The Science Is Settled, Right?

On the one hand I find this this verdict ridiculous and dangerous.

On the other hand I am reminded of the arrogance and certainty that members of the Church of Global Warming hold when parroting their leader, Al Gore's, pap. Rising sea levels, rising temps, etc. If those people are so certain about the weather in 100 years (remember, there's no need for discussion) then perhaps they should be held accountable for deaths caused by failed predictions. Didn't advise correctly on the path of the tornado, manslaughter conviction for you.

Illegal to rent to illegals?

As our general rule goes... If the ACLU is for something, we're against it. If the ACLU is against something, we're for it... and in this case, we're really for it.

To Quote the Associated Press:

Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a suburb's new law that outlaws renting to undocumented illegal immigrants, alleging the ordinance violates federal law and forces landlords to act as immigration officers.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of residents and landlords in Farmers Branch, Texas.
Plaintiffs include two landlords as well as Latino legal permanent residents and U.S. citizen children who fear the ordinance will force them to separate from relatives or leave their homes, the suit said.
The law, along with a measure that made English the official language of the city, was passed in November and is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 12.

Well, these organizations always seam to be confused with the word undocumented "Illegal" so let me help them out:

According to Dictionary.com:

undocumented il•le•gal [i-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun
3. Informal: undocumented illegal alien
1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

Okay. So, the definition of undocumented "Illegal" is something forbidden by law or statute (like my summer driving). That’s pretty easy. So, to use this cool new word we've all learned together, things that are undocumented "illegal" are forbidden.

Then it goes on to define for us undocumented "Illegal Alien" (which is interchangeable with undocumented "Illegal Immigrant," you can look it up if you don't believe me) as a foreigner who enters the country unlawfully or without our (the United States of America's) authorization.

This is fun. In general, Undocumented Illegal Immigrants are not cool. You still with me, ACLU?

Now, thanks to them being undocumented "Illegal" we can do things like tell employers that they can not be hired and deny them things like 'government assistance' for housing. This is where it really gets fun.

HOW THE JUNK ARE YOU GOING TO LEGALLY PAY FOR YOUR APARTMENT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGAL FRACK'IN JOB!?

Seriously! Can anyone at the ACLU answer this one for me? And donations from the Anti-Christian Liberties Union whops... American Communist Liberties Union was that in my outside voice? Ah Hem! Handouts from the American Civial Liberties Union don't count.

So, IF for some reason, an undocumented illegal immigrant could pay for their nice little apartment in Dallas, one of the things you need to show when getting an apartment is a form of ID, and there’s this whole renters credit thing that you get for renting instead of owning, and if you're not supposed-to be here anyway, well, that just fracks that whole thing up. Its a total paperwork mess, not to mention the people trying to get an apartment or whatever are here undocumentedly ILLEGALY! They should be shipped back home, politely asked to remove the Mexican Flag from the back window of their Ford F-150, and to apply for citizenship, in which case, Tony and I will welcome them with open arms, so that they may be assimilated into our culture.

But until that day... Until they have paperwork saying they are here legally, they are not entitled to a place to work, a place to live, or a pot to pee in. They are entitled to Jack.

Legislation Gone Wild: Trans Fats Edition

Usually, once every day, something happens to me that I can't believe... I get out of another speeding ticket, I put down the Xbox 360 controler to actually go to work, or make it to Lifetime Fitness to work out instead of driving to McDonalds by mistake, but today, it would fit in the "Stupid Stuff Someone In Government Does" category. A category once reserved for anything John Kerry says, or the idea that Heroin should be made legal.

New York City has passed legislation that by July 2008, will ban outlaw Transative Fats in prepaired (from resteraunts) foods. And its not just Burgers and Fries that are affected. here is a short list of things that I can not live without:

• Cheesecake (yes, famous New York cheesecake)
• Pizza
• Cookies
• doughnuts
• butter (even the "extra light spreads")
• French Freedom Fries
• Ranch, French Salad dressing
• Beef (any kind, because the flavor comes from fat!)
• Sausage
• Any buttered Microwave popcorn
• Milk Freaking Chocolate
• Eggs

Oh, so wait, all we have to do is just use different ingredients, right?

Nope. Think about it. The food sells because people like it. If you change (in most cases) one ingredient, you have to alter the entire recipe to account for the change of taste. Then, you have to alter how it is cooked, and change how that food is supplied to the restraints (as if one city bans something, doesn't mean everyone else is going to be so stupid) so the rest of the nation can go on eating what we want.

