ultra-liberal vs moderate democrats and grew over the race between Barry and Hillary.  Which creates an opportunity for the GOP to remind people what they are all about, without the looming "spectre" of George Bush and Dick Cheney as the faces of the party.

The pendulum swings, and this time it has swung towards something entirely different and unknown.  All of the TV talking heads made this point last night, a question I have raised before, as well: WHO is Barack Obama? What will his policies be?  How will he lead this country?  The campaign always focused on Obama the man, not Obama the leader.  Even the most enlightened political insiders are unsure of what's next.

Which brings me to my last point.  Listen, I appreciate that racism is a visceral thing for many blacks.  That the memory of discrimination is palpable.  But this isn't 1968.  Racism isn't what you think.  It does not exist the way that you remember.  White people don't automatically see black folks as less.  I've seen so many black people on TV saying that NOW (only NOW???) they were going to tell their children to dream big dreams.  WHAT???  Why aren't you teaching your children to dream big dreams already?  Why can't they succeed?  Maybe because you're teaching them that they can't?

AUUUGH.  It grates.  That black folks are "proud to be an American again" that black children "now have a chance"  GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES.  This amazing country is a place where ANY child has the opportunity to become ANYTHING.  Nowhere else do children born in poverty have the opportunity to rise to the heights of fortune and fame.  And you take it for granted and piss it all away because you think, THINK, that someone will try to take it away from you because your keratocytes take up more melanin.

This ladies and gentlemen is the culture of victimhood.  That because we've never had a black president, you couldn't let your children dream of being the president.  How the fuck are we ever going to get there if we don't think of it first?

So I will congratulate Barry Obama.  He won, seemingly fair and square.  Sure, I could point out that the black dude won so nobody's bitching, but that would be counterproductive and petty.  I will congratulate him, and at the same time let him know that we are all watching.  And we will hold him to his promise to hear our voices.  And we will hold him accountable.

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:09 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

November 06, 2008

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point.  Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER.  The ballots have been counted.  The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you.  It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic.  Which, as we LA folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it.  Wipe your tears.  Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way.  The SMART way.  Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you.  That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night.  Seriously.  Do you WANT to play to stereotypes?  Do you think that's anyway to bring people to your cause?  Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable from a "bunch of whiny sissies"...

You have plenty of recourse beyond crying in the street: go to court now, although I doubt you'll get far with that (for two reasons*), AND put it back on the ballot as soon as you can.  And in the meantime, conduct yourselves so as to make people feel more favorable toward gay marriage outside of CA's two big urban centers.

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad.  In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street.  Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE.  Not whiny, childish, idiots.  There's a lot of stereotype to get past.  This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election.  But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general.  By everyone.  We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another.  Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. only bigots vote yes on 8). People will vote their conscience.  Help them understand what they fear.

Welcome Instapundit fans! Thanks for dropping by! Feel fee to click around and come back if you see something you like!

** Two reasons (in my completely non-legal opinion) below the fold:

Read More "You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES" »
Posted by caltechgirl at 11:32 AM | Comments (33) | TrackBack

January 18, 2009

The Ghost of White House Past

If the Presidential fraternity in the sky could advise Barack Obama they'd send... Richard Nixon.

"Honestly," Nixon began, "there are a number of racists among the group. I am not one of them. Slavery was and racism is the great moral failing of America. I don't want to see you fail."

Nixon appeared to take a deep breath and he turned away from Obama and looked out the window towards the Washington Monument. "I don't want to see you fail. I failed because of my own hubris. My failings were avoidable if I hadn't been blind to what I was doing. You and I became president at a unique time in America's history. Deeply unpopular wars were underway abroad. Deep discord infected everything at home. I had a chance for greatness. You have a chance for greatness. You and I share times more similar than you think. I can help you if you want my help. If you don't... Well, I can go back and leave you be."

Hop over to Naked Villainy and read the rest.  Presidential heaven appears to be an awfully interesting place....

Posted by caltechgirl at 09:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 20, 2009

I am not among the head-burying ostriches

Yes, I am going to watch the festivities tomorrow.

I am going to watch the O-bots cheer as their messiah of the new raises his right hand and takes the same oath George Washington did, using the bible of Abraham Lincoln.

Folks, like it or not this is our new President.  Hail the peaceful transition of power so rare elsewhere, and common enough here that we take it for granted, don't ignore it like it will go away.

It's not going away for four more years.   I for one can't hold my breath that long under the sand.

I am going to watch and rant and yell obscenities at the TV, at the idiots who don't remember the past as they bow down and worship The One.  I am also going to cheer the new President and enjoy the presentations of the Inaugural Parade.

