For those of you who read conservative blogs, you know that accusations of bigotry of all forms is not uncommon for the Repulican party, or conservatives in general.  However, I found this article uniquely offensive and angering and for someone who’s a conservative in a heavily liberal area, that’s hard to do.

But the growing schism between the Republican Party’s ascendant right wing and its shrinking moderate core has clear gender undertones — and Scozzafava’s departure raises fresh questions about the GOP’s ability to recruit, elect and even tolerate the sort of moderate women who used to be part of its ruling mainstream.

Ah yes, gotta love those “undertones” and “raises questions” lines.  Democrats and liberals use these lines when they want to make accusations but don’t have the balls to actually stand behind what they are accusing people of (usually because they know it’s untrue).  Sounds a lot like those racist undertones conservatives had during Obama’s campaign, and throughout the ongoing fight against universal healthcare.  Why, we (conservatives) are only opposing the President because (gasp) he’s black!  Now, we’re only voting against candidates like Scozzafava because (gasp) she’s a woman!  It takes almost the entire first page before we find out that there’s even any possibility of another reason conservatives would oppose her nomination.

Scozzafava’s conservative critics — including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh — chalked up their opposition to her liberal positions on abortion and gay rights.

It’s not so much that they invoked Palin and Limbaugh as critics (who by far weren’t the only ones) of Scozzafava, but the authors of this pile of crap article only chose to mentin two specific issues; abortion, and gay rights. 

Did you also know that Scozzafava was pro-card-check?  She also supported the porkulus bill that every single GOP House Representative voted against.  She also voted for tax hikes and a $180 million dollar state bank bailout.  However, those couldn’t possibly be reasons for conservative opposition, it MUST be because we’re all RAAAC- er…I mean…SEEEEEEEXXXXIST!!!!

But it doesn’t stop there.  In the very next paragraph, the authors of this crapfest double-down on stupid.

While Republicans scored a pair of impressive electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia with solid support among female voters, the events of the last week offer harbingers of serious trouble ahead with the largest swing voter bloc in the country — women.

So, Republicans had solid support among females in New Jersey and Virigina, where strong conservative candidates were the nominees, but all that opposition to the anything-but-stalwart Republican in NY-23 was entirely gender-based and had nothing to do with her stance on the issues? I personally love the line, “…the events of the last week offers harbingers of serious trouble ahead…”  As if the elections in NJ and VA did not happen the same week as Scozzafava’s NY-23 election?

Here’s the part that put me over the top;

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), one of the most outspoken feminists in the House, put it more bluntly: “This is a party that doesn’t respect women, a party that doesn’t believe women are equal to men,” she told POLITICO. “I don’t think they attract women to their party,” added Wasserman Schultz. “I think they repulse women.”

Really?  You mean, the party that went apeshit for a certain female Governor from Alaska?  That same party that collected millions of dollars as soon as people saw that a strong conservative (emphasis on the “conservative”) Republican female candidate was on the ticket?

How about those Democrats?  Back in 2008 they rejected a strong liberal candidate who was arguably the most experienced person on the Democratic ticket.  Instead, they threw their support behind a black inexperienced Senator from Illinois.  Where were all the articles “raising questions” about that?  Hey, she even still had a chance to be chosen as the VP, but was passed over for this rocket surgeon.

Later in the article, the authors mention that it’s becoming increasingly more and more difficult for Republicans to recruit women to run for political office.  Obviously, this must be because there just aren’t that many conservative women.  It doesn’t have anything to do with how conservative women are treated by the liberal media.  I mean, look at all the things women can look forward to when they run under the GOP ticket!

• Investigations into you and your family’s past.
•  Constant questioning into whether or not you gave birth to your own son, or just covered up your teenage daughter’s pregnancy (“where’s the birth certificate and hospital records, Sarah?!”). 
• Unending frivolous lawsuits alleging misuse of state funds (all of which are eventually dismissed).
• Deliberate criticism of your fashion and makeup choices.

With all those things to look forward to, it’s amazing why there just aren’t more women running under the GOP ticket.

To get this “new age” of CinC kicked off, I present to you this little diddy that I found via Greg Mankiw’s blog.  Apparently someone found his textbook worthy of writing a little rap song about.  Listen closely to the lyrics, as this is probably the most (or only?) educational rap song I’ve ever heard.

Rythm, Rhyme, Results – Supply, Demand

Now, I’m not going to bother explaining this here, as I feel this video expresses my feelings completely.

Now, I’m only saying this is possibly hypocrtical because as I see it, isn’t blogging similar?  I’m here, typing out my thoughts and feelings on various topics to those of you who read.  Some of you might add this site to your favorites and are therefore “following”  me like you would with Twitter.

