SURVIVOR RACES TO CONTROVERSY

Survivor this season is separating the teams by race.

Yeah, you can guess what’s happening.

People are flipping out. A New York City Councilman wants CBS to pull the show. It seems he feels

"The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous," City Councilman John Liu said Thursday. "How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?"

Really, does he feel that same way when teams are separated by sex? Hell’s Kitchen just ended and the teams were boys against girls. Where was he outrage there? How does Mr. Liu feel about the Congressional Black Caucus? There’s a club where people who aren’t the "correct" color can’t join. What about the University of Michigan Law School admission’s policy, where people of the “right” color get an extra boost? Mr. Liu? Anything? Anything?

People are outraged by this because they want to be. Freely joining a competition where teams are separated by sex or race or age or anything is not going to

“encourage racial division and promote negative typecasts.”

Get over yourself, Mr. Liu.

MULLIGAN

Yesterday, the FDA ok’d the sale of “emergency contraception” over the counter to girls 18 and over. This , “Oops, do over!” is just a super dose of a normal prescription daily contraception, so I wonder if it’s really safe. I’m sure the idea is that it will be economically prohibitive to use on a daily basis or to O.D. on, but never underestimate the stupidity of college kids – so look for some tragic mistakes to happen in the near future.

And now let’s talk about the name. The name of this product is so morally repulsive, that when I first heard about it a year or so ago, I just about fell over. And the name is:

Plan B.

I can’t comment any further. You either know what I’m talking about or you have no soul.

So, how do I feel about the newest development? I don’t like it. And you can guess why, according to the FDA website, this is how Plan B works”

“Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.”

Yeah, the money quote here is ”Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)”.

Once again, we cavalierly kill another human being. I’m sorry to bring abortion into the postings three days in a row, but it just keeps coming up. It keeps coming up because of the shear number of abortions. There are roughly 3,200 abortions performed in America EVERY DAY. You want to talk carnage? This makes Genghis Kahn seem like a choir boy.

Let me digress quickly – USA Today prints the names of the American soldiers recently killed in Iraq. I’m not sure it’s done everyday, but at least weekly and it’s nice. I will assume this is done to recognize and give value to the lives of these fine Americans. And I applaud that.

I also give value to the lives of the children killed in abortions. So, that’s why it keeps coming up. The MSM made a huge deal when the death toll in Iraq reached 2,000 – yet in the abortion mills in this country, that’s called a “slow Tuesday”.

STEM CELLS

I haven’t written a lot about embryonic stem cell research, but most people could guess which side of the argument this proud member of the vast, pro-life conspiracy comes down on. Today’s New York Times has an article about a new procedure that seems to produce the raw material’s to form new ESC lines without killing the embryo the cells are harvested from. As the Times itself said:

“This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.”

And maybe it does. My question is this: If this magic cell can grow into the panacea of establishing colonies of stem cells and these stem cells can grow into anything, livers, toenails, etc, everything the liberals promise, can it not grow into a whole person? Seriously, is this 1/8th of a person able to form into a whole person? Senator Brownbeck shares my concern and the answer he received was:

“…there was no evidence that a single blastomere could develop into a person. “

Is there no evidence because the single blastomere was never given the chance? The good doctor’s answer seems like a Clinton obfuscation, “I’m confident no evidence will be found of any wrongdoing….”

So that’s my question concerning this new procedure and I welcome anything that doesn’t kill babies. Sad I have to be happy with the lack of a negative, but when it comes to how we treat our weakest and most innocent members of our society, that’s about the best I can hope for.

The article does bring forth a whole slew of other observations worth mentioning:

Look at the verbal knots the writer ties himself into so as to give NO impression that a fertilized egg might be a human life. The embryos are referred to as a “blastomeres” and “blastocysts”. On the other hand in Mr. Wade’s defense he did get this past the editor:

“Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.”

I’m surprised the word “kills” was used, that seems to give weight and value to the “blastocyst-stage cells”, not something I expect from the Times. So maybe I’m all wet here.

Also in the article was the fact that ESC research is not illegal in this country. If you got your news from the MSM, you would be sure, given the hysteria and doom-mongering on the left that Bu$h/Hitler had made ESC research a crime punishable by death or at least imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, as the article says:

“Mr. Bush has allowed federal financing for research on human embryonic stem cells, provided they were established before Aug. 9, 2001. Although that might seem to rule out any new cell lines derived from blastomeres, Dr. Battey said that was not clear because the embryo would not be destroyed, and that he would seek guidance on the point.