And lets not forget the advertising. Much like the automobile manufactures in the 80s did when many of them went to Front Wheel Drive, These food/restaurant companies are going to have to spend millions billions to try to convince that the new way is better, that everything is going to be more tasty then it was, or taste just fine. But look how many manufactures are going back to rear wheel drive (or some who have not changed). The people who pay for stuff know better, or they have a preference for one thing over another. there is no way you can take all the food that’s out now, completely re-make it in less then 18 months, and say that you will like it better now... because if there was a better tasting version, we would be ordering it currently.

And do you think it will be free for the companies to do all this? No. And who do you think Outback Steakhouse or McDonalds will pass the savings expense onto? The people who purchase the stuff in the first place. And you wonder why you can't buy a car for less then 10k. (much like cars with all the government mandated safety systems and computer controlled stuff, inflation does not account for all of the expense increases)


Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Selvester Stalone plays John Sparten, to make a long story short, he is frozen for a while then thawed to fix what the current "administration" can't handle... a big bad ciminal. when he awakes, this conversation takes place:

John Spartan: You, get me a Marlboro.
Alfredo Garcia: Yes, of course....What's a Marlboro?
John Spartan: It's a cigarette. Any cigarette.
Lt. Lenina Huxley: Smoking is not good for you.Anything not good for you is bad... Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine,contact sports, meat--
John Spartan: You have got to be sh**'in me!

As John later figures out, salt is illegal also. New York has taken the second step in becomming a nanny state (the first was outlawing smoking in resteraunts). Sooner or later, it is only logical to outlaw Salt, because salt too, can kill... But then again, so can Water if you have too much of it. What are you going to do about Dihydrogen Monoxide, New york?

So, what, there is no way companies will get rid of Trans Fats unless the Government (with a capital G) steps in and makes them?

The government (small g) is not needed. Wendy's introduced Zero-Trans fat oil in August, and others are working on it, including YUM Brand Inc.'s Taco Bell & KFC. Taco Bell has worked for over two years to find a way to do it, while using blind consumer taste tests and a huge amount of research.

“We conducted a tremendous amount of consumer research to make this the right choice for our customers,” said Emil J. Brolick, Taco Bell’s president.

Companies will do this on their own, because the market will dictate it. People choose with their money. Its a wonderful system we have here (capatalism) and its a shame whenever Government (big G) has a chance to step in and foul it up.

Fired Illegals Sue Former Employer

This is a tricky situation...on the surface.

A group of illegal immigrants who worked for Wendy's International Inc. is suing the restaurant chain because the company fired them after discovering it had missed a deadline for joining a federal program that would have helped them attain legal status.
...
40 illegal immigrants say they were fired after the company recently found that Boyar & Miller, the law firm Wendy's had hired, never filed paperwork for a 2001 legalization program that allowed immigrants with employer sponsorship or an American spouse to apply for citizenship.

Now on the one hand they were fired because Wendy's contracted bunch of lawyers failed to file paperwork on behalf of the Wendy's employees to make the employees "legal immigrants". So, yeah, I could understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit.

On the other hand, they are illegal immigrants and should not be employed in the first place.

So really, the loser of this case is going to be the one who disregarded the law more. Either the company will lose and will have to pay out...that they get for hiring illegals in the first place. Or the illegals will lose and get nothing...that they get for disregarding the laws about legally entering this country.

Again, the answer to illegal immigration is fining heavily the companies that hire illegals...very heavily. Then this kind of thing would not happen...and the incentive for illegals to come here to this country would disaapear.

California sues 6 auto makers over Global Warming

California is suing 6 auto makers (including: Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan. What, no BMW or VW?), charging that:

greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars

Wait... they have got to be kidding... maybe I haven't read far enough. Lets see what MSNBC is reporting here...

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a “public nuisance” by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Woha, no, their not kidding. They actually believe this crap! Lets see... how is MSNBC reporting it:

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

Bull! How can they say this?? Linked to global warming?? According to the EPA, Carbon Dioxide isn't even a pollutant! I've asked questions on this before... questions, in fact, to other members of The Church of Global Warming while at All Gore's fantasy movie.

