Is there anyone patriotic in The Big Zero's administration?

Hope and Change.

Barack Obama on Tuesday gave up his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second high-profile appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, fearing ugly confirmation battles that would undercut his claims to ethical high ground and cripple his presidency in just its second week. "I screwed up," he declared.

"It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules - you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said in one of a series of interviews with TV anchors.

"I'm frustrated with myself, with our team. ... I'm here on television saying I screwed up," Obama said in an interview on NBC's "Nightly News with Brian Williams." He repeated virtually the same words in several other interviews.

The White House announced that Daschle had asked to be removed from consideration as health and human services secretary and that that Nancy Killefer had made the same request concerning what was to be her groundbreaking appointment as a chief performance officer to make the entire government run better.

"They both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard of who serves," said spokesman Gibbs.

I think that Plugs walked up to them, told them they weren't patriots, and that was that. Just like he did here:

It's all part of being The Big Zero's wing man. Who will be the next person to feel Plugs' sting?

"Why I'm voting democrat"

A couple of years ago, my brother told me the story of a political discussion he had with a fellow employee. My brother was trying to explain his views of limited government to the employee and was getting nowhere. So he decided to switch things up. He asked the employee to explain his view of politics. Here's a paraphrase of what the employee said:

I just think that when Republicans are in power, they make us responsible for everything. But when Democrats are in power, the government takes over and they're responsible.

All my brother could do was sit back and say, "you know what? You should vote Democrat."

And that's the sentiment reflected in this brilliant video.

How disgusting

Seventy-four senators voted tonight to usher in Socialism to the United States of America. And in typical, bi-partisan, senatorial form, it's loaded with pork.

With each permutation, the bill has steadily grown in size. Treasury’s initial plan was about three pages long. The House version, which failed, stretched to 110. The Senate substitute now runs over 450 pages. And tucked away in the tax provisions is a landmark health care provision demanding that insurance companies provide coverage for mental health treatment—such as hospitalization—on parity with physical illnesses.

Really a bill onto itself, the mental health parity measure has been a bipartisan priority for top lawmakers in both chambers but has stalled because of disagreements again over how to pay for its estimated $3.8 billion five-year cost. In the current climate, that seems to be no longer a stumbling block, and if the Treasury plan becomes law, it will also.

House Republicans, we need you now more than ever. Please, please, please stay strong.

Defeat-ocrats are the ones who voted down the "bailout" bill

One more thing that is truly bugging me about all this and most assuredly hasn't received the attention it needs.

Republicans are not the ones who voted down this bill. Defeat-ocrats are the ones who voted down this ridiculous "bailout" bill. 218 votes are needed for a simple majority. There are 235 Defeat-ocrats in the house. Notice how 235 is greater than 218? Not one single Republican vote was needed to get this repugnant bill passed. The Defeat-ocrats—the ones who don't want us to win in war, the ones who regularly pit class against class in their own country, the ones who see government as the solution to every problem—are responsible for the "bailout" being voted down. Their goal was to get just enough votes from Republicans to hang the responsibility for Socialism on Republican necks. Praise God Almighty it didn't work.

So when Bug Eyes gets or one of her mind-numbed minions gets on television and spews the lie about Republicans defeating the bill, make sure you call her a liar to her bug-eyed face.

Bill Clinton polarizes the election and then warns us that politics has become polarized

The left's unwillingness to face their own short comings knows no bounds. Look at this headline from USA Today:

Bill Clinton warns of political polarization

Is that absolutely astonishing or what.

Of all the human beings converting oxygen into carbon dioxide that this moment, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton dares to warn people about politics becoming polarized.

Former President Bill Clinton warned Saturday that the country is becoming increasingly polarized despite the historic nature of the Democratic primary.

Speaking at the National Governors Association's semiannual meeting, Clinton noted that on the one hand, following the early stages of the Democratic primary, "the surviving candidates were an African-American man and a woman."

Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, battled for the Democratic nomination into June with fellow Democrat Barack Obama, son of a white mother and black father.

But this achievement was overshadowed by a growing distance between Americans, said Clinton.

"Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference," Clinton said.

What a laugh. The man who waged class warfare as a standard operating procedure for eight years from the White House now says we shouldn't worry about our differences. The real news here is that some "journalist" wrote this story without pointing out the gargantuan bucket of hypocrisy tied to Slick Willie's ankle.

Stephen Breyer, protector of child rapists

In a Supreme Court opinion released today, the contemptible Stephen Breyer concurred with the excrable Anthony Kennedy in saying:

Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule. See Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As we shall discuss, punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 999 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Part IV–B, infra. It is the last of these, retribution, that most often can contradict the law’s own ends. This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

...

Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is a description of the crime that, according to Justice Breyer, does not merit the death penalty.

Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped. He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

I guess miserable pieces of human debris have to stick up for each other.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, protector of child rapists

In a Supreme Court opinion released today, the wretched Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the excrable Anthony Kennedy in saying:

Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule. See Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As we shall discuss, punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 999 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Part IV–B, infra. It is the last of these, retribution, that most often can contradict the law’s own ends. This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

...

Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is a description of the crime that, according to Justice Ginsburg, does not merit the death penalty.

Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped. He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

I guess miserable pieces of human debris have to stick up for each other.

David Souter, protector of child rapists

In a Supreme Court opinion released today, the vile David Souter concurred with the excreable Anthony Kennedy in saying:

Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule. See Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As we shall discuss, punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 999 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Part IV–B, infra. It is the last of these, retribution, that most often can contradict the law’s own ends. This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

...

Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is a description of the crime that, according to Justice Souter, does not merit the death penalty.

Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped. He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

I guess miserable pieces of human debris have to stick together.

John Paul Stevens, protector of child rapists

In a Supreme Court opinion released today, the miserable John Paul Stevens concurred with the excreable Anthony Kennedy in saying:

Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule. See Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As we shall discuss, punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 999 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Part IV–B, infra. It is the last of these, retribution, that most often can contradict the law’s own ends. This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

...

Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is a description of the crime that, according to Justice Stevens, does not merit the death penalty.

Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped. He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

I guess miserable pieces of human debris have to stick up for each other.

Anthony Kennedy, protector of child rapists

In a Supreme Court opinion released today, the excrable Anthony Kennedy said:

Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule. See Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As we shall discuss, punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 999 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Part IV–B, infra. It is the last of these, retribution, that most often can contradict the law’s own ends. This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

...

Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is a description of the crime that, according to Justice Kennedy, does not merit the death penalty.

Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped. He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

I guess miserable pieces of human debris have to stick up for one another.

God Bless You, Linda Daves

Linda Daves, North Carolina Republican Party Chairwoman, has told the Troll to go jump in the lake, figuratively speaking.

State GOP Chairwoman Linda Daves reiterated in a statement Thursday that the ad will run.

“There has never been any intention to pull the ad and it will air,” she said. “The ‘Extreme’ ad has garnered attention around the country. I want to thank the people across North Carolina and across the country who have shown overwhelming support for us. Our aim is to tell the truth and ask difficult questions. We will continue to do so.”

Be strong, Ms. Daves.

Here's the ad:

Humility, Client 9 style

Here's the transcript of Client 9's resignation statement.

In the past few days, I have begun to atone for my private failings with my wife Silda, my children and my entire family.

The remorse I feel will always be with me. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me. From those who much has been given, much is expected. I have been given much — the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York, and the chance to leave this state.

I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me.

To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize.

I look at my time as governor with a sense of what might have been. But I also know, that as a public servant, I and the remarkable people with whom I work, have accomplished a great deal. There is much more to be done and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work.

Over the course of my public life, I have insisted I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor. At Lieutenant Governor Patterson’s request, the resignation will be effective Monday, March 17, a date that he believes will permit an orderly transition.

I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that as human beings, our greatest glory consists not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.

As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family. Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children.

I hope all of New York will join my prayers for my friend David Patterson as he embarks on his new mission and I thank the public once again for the privilege of service. Thank you very much.

Score: 41 I/me/my references.

"Client 9" works on his resume

For Defeat-ocrats, this kind of thing is supposed to be resume enhancement.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer promised voters he would clean up the state's corrupt political ethics, but a report on Monday that he is linked to a prostitution ring is threatening to derail the career of a man once considered a political star.

The 48-year-old Democrat has blazed a national reputation as "Mr. Clean," advocating for the underdog and tackling corporate greed on Wall Street.

Spitzer saw himself following in the footsteps of the state's many well-known governors, from Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt to Nelson Rockefeller, and some speculated he could eventually make a run for the White House.

But on Monday, the New York Times reported Spitzer had been caught on a federal wiretap last month as he arranged to meet a prostitute. Spitzer apologized to his family at a news conference, saying he had violated his, "or any -- sense of right and wrong."

What? You've got to be kidding me. Since when did a Defeat-ocrat worry about "right and wrong"?

Attention Governor Spitzer's staff: you are going about this the completely wrong way. You need to have a party tomorrow, similar to Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Impeachment Pep Rally. Remember that? After all, this is just about sex. It doesn't really matter. Put the FBI on the defensive. Ask them why they're going around looking at people's sex lives. Tell them they need to get to work solving real crimes.

What kind of crazy talk is this? Music can NOT change the world?

First we find out Botox is not perfectly safe, and now this?

Canadian folk rock legend Neil Young said he has lost all hope that music can change the world, as he presented a documentary about his 2006 anti-war concert tour at the Berlin film festival on Friday.

"I know that the time when music could change the world is past. I really doubt that a single song can make a difference. It is a reality," Young told reporters.

"I don't think the tour had any impact on voters."

Again, I'm stunned. I mean, really, just think of all the many wars that have been ended by a great song. And all the riots that have melted away by playing just the right tune. And now we hear it can't really happen after all.

Neil, where's your faith?

Young said he deliberately included interviews with unimpressed critics and soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in the documentary of his band's "Freedom of Speech" reunion tour, which earned them both praise and death threats.

"Otherwise I thought it would just feel like a bunch of old hippies. And nobody would care. I would not, I would have left," said Young, who directs his films under the pseudonym Bernard Shakey.

No, no, no, Neil. No one would ever think of you and your friends as just a bunch of old hippies. Never ever. I mean it.

For sure, dude.

Liberal compassion and tolerance on display...through "Global Warming"

You can write books on liberal hypocrisy, and some already have. Here's an example for the next volume. Scanning through the Drudge Report this morning, I saw this link: "PAPER: Global Warming Will Save America from the Right Wing". And I couldn't resist.

It's a commentary written by Dave Lindorff for the Baltimore Chronicle. First of all, he's a believer in the Religion of Global Warming. Therefore, we know he's incredibly gullible and will believe the wildest of ideas based on little or no evidence. Anyway, the premise of Dave's commentary is that as the sea level rises, as the Religion prescribes, the most affected areas will be:

the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.

Hmmm. Notice anything about the future below sea level areas? There's more.

Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.

Wow. Feel the love.

Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.

Gee, how did he eve manage to write something while being so overwhelmed with sympathy...never mind.

Here's some advice to you believers in the Religion of Global Warming. Just let us Conservatives (that is, users of brains) do what we want and warm the globe. You continue to drive your hybrids, bring your own bags to the grocery store, and not use toilet paper (please stay out of my nasal sensorium). And in a few years the sea level will rise enough to wipe us Conservatives away. Because, of course, we won't move or anything like that. We'll just stay put here in Houston and allow the water to rise over our heads. We simply wouldn't contemplate moving to higher ground.

Note: I recently read State of Fear. Fantastic blog material on this topic. Stay tuned.

"Remember how we assumed you were guilty, suspended your team, and fired your coach? Yeah, about that, we're sorry. Are we good now?"

The understatement of the year award goes to Duke University President Richard Brodhead who finally apologized yesterday for his reprehensible actions.

Brodhead, speaking at the university's law school, said he regretted Duke's "failure to reach out" in a "time of extraordinary peril" after a woman accused three players of raping her at a March 2006 party thrown by the team.

"Given the complexities of this case, getting the communication right would never have been easy," Brodhead said. "But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it and I apologize for it."

"Given the complexities of this case..." How complex it is to understand that, in the United States, people are presumed innocent? Not very. The article finishes with this paragraph:

Brodhead said the university is planning a national conference of lawyers, educators and student affairs leaders to discuss how schools should deal with students facing serious criminal charges.

Isn't that a crack up. Just hang up a big sign that says "Don't do what we did" and be done with it. No word yet from the Gang of 88 on their apology ETA.

I have all sorts of offsets for sale

WARNING: Heavy sarcasm ahead.

While pursuing the great Power Line, I came across this post that lead me to this article. Please read them both. Peter Schweizer is a wonderful author, so you won't be let down.

In this article, Schweizer has a fantastic proposal. He argues that carbon offsets are nothing more than a method of purchasing absolution of guilt. From the article:

Say you are wealthy and fly on a Gulfstream G400 jet. The plane will emit 1 ton of CO2 per passenger per hour. Flying commercial on a Boeing 777 will emit only .06 tons per passenger per hour. Wealthy environmentalists feel guilt about this, so they buy a carbon offset to supposedly reduce carbon emissions by an equal amount. The "offset" comes in the form of paying for solar panels or planting trees that "offset" the damage you have done. Buy an offset and — voilà — you are "carbon neutral."

Sounds like absolution to me. And there's already a market for this stuff. Schweizer continues:

Offsets are a brilliant idea: They allow people to carry on with their current behavior, buy their way out of their obligations, and along the way declare their moral cleanliness. As The Seattle Times put it, offsets are basically an "eraser."

We all have areas of our life that we feel guilty about. So why limit offsets simply to the carbon we produce? Why not expand offsets to erase our other sins? After all, why should environmentalists have all the fun?

Here are some suggestions:

• The Adultery Offset.

STOP RIGHT THERE! I read that line and instantly beheld a method of funding two college educations. To wit...

I am hereby announcing ADULTERY OFFSETS for sale to the highest bidder. You may purchase these offsets in daily, weekly, or monthly quantities. I have not committed adultery and will not as long as I am married to Mrs. Light Bulb. Therefore I have an eleven year supply (and building) of offsets. Serious purchasers only may contact me at thelightbulbblog at gmail dot com.

End of heavy sarcasm.

I may have to re-think this sarcasm thing.

Why is Barry Manilow afraid of a little girl?

Ridiculous.

"I had made a request that I be interviewed by (co-hosts) Joy (Behar), Barbara (Walters) or Whoopi (Goldberg), but not Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out," he said in a statement on his Web site (http://www.manilow.com).

"It's really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show [The View], but I cannot compromise my beliefs."

In an earlier statement to the news Web site TMZ.com, which broke the news, Manilow said Hasselbeck was "dangerous" and "offensive."

And for those of you who don't know (and I hope that's a lot of you), Elisabeth is the (more) conservative host of the show.

Typical liberalism. They can't defend their beliefs, so they certainly don't want any questions about them. I wonder (not really, but for the sake of argument) what would happen if someone said that Whoopi was "offensive" (which she is).

Algore could fart and win an award in Hollywood...

...and they wouldn't even make him use any carbon credits.

I'm watching the Emmy Awards this evening. And for the category of "Best Alternative Program" or something like that, who did the television academy choose to honor? None other than Algore, because he and another guy started MySpace. (I think. I can't remember the specific award, and I really don't care)

Could these people be any more transparent? Oh, and the applause went on for quite a while, of course. I guess they were trying to bring to life their warped version of reality, if only for 30 seconds on an awards show. I have now had my quota of the loony left for the weekend.

Fairness Doctrine preview

You can bet that the lefties in the Senate will now give some serious consideration to reviving yet another awful monster, the Fairness Doctrine. After their defeat yesterday, largely won by conservative talk radio, all the lefties can see is a communication vehicle that they can't control. And uncontrolled communication is anathema to liberalism. A great commenter, Samuel Adams, brought to my attention the fact that the House overwhelmingly voted down the Fairness Doctrine, 309-115. But, we have to remember our enemy. They can be single-mindedly relentless.

Therefore, as a public service to you, dear reader, I will begin, from time to time, making Fairness Doctrine posts in order for us all to appreciate the freedoms we hold dear. These posts will seek to convey some the wisdom that liberalism can provide to different points of view. Through these posts I hope to show you the depths of understanding that the liberal mind possesses on the various issues of our day. It is my fervent wish that all of us, in the altruistic spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, gain insight into profound liberal thought.

The following is a post in accordance with the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. It is an attempt to provide balance to Mr. Light Bulb's conservative point of view. It is only an attempt.

Bush lied, people died.

This has been a post in accordance with the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. It was an attempt to provide balance to Mr. Light Bulb's conservative point of view. It was only an attempt.