I guess really the difference is that I can make much longer posts on a blog, whereas Twitter is limited to 140 characters (I believe).  Furthermore, like the video says, Twitter is mainly used for updating people on your current activities/thoughts, not for writing lengthy political analysis or long angry rants.

Perhaps if I started posting my current thoughts/activities, this site would see a lot more updates.  Then again, I’m trying to reach a larger audience here, and is anyone really that interested in what I’m eating for lunch, or happen to be thinking at any moment in time?  Trust me, you don’t want to get into my head, it’s painfully boring in there.

Many people questioned Mr. Breitbart on why he would willingly appear on a show that has a unblemished track record of being hostile to conservatives and advised him to decline the invitation.  Today in the Washington Times, Mr. Breitbart explains why he didn’t heed the advice he recieved. 

Since the salad days of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that’s exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn’t working out so well.

I happen to agree 100% with Mr. Breitbart’s analysis here.  Currently in this country, the default political worldview is that of liberals.  Conservatives and conservative-leaning media sources (FoxNews, talk radio, etc.) are labeled as racist, bigoted, homophobic, facist, and so on and so forth.  If you’ve ever talked to someone about Rush Limbaugh who’s never tuned in to his show, you know what I’m talking about.

My fiance was one of these people.  Not that she was a big left-wing liberal (she wasn’t very politically aware, period), but she had always had this image of Rush of being angry, racist, and hostile to any callers who disagreed with his opinions.  Don’t ask me how I did it, because I don’t remember, but I was able to get her to start listening to some of Rush’s show, and she was literally shocked.  She said to me “he is not at all what I thought”.  She now enjoys Rush’s show, his humor, and his overall personality and demeanor.  She says “he’s got this really pleasant tone and voice, and once you understand his sense of humor, his show is really entertaining”.

I think a lot of people who go out and vote are “default Democrats”.  They are the people who will always claim “I don’t really like politics”, yet are compelled to vote (and rightfully so) out of a sense of duty…and because Matt Damon, MTV, E!, P. Diddy, or whoever is telling them they should.  They don’t follow the issues, heck, as John Ziegler and countless polls have pointed out, most people don’t even know something as simple as which party is in the majority in the House or Senate.  The pop culture in this country is decidedly liberal, and if conservativism is to make a comeback in government, part of the resurgance is going to have to start by combatting this.  But how to go about it?

Mr. Breitbart has a suggestion, and I happen to agree with him 100%.  He writes;

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. “Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?”

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

…

We can’t win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

By not going on “The View” and the Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Maher shows – or even David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon, etc. – we are allowing them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature. Our most articulate voices, likable faces and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go with the media flow. (Our baby sitter has an Obama bumper sticker on her car, yet admits she knows nothing about politics.)

Even though we know, as conservatives, that we’re going to take a beating when we appear on popular talk-shows, we cannot let that dismay us from an opportunity to express and defend our conservative values and ideals.  No one is going to convince Bill Maher or his audience that conservatives are right about ANY issue.  However, there are millions of people who tune into the show, and quite a number of them are operating under the impression that conservatives are everything that MoveOn.org and DailyKos portray them to be.   If we don’t take the opportunity to show that conservatives aren’t racists, bigots, homophobes, whatever, how are we going to change that image?

Simply planting that seed of doubt will accomplish much much more than not appearing at all.  While everyone might not have the political interest or follow the issues as closely as those of us who write or read political blogs, they still are able to recogize someone who is being treated rudely or disrespectfully.  However, if we don’t appearn on liberal shows and give them the opporunity to expose themselves as the jackasses they are, how can we expect the default political stance to change?

When talking about embryonic vs. adult stem cells, most people understand the key differences in where these cells come from, but a few misunderstand the process by which embryonic stem cells are harvested.  Let me make this first point clear; Embryonic Stem Cells DO NOT come from aborted fetuses.  I always cringe when I see pro-lifers argue that embryonic stem cell research encourages women to have abortions because those women will feel like they are doing something to contribute to finding new cures and treatments for debilitating diseases.  I think a better argument is to point out that by endorsing and funding this kind of research, the government (and those who support embyronic stem cell research) devalue human life.

Now, the science part…

When a sperm cell (stop chuckling, this is a mature blog) and an egg cell fuse to create a zygote, massive cellular reproduction (mitosis) begins takes place.  This is the first stage of  Embryogenesis.  Here’s a great illustration from that Wikipedia link for those of you too lazy to click.

Now, these cells are all taking up the same space as the original zygote.  All cellular reproduction so far has taken place inside this contained area.  As the embryo continues to develop, you will see two distinct structures form inside this space, the inner cell mass (ICM), and trophectoderm.  This is a great little page from a the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago showing photos of these different structures.