I've shown graphs like this:



And still, dispite the fact that my Chevy Tahoe wasn't around with the dianasaurs... my Chevy Tahoe is causing it now? All Gore mentioned temps weren’t going up and down when he showed the graph going back 1000 years, but the graph he showed going back 600 thousand years wend up and down as well. New York Times has jumped around on the global warming topic:

Sept 18, 1924: "MacMillian reports signs of New Ice Age"

March 27 1933: "America in longest warm spell since 1776; Temperature line records a 25 year rise"

May 21, 1975: "Scientists ponder why world's climage is changing; A major cooling widley considered to be inevitable"

Time magazine has also been on this:

Sept 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recient years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age"

Jan 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

June 24, 1974: Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studing may be the harbinger of another ice age."

April 9, 2001; "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact hat humans are at least partly responsible."

So, the three questions I've posed:

1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our fault this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous periods?
2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)
3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.
   I don't doubt that the earth MAY be getting warmer, after all, from what I can tell, we're at a low now. But unless you can answer these questions, then there is no reason to believe that humans are causing global warming. I tried asking these questions at the viewing of All Gore's Fantasy movie, but after people stopped booing someone challenging them, the only answers I got involved Big Oil, and Hurricane Katrina.

To these questions, the normal responses are something like this guy here:

1. To my 1st Question: The Earth has natural temperature cycles and no scientist will claim differently. The way in which the earth can do that is through numerous and complex systems that help it to regulate temperature. Man is having an impact on those systems because of our activity - that is what the science shows. When enough of those systems get thrown out of whack it will have disastrous consequences.

2. The answer to my 2nd question: Think about a bathtub - if you draw a really hot bath the water is very hot when you first get in. But once you've been in there for a while you get used to it. Humans have no frame of reference for the past. Furthermore, the analogy of a frog in a beaker of boiling water in Gore's movie is a good one too. If you are in a system and it gets hotter gradually you don't notice.

3. The answer to my third quesiton: This is where all of the misinformation starts coming in. It is in fact true that we have only been physically recording temperatures for a short period of time. But it is also true that scientists have been able to determine temperatures for a much greater period of history based on things like ice core samples. If you watch the movie you'll see some of that data and you are welcome to explore it yourself. I have also seen a few programs on the Discovery channel on that subject.
---
"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly." John F. Kennedy
Raven – August 7, 2006 – 7:14pm

I can't make this up, folks. This guy babbles completly around 3 very good questions that shake the very foundation of the Church's belief. (When I say "The Church" i'm refering to the Church of Global Warming). I need to take a minute, these people form the Church of Global Warming anger me so much, I need to let out some stress... I know the perfect way. I'll go out and drive my Trans Am. More to this... when I get back.

********** Update: 10:30pm **********

Ahhh, there is nothing like the feeling of an American V8 engine running through a 6-speed transmission. Freek'in Orgasmic.
Anywhoo, back to the crazyness. So far, NO LIBERAL ARGUEMENT has been able to answer the questions I’ve asked. No one from the Church is able to tell my why the earth's temperature seams to now be lower then the norm (in the span of the Earth's history).
And this thing in California. What we have here, friends, is a horrible disgrace... an attack on industry, funded by the California nutball government. By suing these auto manufactures, they are FORCED (much like they auto industry is forced to do so many other things) to spend money to defend themselves. BIG money. The numbers are not out yet, but I bet you my left Chrome exhaust tip that the money spent on lawyers alone will be more then I can make in 20 years.
All for what? For some Treehuggers to try to stick it to the man? For some UofM student to feel better about their Hybrid?
No, I'll tell you what this is.
The number one reason this lawsuit is going on is for the Church to push the Global Warming issue into the spotlight and to put it through, in one final giant push, as Proof that this crap is happening, and that Humans Americans are causing it. And the American public is so caught up in this hysteria.
Now, watch me spin it like it was Vinyl.
When anyone tries to prove that humans are causing Global Warming, and I mean realy prove (none of this Katic Couric garbage), they are going to ask questions like I asked. Questions that can't be answered with the kind of answers the Church wants to hear. And when the dust settles, this rabbit hunt that the Democrats and their Church are playing, will turn in to a pot of gold. A pot of gold with a big huge sign that says "The Earth has warmed without Chevy Tahoes, and it will warm with Chevy Tahoes."
But you could easily burry this type of news in the "opinion" section of the StarFib and call it "the speak of Sock Puppets of the Administration, backed by the greed of Corporate America."
Man, I can read these guys like Dr. Seuss can lay down the rhymes.