Because really folks, this is it.  It's our history, like it or not, and we can be there for it, or we can pretend it didn't happen.  I'm of the opinion that the revolution WILL be televised.  And YouTubed.  And I'd prefer to be able to talk about it firsthand anyway.

I don't blame those of you on media blackout.  I get it.  I feel you.  But I just can't help but think it's another form of denial.  And I can't be in denial for 4 more years.

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:22 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

My own thoughts

Just a few reflections on the Inauguration...

Funniest moment? Heard on C-Span open mike, Joe Biden arriving at the top of the stairs to walk down to the main platform: "Well, I made it."

Least expected moment? Rick Warren's prayer.  I am not a fan of public prayer.  For two reasons. One, prayer is (according to scripture) to be a personal, secret act.  Two, public praying tends to become a sideshow: quoting, telling God all kinds of shit he already knows, showboating by the pray-er.  You know what I mean.  Warren's prayer followed a more humble structure: he praised God's greatness, he humbled himself, he asked for intercesion, and ended with the Lord's Prayer.  Nice, actually.

Best moment? The Williams Quartet with YoYo Ma and Itzak Perlman.  Amazing.  And yes, I am a sucker for both Ma and Perlman.  Especially Perlman, whose playing regularly moves me to tears.

Most surreal moment: Again, captured by the C-Span open mike: At the end of Obama's oath, the crowd began chanting "CHANGE!" a la Randy Marsh.

By the time The One spoke, I was getting sleepy.  I noted that the first half of the speech sounded like a Republican (personal responsibility, huh?).  And then I crashed.

I could have done without Aretha.  Hang it up sister.  Your voice is going away, as it does to all divas at your age.  Let us remember you at your finest.  She did have a killer hat on, though.

Finally, poor Chief Justice.  His nerves got the best of him and he flubbed the Oath.  Here's hoping he gets it right in four years.

What say you?

Posted by caltechgirl at 12:36 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

January 21, 2009

Like Cheese on Chinese Food

Republican rhetoric coming from The One, that is:

I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart, and I often think he's just plain unfunny.  But when he nails it, he nails it.  This made me laugh.  A lot.

Thanks to my afternoon Therapy Pool pals (Hi Stan!) for telling me to find the clip!

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Kiss Me, I'm Irish

Scots-Irish.  But I digress.  Seems O'bama is too.  In fact, according to the Corrigans, there's no one as Irish as Barack O'bama. I thought this was hilarious.

h/t the always awesome Helen who is getting pretty tired of hearing this in the UK

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 04, 2009

A New Hunt for the Nuge

Ted Nugent is hunting a new animal these days, The Porkasaurus!

I'm on the track of one, a bigger more dangerous critter than I've ever hunted before: the Obama-Pelosi Porkosaurus.

The Porkosaurus is plenty dangerous by itself. It subsidizes unemployment by increasing unemployment benefits. And, as the man said, when you subsidize something you get more of it. It doesn't spend anything -- not one thin dime -- on the one thing that economists say is guaranteed to stimulate the economy, defense spending. And its whole purpose is to feed Fedzilla and make it grow even bigger, swallowing our economy whole.

Click over and read the rest. Uncle Ted has some interesting ideas about stalking the beast and starving it to death.

If you've never read Ted before, you're in for a treat.

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 16, 2009

Serial Twit

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl it's not about IDEOLOGY, you fucking turd it's about breaking poor people's backs. Gas goes up $0.14/ gallon INSTANTLY

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl Sales tax OVER 10%, and then increases in income tax and car fees. Do you want people to MOVE OUT FASTER?

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl I wish I hated my house and I could afford to sell it. I'd leave CA tomorrow.

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl I can't afford to stay.

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl FTR, the fucking turd in question was some stupid ass liberal state senator who evidently only represents RICH PEOPLE

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl I
think if you find yourself in a hole this deep, the first question you
should be asking is not how do we fill the hole, but rather...

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl ... how did we get here? What are the bad decisions that led us here. And then don't repeat them.

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl Because you can only blame "the economy" so much.

Caltechgirlcaltechgirl I
thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. I guess that's
true only until they need them to bear the brunt of their mistakes.

The above was in response to some opportunist idiot on the TV taking advantage of the camera in his face to make the budget mess all about Democrats vs. Republicans.

That's just ignorant.  What it's about is how much are we going to take and who's listening.  Have you heard the man-on-the street interviews in the media?  NO ONE wants you to solve the problem by choking us to death with taxes.  NO ONE.  Yes, some tax increases are necessary, but how are we spending the money?  Isn't there something that can be done without shoving it, quite literally, on to the backs of your constituents?