The ICM is where embryonic stem cells come from.

What scientists do to create embryonic stem cells is fertilize an egg cell in a test tube, wait a period of time to allow for the ICM to form inside the embryo, then destroy the embryo and harvest the embryonic cells from the ICM.

Science lesson over.

Previously, thanks to Bush, the process for harvesting stem cells that I just explained was banned from being conducted using federal money.  However, the process was not banned altogether, private funds could still have been used for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells.  Furthermore, from what I understand, this ban on federal funds usage only applied to the actual growth and harvest of embryonic stem cells.  Once scientists had these stem cells in-hand, government money could be used for whatever experments they had in mind.

Those who argue for the goverment funding of embryonic stem cell research claim that it is needed because embryonic stem cells alone have the potential to become any type of cell in the human body, while adult stem cells have a limited potential and therefore aren’t as useful.

A couple things about this.  First, if researching embryonic stem cells is as promising as these scientists and their supporters have us believe, why do they need the government to give them money?  Last I knew, healthcare corporations dump millions upon millions of dollars into researching new cures for all sorts of afflictions and diseases.  Why would they let something with such awesome potential go unfunded?

The simple answer is…that embryonic stem cell research isn’t as promising as liberals and the media would have us believe.  The astonishing thing is that while stem cells have already led to a vast number of cures and treatments, all of these advances have come through the study of…ADULT stem cells, not embryonic. 

The people who are supporting the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are the same people who are conducting this research.  They see that private companies aren’t interested in investing into research that has yet to produce anything so instead of researching adult stem cells (which have already proven a success), they go to the government for money.

Furthermore, several breakthroughs have been made in the past couple years that have unlocked the previously limited potential of adult stem cells.  Yet why don’t we hear anyone arguing for more funding for that?  Furthermore, adult stem cells harvested from a patient, contain the same DNA and are therefore carry a much lower risk of being rejected during treatment.

In an effort to continue to depress the idea that ALL human life is precious, we are told that embryonic stem cells show promise for treatments for all types of currently incurable diseases.  Embryonic stem cell research as of today has resulted in zero cures and zero treatments.  Why continue to pour taxpayer money into a science that some of those taxpayers find reprehensible? Especially when an alternative exists to which NO ONE opposes and also has already proved successful?

No really, this is a head-scratcher if I’ve ever heard one.  I graduated High School (in Milwaukee, WI) in 2000, and I don’t consider today’s teenage culture much different than that with which I grew up.  Sure they have even more vapid Hollywood reality show personalities that they worship, and they have greater access to the latest gossip and papparazi photos than I did due to the blogging craze, but all-in-all, I never thought it’s very different.  However, I digress.

Back in November, New Berlin High School and Middle School (in New Berlin, WI) received bomb threats and were forced to close.  During the resulting investigation, Police discovered the following reason why parents should be very, very mindful of just exactly what their kids are doing on Facebook…

New Berlin – Describing a pattern of manipulation and deception using the social networking site Facebook, the Waukesha County district attorney today announced sexual assault charges against a New Berlin Eisenhower student who authorities say coerced male students into sexual encounters.

Anthony R. Stancl, 18, posing as a female on Facebook, persuaded at least 31 boys to send him naked pictures and then blackmailed some of the boys into performing sex acts under the threat that the pictures would be released to the rest of the high school, authorities say.

Shocking to say the least.  This deviant blackmailed his own fellow students into performing sexual acts on him.  The article goes on to reveal that these actions purportedly took place on school grounds, the public library restroom, public parks, and even in the victims’ homes.

Here’s why I don’t get.  Why didn’t these kids just kick his ass?  I mean seriously, is it more humiliating to have nude photos exposed to your high school classmates than it is to be blackmailed into giving another dude a BJ, or worse??  Allright, maybe that’s inappropriate language, even for the moronosphere, but seriously, these kids obviously weren’t ashamed enough to take the nude pictures and send them out in the first place.  Didn’t it occur to them that even if it really was a girl they were talking to, what would prevent her from distrubuting the pictures in the same way?

So I began to think, ok, maybe the victims are kids who are of smaller physical stature, maybe they don’t have many friends, and have tons of insecurity (which come to think of it, is probably more likely the case than not of most High School students).  Perhapse Stancl just targetted those kids who he figured would cave in to his demands.  Now, the article only mentions 7 victims (Stancl targetted 31 boys), but how many kids are out there who didn’t come forward?

Apparently Stancl even took pictures and video of the encounters as well.  This kid is seriously demented.  Not only that, but seriously fucking retarded.  I questioned before why the victims didn’t just kick the kid’s ass.  I’ll take it a step further.  What made Stancl think these kids wouldn’t bring a knife? Or a gun? Or maybe get the sudden urge to flex their jaw and…well, I’ll spare the visual.