School's 'No Drug Policy' is Void While Making Fun of President Bush

Pete here, forwarding to you a little "common sense."

Many schools have a Zero tolerance for drugs, Including images on t-shirts and what not.

apparently this policy can be voided if you Bush-Bash at the same time:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/26631prs20060830.html

Now, just the fact that this lawsuit was brought on by the ACLU would be enough for me to disagree with it, but because I am an open minded "Moderate" we will hear them out. Here is the T-Shirt they are defending:

You can read the entire ruling here.

Paragraph 16 goes over the School's dress code policy, which states (in part):

"We recognize that personal expression through dress is an important aspect of our culture for developing a sense of individualism, and this should be allowed to develop within our system. However, we must remember we are a part of an academic community and our guidelines must reflect a sense of responsibility and integrity.

"Any aspect of a person's appearance, which constitutes a real hazard to the health and safety of self and others or is otherwise distracting, is unacceptable as an expression of personal taste. Example [Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence, obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility and integrity guidelines as a school and is prohibited.]" (Brackets in original.)

Okay, So clothing that displays drugs or alcohol are prohibited. I can understand this, after all, this is a school of minors. That and we must be responsible with what we throw on.

Paragraph 17 and 18 is where I think the judge was paid off by the ACLU:

17. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally overboard in that it sweeps within the terms of its prohibition a very substantial amount of protected political speech, including Zachary's t-shirt criticizing and satirizing President Bush.

18. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally vague in that it is laden with terms whose meaning is unclear, both facially and when read in context.

Bullshit! Bull Crap! The policy does not say that a T-Shirt criticizing and satirizing President Bush violates their dress code, it says that "Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence, obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility and integrity guidelines as a school and is prohibited." (note they use the word President in front of Bush, which is the proper way of addressing our President, whether you like him or not)

Though I think those who relate President Bush to Hitler, or anyone with a Anti-President Bush t-shirt is mis-informed especially at 14 years old), I would have no problem with this kid wearing an Anti-President Bush t-shirt if it was within the polices of the school. As in: No Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism

But this t-shirt contained lines of Cocaine, a Razor, and a Straw (the razor and straw are used for the intake of the cocaine),therefore is against the school's Policy.

In Paragraph 19 of the ruling, it states:

Defendants' actions in disciplining Zachary for wearing his anti-Bush t-shirt are based in part on its message. Defendants have permitted students to wear t-shirts expressing viewpoints opposed to Zachary's, including, by way of example, "These Colors Don't Run," "Go Army," "USA #1," and t-shirts promoting the National Guard. No students wearing such t-shirts have been disciplined for doing so.

Okay. So they are saying "Because other people have their Pro USA propaganda, you can have your Anti-Bush Propaganda." What do I think:

1. A 14 year old is not wise enough to make political decisions. This is why a 14 year old does not vote.
2. This issue has more to do with your opinion on the leader of the United States.
3. Did the Pro-USA T-Shirts have Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism on them?

So then, would it be okay to have a picture of a political figure that was Jewish being shot by Nazis, then some clever line about him being a bad politician?

Or what about a shirt with President Clinton and a phrase like "He F***ed an intern while he was married and F***ing lied aboutin frontit infront of a F***ing federal hearing"

Don't get me worng, I wear T-shirts that allow me to express myself (my Anti-Apple one is probably my favorite). But If my Anti-Apple T-shirt had a graphic representation of Steve Jobes snorting cocaine (or a clever line like the President Clinton t-shirt I mentioned) and my employer told me I couldn't wear it because it goes against their "nothing offensive" policy, would the ACLU run to my cause?

********** TONY ADDS **********
Quickly, I think this was the real danger in the Supreme Court's Tinker ruling. Kids do NOT have rights. They have potential rights. Even moreso they do not have full rights which properly would exclude from children's rights the First Amendment.

I think you can expect the lunacy over decades and decades to get worse in this regard before it is corrected.

**********Pete UPDATE**********

This brings up a good question: Should 13 year olds be allowed to vote?

I bring this up because of the ACLU's suit with the kid wearing the Anti-Bush t-shirt with drugs on it, being (and I quote) "a form of constitutionally protected political speech"

If this boy is "constitutionally protected" then does not the entire Constitution apply to him, including:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

You can vote on it here... If you're old enough.

When is a religion actually a religion

What makes a "religion" a religion? Why do I ask? This guy's defense for his crimes is, well, it is part of his "sacred religious rituals".

Admitted pedophile Phillip Distasio offered a bizarre defense Wednesday to 74 charges of rape, drugs and pandering obscenity to minors.

Distasio, 34, told a Cuyahoga County judge that his Rocky River apartment was a religious sanctuary where engaging in sex with boys and smoking marijuana were considered sacred rituals and are protected under civil rights laws.

"I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years," Distasio said during a pretrial hearing in Common Pleas Court. "The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."

No. It is not that we do not believe a child can CONSENT to sex. It is that we do not trust their cognition on such matters. It is that we do not believe they are capable of making responsible decisions.

In fact, it is also partially based on the idea that there are not "rights" for children. They are not adults and do not get "rights". They are protected under "potential rights" (and not in the bastardized sense that pro-abortionists state).

"Rights" come hand in hand with "responsibilities" and "obligations" toward society. Since we do not hold children to be able to be either "responsible" or "obligated" to society we can not afford them "rights". However, because they will potentially get those rights they are protected under the most basic rights. This is the reason children cannot enter contracts. This is the premise the wipes clean a juvenile's criminal record.

Now understanding that distinction in society's trust of children's ability to make decisions you should understand why Distasio is completely off base in his quote, "The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex".

The next parameter in that statement is the abdication of his own responsibility to 'right' and 'wrong'. He is choosing 'wrong' (which is rape, sex w/ a minor, etc.) but then putting the onus of the decision making process on the children. This is the same as the "hot" teachers that have sex with their students. There people defend the teachers by saying, "the students enjoyed/wanted it". But they are the children and not expected to make those decisions. The adult is expected to make those decisions.

Judge Kathleen Sutula warned Distasio, a self-appointed friar who compares himself to St. Francis and St. Ignatius, to confine his arguments to secular laws at his trial, scheduled to begin Sept. 11.

"If you want to challenge the law, that's your right to do so," Sutula said. "But we're going to follow the laws of Ohio in this courtroom."

I am glad to see that the judge recognizes Distasio's right to 'challenge the law'. That IS everyone's right. Most people tend to miss the fact that to challenge the law you must suffer the consequences of the law until the law is overturned.

Police arrested Distasio in September on charges he molested two disabled boys he was tutoring at his home and of raping seven other autistic children at a Cleveland school for special-needs students. All but one of the boys was under 13, which carries a mandatory life-in-prison sentence if he is convicted.

Police found journals at Distasio's Wooster Road apartment in which he described his activities, plus child pornography and videotapes of him engaged in sex with boys.

Vigilantism has hardly seemed more called for than here.

Distasio tried unsuccessfully in June to fire his court-appointed lawyer, Thomas Shaughnessy, who refused to go along with his religious-freedom defense.

A lawyer who has some morals? The world truly is coming to an end!

"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio said. "It's an argument that I'm willing to make, but my attorney is not."

I'm trying to keep it clean here, so what really is there to say about that?

Hey, Distasio...ALL pedophilia is bad. ALL sex with boys is unhealthy. At least wait until they are adults. At least stay away from the disabled, autistic and special needs people. "Pervert" is not harsh enough. Pond scum? Something else...a little help here.

Here is why I ask someone to articulate the moment a "religion" becomes a religion. A religion is granted certain freedoms for their practices. If noone can articulate how a "religion" becomes a religion then eventually there will no way to tell someone their "church" is not protected. Why does this exercise in semantics matter? Because without a clear articulation, well, read this first.

In motions filed with Sutula, Distasio accused prosecutors of threatening to dismantle his church, which he calls Arcadian Fields Ministries.

He described his apartment as a sanctuary, a place of worship, and a safe alternative to prison for a congregation of social dissidents.

Distasio said he and his congregation consider the justice system to be corrupt and addicted to punishment, and should be abandoned.

He complained to Sutula that prosecutors are preventing him from writing to his "congregants" and of calling them as defense witnesses because they are among the victims in the case.

Without a clear articulation insanity like this eventually will be legally legitimate and "churches" like this will eventually get protection for their practices, rituals, etc.