The federal policy does not affect privately financed stem cell research, like that done by Advanced Cell.”

That’s right, the only thing Herr Bush won’t allow is Federal financing of the NEW stem cell lines. Research on the existing lines is still Federally funded and private funding can do whatever they want.

Probably the most disturbing thing in the article isn’t addressed directly, but clues are given for what I call the Dirty Little Secret of fertility clinics – the wonton destruction of life everyday in this little Menegle labs. Look at these quotes:

“In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found.” (Bolding mine)

What if a defect is found, like the one mentioned – Down syndrome? It is “discarded”. Or, in more simple terms, it is killed. If no defect is found, it can be implanted and nine months later – out pops a baby. So, we can’t pretend the blastomere with Down Syndrome is any less of a life than one without.

The objection we pro-lifers have to all of these procedures, including the big daddy of them all, abortion is that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. And that is why we still remain cautious with the new procedure; because it occurs after conception.

THE I'AM EFFECT

Two years ago, I wrote about the Roe Effect. The Roe Effect, in a nutshell, claims that of the 40 million + abortions since Roe v. Wade, the majority of them were from liberal mothers and their “lost children” would have, for the most part, grown up to be liberals and vote Democrat. Hence, Democrats have lost millions of voters they can NEVER get back.

I know, it’s like a terrible car accident – you don’t want to think about it, but you can’t help yourself.

In yesterday’s Opinion Journal, Arthur C. Brooks wrote of another Effect, let’s call it the “It's all about me”(I'AM) Effect. Here’s what he says:

“Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.”

Now, to be sure, some of the baby imbalance comes from the Roe Effect, but not all of it for sure. The self-centered liberals of today are much more concerned about their own creature comforts to give them up to have children. Kids are expensive in all sorts of ways, not just monetarily. You’re life becomes centered around them and you can’t just pack up and go away for the weekend anymore. Vacations to the Bahamas are impossible and going out to dinner becomes a production. Self-centered people would never give these up for ten to fifteen years. And that's just the normal left; of course, then there’s the angry left. Look at this quote from the article:

“As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation."

“Wonton breeding”? This is why liberals have abortions, to them the baby is not a person, it’s a breeding problem that needs resolution. And don’t get me going about “overpopulation”, Malthus and Ehrlich have been discredited over and over again, "overpopulation" is just a scare tactic to use when no real argument exists.

Anyway, the baby imbalance isn’t going to get any better for the Democrats:

“Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.”

Ah, the unintended consequences. They’ll get you every time.

INTO THE PANDEMONIUM

For years I have decried “reality TV”. When the first Survivor came on, I told everyone the only thing I could think of was “The Running Man” and I still believe this. (Hypocrisy disclaimer: I really love Hell’s Kitchen and I watched the first season of The Osbourne's religiously, but only the first season). I think the absolute low of reality TV was the show on NBC (surprisingly, not Fox), Who Wants to Marry my Dad?

Now the Oxygen Network (the Network for Women) has hit not as low as Who Wants to Marry my Dad, but to a ridiculous level with Shannen Doherty’s new show (she’s executive producer), Breaking Up with Shannen Doherty. No, it’s not a show with camera’s following her around breaking up with boyfriends, the premise is that she will come to the aid of losers who want to break up with their boyfriend, but just can’t muster the courage and do it for them. Here’s the show description:

“Whether it's getting out of a bad relationship, an awful job or a toxic friendship, breaking up is never fun, so why do it alone? Let Shannen Doherty do the dirty work!

In Oxygen's newest reality series Breaking up with Shannen Doherty, Shannen comes to the rescue of men and women who need her expert assistance to break free. In each episode, Shannen puts the relationship and the "break-ee" to the test by creating a bogus situation caught on hidden cameras. And Shannen will be waiting in the wings to put the relationship out of its misery and deliver the news in her own unique way.”

For the love of God, people!! Back away slowly from the television set and don’t make eye contact. Turn it off and read a book, talk to your husband, go for a walk - anything but reality TV.

SAY IT AIN'T SO

Dare I say it, dare I even think it? Should the unmentionable, unfathomable words leave my mouth? Can I even write it?

I agree with the New York Times editorial.

There, I did it. It’s done. Now I can take a deep breath; though I feel a little queasy.