The truly shocking part of this story to me is how many boys were actually complicit.  Furthermore, who knows how long Stancl could have gotten away with this? Remember, the only reason he was caught is because he was a complete idiot and called in a bomb threat to his school.

I don’t know what it is about kids these days, but perhaps Mr. Belling was right.  He said he might blame this on the emasculation of society that we’ve been seeing over the years.  Competition is bad.  Agressive behavior is to be repressed and punished at all times.  We can’t have any games where kids might be faced with someone bigger and stronger than they are.

Or perhaps this was a failure of the adults around these kids.  The victims felt they had no one to go to.  They didn’t go to their parents, their teachers, school counselors, or their friends.  Like I said, who knows how long this monster would have gotten away with his actions if he wasn’t a complete moron.

I don’t have any kids of my own, and I know that I’m not going to be able to keep track of them all the time, however, I hope that I have a close enough relationship with them that if they feel threatened enough, they’ll be able to come to me with anything.

(h/t: Mark Belling)

The quote is taken from an article that appeared in the Washington Times today about a group of illegals who are suing an Arizona man who held them at gunpoint when he caught them trying to cross his property into the United States.

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as “the avenue of choice” for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

That’s just the beginning few paragraphs of the article giving the basic premise of the situation.  What’s incredible is that these illegal immigrants apparently CAN sue Mr. Barnett since his lawyer’s initial request for a dismissal was denied.   Does anyone else find that shockingly disturbing?  A group of non-citizens apparently have the right to sue a legal citizen.

I understand that all people have rights, whether they are legal citizens or not, but these people were caught trespassing, and Mr. Barnett made what most would call a “citizens arrest”.

The details of Mr. Barnett’s situation get quite interesting, and if you read further on, you’ll learn that this isn’t the first time he’s caught illegal trespassers on his property.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil – which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their “clients” to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck “for protection” against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

 Wow, apparently Mr. Barnett takes protecting his property very seriously, and I don’t blame him.  What other choice does a private property owner have other than hiring a full-time security force?  Especially if, as the article states above, law enforcement is focusing their efforts elsewhere.

Here’s a little something that I thought I would share with you all.  The new Illinois state liscense plates!!!

"Where Our Governors Make Our Liscense Plates!"

By the way, here’s a little tidbit on the Representatives who voted “against” (Milton Patterson) and “present” (Elga Jefferies), surprisingly both are Chicago Democrats, whoda thunk?!.

The one lawmaker voting against impeachment was Rep. Milton Patterson, a Chicago Demorcrat who represents the South Side. Rep Elga Jefferies, also a Chicago Democrat, voted present.

Patterson said he wasn’t defending anyone, but that he read the impeachment committee’s report and wasn’t comfortable voting against the governor. “I have no firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence,” he said.

“I went by my own gut feeling, it’s as simple as that,” he said. “I read the report. If the government is going to indict him, let them go ahead and do that. That’s their job and I’m doing my job.

Apparently Rep. Patterson feels that evidence that he was not directly involved in, shouldn’t be considered when making up his mind on which way to vote.  Unless Patterson was a part of those phone calls looking for favors in exchange for a Senate seat, he feels it’s inadmissable as evidence.  Oh, and even if it was included in the evidence, logic and reason have no part in his decision-making process.  He just votes according to “his own gut feeling”.  Hey, I didn’t make this stuff up folks, and you people on the South Side voted for this idiot.  Congradulations, you’ve got a complete buffoon representing you.

Oh, and here marks the end of my Christmas/New Years/Election hangover.

This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoë’s office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us.

We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.

So let me get this straight. The NYT recieves an email containing a letter supposedly written by the mayor of Paris.  The current practice to verify the authenticity of this document is to email back the source of the letter?  Then, if they don’t respond, to go ahead and publish the letter anyway.

Did it not occur to anyone at the Times to contact, you know, the supposed original author of the document directy?  It’s not like the Mayor of Paris is a reclusive citizen tucked away in some remote corner of Manhattan. Furthermore, let’s say they did recieve an email back from the original sender of the letter.  If that response had simply said “Yes, this document is authentic”, would that have been enough for the NYT to go ahead and run with it?  Obviously it would have been seeing that  no response at all apparently serves as authetication.

The more I think about how I would deal with the situation is just making me more and more angry.  This is like asking a guy selling stereos out of his trunk if they are stolen, and taking his reply of “no man, I work for Best Buy” as a satisfactory response.

I’d like to know what the email address of the original sender was as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the NYT thought Big BeretDaddy@frenchymail.com sounded like a reliable source.

(h/t HotAir)