And another thing...

John Kerry's not aging real well either.

More Sheehanigans

First, take time to absorb that title..."More Sheehanigans," its a gift, you can't teach that. I only wish Michael Moore could was involved, "Moore Sheehanigans" is gold.

Now on to the meat. Mrs. Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct for wearing some kind of anti-war t-shirt. Now, I get that she's controversial, but this is still America. Free Speech is still a right, and the House Gallery is definitely public space, so what is unlawful conduct as it relates to a t-shirt? Mind you, she wasn't yelling, sreaming, or causing a stir, she was wearing a t-shirt. Before, when King George would disallow public dissent and make people sign loyalty oaths, it was excused as ok because it was a political rally, not a governmental affair. But that can't be the case this time can it? Its the SOTU address, not a vote rally for the GOP. It certainly appears to be a creeping standard, or more frog boiling . Public space, t-shirt, arrested. No matter how you look at it, its certainly not "original intent." I say its creepy. I also get that there won't be much ado about this.

War?

I don't have much time to go into this deeper but...I keep hearing 'bout King George's War Power Provisions, but I'm wondering about which war, and when it ends. I remember Congress declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq, but aren't we done in Afghanistan, and isn't Iraq "mission accomplished?" Since both states now have new governments of their own, aren't those wars over? I get we need to be there, but we were in Japan and Germany long after the "war" was over. I don't remember congress declaring war on terror (if I'm wrong please point me in the right direction). So far its been like the war on poverty, a named goal. If we're still at war against Afghanistan and Iraq, when are those wars over? If its against the terrorists, which ones, and when is that war over? If all these new acts are due to war, I think its fair to define those wars so we can understand the scope of the issues. If the elected officials aren't defining the scope, I think its fair to ask "why not?" I also recall a 2000 debate where King George said he wouldn't put the US into a war without a clear exit strategy. I think its time let us know what that is for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the possible war on terror.

Duh Deficit

I know that some don't think that deficits matter, and that some think that "Webster" was the greatest show of all time (I'm looking at you M3K), but look at the GAO chart. It predicts that interest alone will eat up nearly as much of the GDP as the entire budget for 2004. Sweet. Granted projections matter less that the digital paper they're printed on, this is more to illustrate that this is not free money. It has to be paid back. Now, when I then read that CBO projects the 2006 deficit to be $337 billion and that the economy continues to struggle, with a 1.1% Q4/05 (but a projected 4+ Q1/06), it is troubling.

Conservate Straight Talk

Like George Will did with Kelo, he's again spot on with his views of the the Supreme Court's upholding of Oregon's physician assisted suicide law. As I've long said, activist judges are only activist when they rule against what the GOP wants. When they overturn public law that the GOP wants gone, then that's somehow ok. Its not the value, its the result that matters. I'm glad at least one conservative hasn't lost his mind, or given up his values.

Christians Repenting?

Interesting article in the liberally biased, MSM like Christianity Today. Well, I'm not sure about that, but the article doesn't gush on and on about King George, and clearly tries to undermine both his Presidentcy and the War by mentioning 1) that his numbers among evangelicals is slipping (although the numbers are still where any politician would love to be) and 2) that the average daily US military casualties since fighting began are about 2.3. I know that Mr. Malone feels that any negative word about King George clearly comes from lying traitors who hate America, I thought the article was very interesting. I thought it did a good job with some decent numbers, and helped illuminate KING GEORGE's popularity, and why it should not be taken for granted the GOP or the Dems.

If the DNC was smart, and if I cried $100 bills, they would take the time to understand their opponent, look for common ground and isolate GOP weaknesses. Quit figting the GOP characterture. This is the problem with hatred, you wind up creating a mock enemy, and fighting the wrong fights. Never winning, and doomed to lose...hey look, that's what's happening. I'm starting a 1-900 number.

By the way, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George.

Straight Talk Depressed

John McCain was a good looking man when he was younger. Be warned Mike3000 and Unknown Blogger. Your beauty will fade!

Well maybe economic conservatism ain't dead afterall

President Bush appears reluctant to bail-out Ford and GM, saying, get this, "I think it's very important for the market to function." And Michigan is in a battle-ground state!

Now, if he'd only do something about those tarriffs.

Real quick, my favorite part of the article is, "The newspaper said while neither GM nor Ford has sought a bailout, they have dropped hints they would welcome government help in areas such as coping with rising health care and pension burdens and the high costs of developing fuel-efficient vehicles." Hey, I'd like some government money to help with my business costs too. "Hey, look over here, give me money." Consider that as my not-so-sublte hint to the Feds.