Today’s paper lead editorial is titled Waiting for Jacques and here’s the lead paragraph:

“It would be tempting to laugh about France’s paltry commitment of 200 additional peacekeepers for Lebanon, if it weren’t so dangerous. After insisting for years that they be treated like a superpower, the French are behaving as if they have no responsibility for helping dig out of the Lebanon mess.”

The editorial goes on to point out the deficiencies of the cease fire agreement, without bashing the United States or President Bush too much, which is a lot to say for the Times:

“But the French military command has also raised some legitimate concerns about the peacekeeping force’s lack of a clear mission. Most notably the resolution (might we note again that the French helped write it?) sidesteps the question of who, if anyone, will disarm Hezbollah.”

“The unfortunate reality is that the best that may be hoped for in Lebanon is an eventual political marginalization for Hezbollah.”

The editorial is far from perfect, but for the Times, I’m impressed.

AMERICAN VALUES

It seems in the world today, the kids in their late teens and early twenties are called the “9/11 Generation”. Chuch Raasch, a writer for the Gannett News Service wrote a small piece about the 9/11 Generation based on the experience of relating to his own son on their college tour this summer. This is some of what he said:

“At 17, my biggest worries had been about the draft. Boys a couple of years older were in Vietnam and the war had dragged beyond understanding. The draft wound down my senior year in high school and officially ended 45 days after my 18th birthday. Then, I could not envision any 18-year-old volunteering during a war.

But 18-year-olds are signing up for Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terrorism. In North Carolina, news came that 21-year-old Marine Enrique Henry Sanchez of Garner, N.C., had died in Iraq. His grandmother told The Associated Press that the boy had so much wanted to be a Marine he had lost 150 pounds by dieting and running with an 80-pound backpack.

Stories like that make you realize that commitment and sacrifice are the province of no generation, not even the "Greatest Generation" made famous in the World War II nostalgia literature.

Some call those born after 1980 the 9/11 generation. Sept. 11 is a fixture but not a fixation. It has been a fact of childhood that terrorists threaten civilization, and may always, but that life goes on.

The 9/11 generation is both traditional and iconoclastic. Talking heads often depict it as selfish and disengaged, often symbolized by the empty pursuits of Paris Hilton. In fact, according to social scientists, Generation Y has a respect for community and authority that makes it more akin to the 18-year-olds on the beaches of Normandy than the Y Generation's baby boomer parents”

Wow, that’s some powerful stuff. Makes you feel good about kids today and give rise to hope that all is not lost in this country.

Unless you’re a Democrat.

Seems there’s a Democrat think tank out there called the Truman National Security Project. It has in it’s membership the usual band of suspect, Madeline Albright, John Podesta, Peter Singer, etc. and this is what it says about itself:

“The Truman National Security Project is a movement bringing together Democrats who believe in a strong foreign policy grounded in the strong values that make us Democrats. We believe that progressive values and strong national security policy are two sides of the same coin—and must be brought together.

We unite Americans nationwide who believe in strong security, and strong Democratic values. With this network we develop policy positions and communications tools to help political leaders in the Beltway, and politicians across the country, articulate Truman Democratic ideals.”

"[P]rogressive values and strong national security policy are two sides of the same coin"? Maybe a Chuck E. Cheese token.

The founder of the Truman National Security Project is one Rachel Kleinfeld is this is how she described the 9/11 Generation:

"They are much more sexually conservative than the generation before them. They are much more religious than the generation before them. They are very community-oriented. Their numbers on community orientation are like those of the greatest generation, the World War II generation. They are extremely loving of their parents. Many of them call their parents their best friends. And they are also very respecting of authority, but not all types of authority."

To sum up her feelings on this:

"This generation, the baby boomlet, is a very odd generation..."

Only a Democrat would find traditional, American values “very odd”.

OH, WHAT TO DO?

Joe Lieberman has put the Democrats in a very uncomfortable position. They don’t like his well thought out, knee-jerkless(?) reaction to security and rejoiced in his defeat by cut-and-run Ned Lamont. Finally, they would be rid of him and have in his seat the kind of Senator they could work with in undermining the President’s power.

Then Lieberman stayed in the race as a Independent. Not usually a big deal, having an independent in a race in a solidly Democrat district is like having another Republican to beat. Unfortunately, in the rock-paper-scissors world of general election politics, Joe-Mentum beats Nedernaline any day and Lieberman leads Lamont by 12 points and is expected to win.