I've heard both sides point out that this economy is based on spending.  Great.  Explain to me, then, how people can get the economy going by spending when it costs them more NOT ONLY to buy items, but also TO GET TO THE STORE. And more of their income goes back to the state to begin with.  These people are barely spending, and you're threatening to put a BIGGER hurt on their wallet?

You don't improve this state by taking money from people. You encourage them to give the state more than you would take by giving them incentives to buy.

As much as I hate the sheer size of the "porkulus" package that the President will sign tomorrow, I have to point out that it is based on INCENTIVES.  And maybe that's why people were willing to pass it.  Because the help is obvious.  It's money going to people.  Not coming out of their pockets.  At least not today.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:34 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 11, 2009

May the Fleece be with You

Shamelessly ripped off from Jimbo of the Great Farookin' Hair™

Posted by caltechgirl at 10:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 03, 2009

Embracing your Heritage

Ken, formerly of It Comes in Pints? fame, just got some bad news about his genealogy.  Seems he is a distant cousin of one Joseph R. Biden, Jr.  Yeah, that Joe Biden.

I know, I know.  But I think he'd be taking this better if he could get into the family business himself.  So I thought I'd get him a little something to help......

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Posted by caltechgirl at 04:34 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

May 02, 2010

Look Before You Leap

I'm getting excruciatingly tired of the debate in this country over the new AZ anti-immigration law.  Everywhere you look it's one talking head or another bloviating about how the law is illegal and immoral and racist.

Really?  A piece of paper is racist?

But I distract myself from my point.

The point is this:  most people have never actually read the law, and all ANYONE seems to be interested in doing is screaming "NAZIS!!!" and "RACISTS!!!" rather than looking objectively at the REAL problem and trying to solve it constructively.

Let's lay out some basic facts first. 

1.  Anyone in this country illegally is a criminal.  That's what the word illegal means, folks.  No matter how well-meaning their intentions, if you come into this country without permission, you have committed a crime, whether you are Mexican, Chinese, Canadian, or ET.

2.  Producing documentation is not a burden.  Try to use that argument with TSA next time you fly anywhere.  See how fast you get on a plane without some form of ID.  I am so tired of people comparing this requirement to the nazis.  If this documentation requirement is nazi-esque, then so is the cop who pulls you over for speeding.  In the state of CA, if your license is not PHYSICALLY PRESENT with you in the car, you can be fined and have your car towed, even if the license is valid and you are able to give the cop your license number.  The kinds of documents that the AZ law requires are things like a driver's license, green card, or passport with entry date stamped.  These all fit in your pocket.  As an American traveling abroad, I would be sure to keep these things with me, in fact, if I was arrested in Europe, that would be the FIRST thing a policeman would expect me to give him.

3. Reasonable Suspicion is how police operate.  It's not automatically a racist intention.  If I am a policeman and I see a person running down the street carrying a large TV, I have a reasonable suspicion the TV might be stolen, and I can therefore investigate.  Which means to stop the guy with the TV and ask him some questions.  If it's his tv, he has nothing to worry about.  Without "reasonable suspicion", our justice system doesn't work.  I admit, as words on paper they are open to a lot of different interpretations, but NO ONE would agree that racism as a basis for reasonable suspicion is REASONABLE.  This is why racial profiling was deemed unconstitutional. Racial profiling IS using race together with other characteristics and circumstances as a basis for reasonable suspicion.  There are laws against that which people use every day to punish racist cops that use racial profiling.  Perhaps we should act against the racist people carrying out the laws rather than restrict the laws to the lowest common denominator. There's not much lower than racism.

4. The pot calling the kettle black doesn't strengthen your argument.  Here in Los Angeles we have heard quite a bit about the Mexican government's warning to all of its citizens to steer clear of AZ, yet they persist in some pretty harsh immigration policies of their own.  Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. Mexico's General Law on Population (Consejo Nacional de Poblacion, last amended in 2000) requires the following: Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets 'the equilibrium of the national demographics,' when foreigners are deemed detrimental to 'economic or national interests,' when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when 'they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.' (Article 37) (ed. note: does this mean they can prevent you from going to Mexico if you are black???);  and The Secretary of Governance may 'suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.' (Article 38).  According to the law, Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73); A National Population Registry keeps track of 'every single individual who comprises the population of the country,' and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86); A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).  The law also imposes harsh penalties: A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally. (Article 123); Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125);  Foreigners who 'attempt against national sovereignty or security' will be deported. (Article 126); and Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law.  Mexico strictly enforces these rules when they choose to, yet they would ask us to limit our own control over illegal immigrants in our country. (analysis borrowed from here, originally here).