But if you read between the lines, health-care is a major issue. Insurance costs are crippling most US businesses. It won't be long before some sort of major bill hits Congress to deal with this. I've even heard Trent Lott talking about how health care costs are a major concern of his constituents. My only hope is that its not in the form of more of the unbelievably lame "Tort Reform" bills. Serioulsly, I loathe those things.

FYI

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Make mike3000 Care

Thought it'd be edifying to end each week beginning today with a chance for you, the humans, to make what should matter to me matter to me at least a little. You humans fascinate me! Shouldn't your news? ):

Among the many current events in your world to which I am regrettably indifferent, I'll choose three each Saturday morning and on the following Friday pass Final Judgement.

Use your week well, but have a care, mortals. This is not rhetorical overstatement!! Truly, I could not care less about (A) , (B) , or (C)!

Please. Will you move me?

It's Not What You Think

Not always, in any event, and certainly not when it comes to what this cementhead says about Broken Flowers. See the movie first, but know this: "It's whatever you want it to be," with rare exceptions, ranks right up there with "There's no stupid questions" on mike3000's "Wrongs to Right with a Hickory Stick" list.

Googleriffic

And I will "vigorously" use Google as my search engine. Well, me and like three billion others, but still...

0 for 2

Feared and Hated

Local Blogger Granted Wish

Hubba Hubba, Mike3000! How do you like them competitive advantages?

Duh...*hic

Ted Kennedy has written a children's book about the Senate and his dog, Splash.

When asked "Why Splash?", Kennedy said, "Well, she won't come when we call her 'Mary Jo Kopechne.'"

Duh...*hic

A new study reports that increased ad spending leads to more underage drinking. Not exactly groundbreaking news except for these parts: "The results also contradict claims that advertising is unrelated to youth drinking amounts: that advertising at best causes brand switching, only affects those older than the legal drinking age or is effectively countered by current educational efforts." And: "The study "calls into question the industry's argument that its roughly $1.8 billion in measured media expenditures per year have no impact on underage drinking."

Who accepts these "claims" and "arguments?" And if they're that bad, can they really be called arguments? Does anyone really think that somehow people under 21 are immune to advertising? Seriously, $1.8 BILLION has no impact on underage drinking? Can you just make any random claim or argument, no matter how dumb, and make it stick so well that it takes a study to refute it? Can't we all just say, "hey, I know you're getting paid to defend this, but I'm not drunk."

Actually, I get the alchohol industry's problem. It's a perfectly legal activity if you're over 21, but how do you advertise to just that demographic? Tobacco basically can't use ads and losing Winston Cup was plane idiotic. Personally, I think if its legal, you should get to try to build your product base. If its so bad you can't advertise it, make it illegal. But we all know how that goes. So we all just listen to these really bad arguements and pretend they make sense. Because if we don't the illogic of it all overwhelms us.

Well this blog doesn't tolerate illogic.

Beastiality Good, Homosexuality Bad

Talking with a friend yesterday about movies and the following came up.
Him: King Kong was actually a really romantic movie. Just a good love story.
Both of us: Blah, blah, blah for awhile.
Mrs. UBlo: What about Brokeback Mountain?
Him: No...
Her: Why not?
Him: Because...noooo...
Me: But its supposed to be a really good movie.
Him: So, its...
Me: But is supposed to be a good love story.
Him: Nawww.

So to recap.
Blond + Giant Gorilla = Sweet romantic story
Cowboy + Cowboy = Gross

I think the homosexual agenda people need to hire the Giant Gorilla Love Association's PR folks

Let Me See Your ID

Let’s pick up here where we left off.

Atmospheric electrical discharges occur naturally and are observable. Their presence in a primitive environment along with methane released from the earth, among other substances, is a possible explanation of the origins of life on Earth.

It’s a reasonable theory because it’s based on and supported by what we can observe and demonstrate, from the outgassing of methane from naturally occurring deposits around the world to the creation of amino acids with methane and other substances in a godless public school science lab.

But I digress, and so have you, repeatedly.

Why is ID, as you say, a reasonable theory? Your argument so far is based entirely on what mainstream biology fails to explain, and not at all on what ID as a theory is about.

My hunch: It’s not the theory of ID that’s persuaded you, but the fact that science gets taken on faith.

Am I mistaken? Show me.