So, what do the Democrats do? Do they throw all of their support behind Lamont, attack Lieberman, strip him all power in the Senate and otherwise smear him and hope he loses? If they try this gambit and it fails, they have a loose canon in the Senate, one who was burned by the very party he says has slipped too far to the left. Or, do they do the unthinkable and support Lieberman, leaving their primary winner to swing in the wind? This makes the Democrats look like un-principled, power hungry madmen (which is much closer to the truth, but not something talked about in mixed company). Or, do they quietly support Lamont and stay heck out of Connecticut until after the election, giving them a weasle-ish, no controlling legal authority, plausible deniability, depending on what the meaning of “is” is defense to say they supported you all along, Mr.-Whoever you are who won.

JONBENET

Well, I bet I wasn’t the only one shocked when an arrest was made in the JonBenet Ramsey case that didn’t involve her mom or dad. I firmly believed over the past 10 years that it was one or both of her parents that killed the little girl. Now that we have an arrest and he has said he killed her, I need to re-think my beliefs. If, as it seems, this guy is the monster that killed her, then I owe the Ramsey’s a big internal apology, in that I never claimed the parents did it in the public forum.

On the other hand, there has been some speculation that Kerr’s indictment is going to fall apart under scrutiny. I’m not so sure, but this case bears watching.

THE DEMOCRATS VS. WAL-MART

Today’s New York Times has an article on the new Democratic Populism – hating Wal-Mart. Senator Joe Biden (D-France), spoke in front of a union rally in Des Moines blasting the Satan that is Wal-Mart. We got the normal litany of complaints about Wal-Mart, they don’t pay enough, they don’t offer enough health insurance, they don’t, they don’t, they don’t blah-blah-blah.

““My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?””

Two quick points about the Biden quote. Firstly, if $10.00 an hour offends him so much, why doesn’t he mention what the other retailers are paying? In an article from the Contra Costa Times from last June (which I’m getting from a Wal-Mart bashing site), the average wage of Wal-Mart employees in the Bay Area was equal to that of all the other retailers:

“Wal-Mart said its current average Bay Area hourly wage is $10.82, which compares to a median hourly wage of $10 for cashiers with three years of experience across all non-union retailers in the East Bay, according to the most recent survey by the California Employment Development Department.”

Why not hit Target, Kohl’s and K-Mart? Secondly, and maybe even more importantly, what is “the Middle Class”? We all seem to think we know what the Middle Class is, but no one, even myself can define it? Does it mean a single wage earner, home ownership and 2.3 kids? So, can Biden so lightly refer to the Middle Class without being able to define it? Maybe the Middle Class is like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography,

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,…”

Meanwhile, back at the Times, the article then goes on explaining how and why the Democrats will use Wal-Mart as a whipping boy in 2008.

““It’s not anti-business,” said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a former head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, appearing at an anti-Wal-Mart rally on Tuesday. “Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.””

Ah, the middle class again.

“But Democrats say they are sure they have a message that will resonate. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2004, appeared at an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Pittsburgh two weeks ago. Mr. Edwards said in an interview that his party was not vulnerable to a backlash for this criticism so long as Democrats made clear that their main goal was improving policies for the poor and the middle class.

“Wal-Mart as an example of the problems that exist in America today is a powerful political issue,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “I think our party pretty much across the board agrees that people who work hard should be able to support their families. When a company like Wal-Mart fails to meet its corporate responsibility, it make it impossible for that to occur.””

“[F]ails to meet its corporate responsibility”? Just what is “corporate responsibility”, Mr. Edwards? Let me help you. Corporate responsibility is NOT paying a “living wage”, it is NOT providing health insurance to it’s employees, it is NOT to make campaign contribution to Democrats. Corporate responsibility is to make money for it’s stockholders in a legal fashion. That is it, Mr. Edwards, as you, who are worth millions of dollars and have many, many investments, know and DEMAND. And don’t even get me going about company mission statements…

Back to the Times:

“Democrats say Wal-Mart is a potent symbol of corporate excess. The company earned $11 billion in profit last year, but fewer than half of its employees in the United States are covered by its health care plan, and the average worker earns less than $20,000 a year.”

How many of those more than half of employees who get no insurance through Wal-Mart are covered by health insurance from another source, like a spouse. My wife is covered by my health insurance, so using the Post’s logic, they could say Holiday Inn doesn’t cover any of their sales managers in Manchester.

But perhaps there is another, bigger issue that offends Democrats and their lap-dogs in the elite media:

“In the last election cycle, they note, the company gave 80 percent of its contributions to Republicans. Many of its stores are in Republican-dominated territory in the rural South.”

TURNING POINT

Friday, August 11, 2006 will henceforth be recognized as the day I started to lose respect for President George W. Bush. It was that day his government embraced the United Nations resolution for a ceasefire between our ally Israel and the terrorist organization Hezbollah. In doing so, the United States has turned it’s back on Israel, leaving it in an untenable situation of either accepting this abomination of a deal or having to defend itself totally alone. Not only has Bush negotiated with terrorists, he has given them respectability. I cannot think of a more terrible situation.

Lebanon is the country to be dealing with, not a terror cell that operates within it’s borders. If Lebanon cannot control the splinter group, than Lebanon is to blame.

And that’s what Israel thought. That’s why Israel invaded Lebanon.

What makes this so especially bad is George Bush USED TO BE the best friend Israel had. Now, he’s caved to world opinion and screwed one of our best friends and ONLY functioning democracy in the Mid-East.

Look, we should do several things. First and foremost, pull the U.S. out of the U.N and kick them out of New York. Sell the building to a corporation that actually does some good in the world, like Halliburton. Then, ship all sorts of arms to Israel and let them unleash the dogs of Hell at the same time protecting Israel from the now-homeless United Nations with military might if need be.

I still support my President, he is mostly a very good man. I haven’t liked the wonton spending he has done, but he never pretended he didn’t feel government could fix people’s problems. He is still a HUGE defender of life, especially the unborn and I like what he has done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I fear he’s gone wobbly now.
And of course, even with this disaster, he so much better than a President Gore or a President Kerry. But still, I think I’ve turned a corner.

DIRECTIVE 10-289 STRIKES AGAIN!

Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski has shown himself to be one of the most idiotic people in government today. As we have all heard, BP has shut down it’s Prudhoe oil fields because of concerns over the integrity of the pipelines that carry that oil to the Alaska Pipeline. In doing so, BP’s oil revenues have dropped sharply (hey, what do you expect when you’re not shipping any oil). Additionally, much to Gov. Murkowski’s chagrin, Alaska has also seen a drop in tax and royalty revenue from these lost sales. This from CBS News:

“The expected loss of 400,000 barrels per day at today's oil prices means the state is losing about $6.4 million a day in royalties and taxes, Revenue Commissioner Bill Corbus said. The state receives 89 percent of its income from oil revenue.”

So, what is Murkowski’s great idea?

“The governor also said he would direct the attorney general to investigate the "state's right to hold BP fully accountable for losses to the state."”

“Losses to the state”? Murkowski seems to think it’s BP’s, a private concern, duty to continue to produce because the state is entitled to it’s “fair share” of the companies profits (in the form of taxes). That’s just patently offensive! Ayn Rand wrote about this in Atlas Shrugged over 50 years ago – it was called National Directive 10-289. Point 5 said in part:

“Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as is, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more or no less.”

Scary stuff, people, scary stuff.

CONNECTICUT

Now that the Connecticut Primary is over and Ned Lamont has beaten Joe(mentum) Lieberman, watch for the Democrats to lurch to the left. The Ned (“Leave now at any cost!”) Lamont’s win will scare the rest of the Democrats to abandon what little common sense they may now possess and to call for a pull-out of Iraq, leaving the budding democracy (number 2 in the mid-East) to the neighborhood bully, Iran. Kind of like what happened to Vietnam and Cambodia, but that’s ancient history, right?

Not more importantly, but sooner to happen, watch what happens to Joe Lieberman. If he doesn’t drop his independent bid soon, I mean teenage-boy-in-bed soon, the Democrats, those stalwart defenders of tolerance and diversity, will fall upon him and rip the meat from his bones for daring to be diverse and hoping for tolerance. For just a small preview of this, take a look at the left’s leading internet pioneer, Daily Kos. Or, for more fun and games, check out the psycho ward known as the Democratic Underground. Or that poster child of all that is good in the Democrat party, that sit-with-Jimmy-Carter-in-the-box-seat hero, Michael Moore.

People (the non-thinking kind, mostly), like to think of the Democrats as the nice party, not like those mean Republican (RePUKES) as they are called by the tolerant left.

Yeah.