5. Hysteria and hype don't help ANYONE.  I am SO DISGUSTED by the parade of people wandering across my TV screen bemoaning this law.  NONE of them have read it, and none of them have any practical solutions.  They just want to get on TV screaming about racism and nazis and whatever else they can say to be sensational and get headlines and sway emotinal people who are either too busy or not intellectual enough to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.  It's very easy in this society to be BAD consumers of information.  We get a LOT of information thrown at us.  A lot of people are very good at making baseless, biased, and non-factual arguments to try and sway their audience (and they aren't all lawyers).  When you have so much information in your face, it's harder to sift through and find 1) the facts and 2) the informed arguments both pro and con, especially when most people have so few tools with which to think critically about what is being presented to them (based on US test scores in critical thinking, and our curricular focus elsewhere).  We need to make educated decisions based on good information and reasoned argument, not buzzwords and sound bites.  Have we become so intellectually lazy that we automatically label people and ideas because SOMEONE ELSE calls them a name?

6. Immigration is not important just because "life isn't fun without Mexicans".  Are you kidding me?  Do you know how racist it sounds when you say things like "Yeah, well, just see who looks after your kids without Mexicans around?"  As if that's all Mexican people can do is watch children, mow lawns, pick fruit, and clean toilets?  Can you be any more dismissive or racist?  Immigration is an important issue because this country is a place where anyone who comes legally can make something great.  What ensures that is our society and our system.  In our society, people must contribute both time and money for civic good.  They are accountable for that through our system of law.  People who are here illegally reap benefits without the accountability of those contributions, which drains all legal citizens, directly or indirectly.  Furthermore, there are a hell of a lot of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are NOT Mexican.  Making the immigration debate about US vs Mexico, or only Mexican illegals, diminishes the real threat posed by illegal border-crossers and visa-overstayers of all nationalities who smuggle drugs and weapons and plot against law-abiding citizens.  Someone who "looks American" isn't necessarily here legally.

7.One last thing: nazis??  Really???  Do you remember what the nazis did?  Do you really, honestly think that the Arizona Legislature intends to round up all the Mexican people in Arizona, put them in camps, and slaughter them?  Every time we compare someone or their ideas to the nazis, we diminish the impact of the horrors they perpetrated on millions of Jews, Blacks, Armenians, homosexuals, communists, dissenters...... Let's not forget what they did, please.  Let's not diminish it.

Getting that out there, my own take on the law is that if it does nothing else, it gives a voice to the rising frustration that Americans feel about the tide of crap coming over our borders.  This DOES NOT mean that everything and everyone who comes into this country is bad.  Nor does it imply only our southern border, though without a doubt the majority of immigrants and immigration (both legal and illegal) in AZ comes via Mexico.  There are obviously many illegal entrants who come to the US because they want to improve their families, contribute to their communities, and have a positive impact. Perhaps even the majority of illegal immigrants could be described this way. However, it is increasingly clear that a large percentage of crime and poverty (and their costs to the rest of society) are tied directly to illegal immigration.  Which is in and of itself a crime. It's not difficult logic: an illegal immigrant commits a crime by crossing the border illegally.  If we punish them for that crime, we can stop them from committing others.  I get it.

PRACTICALLY, however, this is not an easy situation.  How do you accomplish the goal of removing criminals from society without inconveniencing the law-abiding citizenry?  That's difficult enough when you talk about mundane theft or vehicular violations, which are overt acts.  How do you find the people who are committing a crime just by being in the wrong place without asking everyone whether or not they are allowed?  We aren't born with color-coded wristbands. Until we can find an easy solution, the debate continues.  I would just like it to be more focused, reasoned, and objective.  Without objective and reasoned debate, practical, acceptable solutions can not be found.

Think people, don't just form an opinion by osmosis.

Posted by caltechgirl at 11:00 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

May 12, 2010

A Blast from the Past

Found this on the old computer tonight, and I'm posting this for Ben.

It was taken while speeding down the 99 in Pixley,CA in August of 2003 (I was both the passenger and the photog. No worries.).  Sadly, some time soon after this the family sold the property and the entertaining signs were taken down.  Previous signs included the gems "The US or the UN, whose country is it?" and my all time favorite, "Pigs and Judges Ain't Bullitproof" (sic)

Hope this gave you a chuckle, dude!

Posted by caltechgirl at 08:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack