It seems that there is a group of people who are flagging conservative blogs (on blogger) as spam, the blogs are shut down and at least one of them (SWAC Girl) as been put back up…minus her archive.

HT: Gay Patriot

From the Assistant Village Idiot

Archie has occurred to me a lot recently. I saw very few episodes of the show, but discussion of Archie was always in the air in the 1970’s. Perhaps I haven’t given it due credit in my journey from left to right on the political spectrum. My politics aligned somewhat with Michael’s, but I found him an unlikeable character. The show had clearly lined up to show Archie and his ideas in the worst possible light, buffoonishly so, and this struck me as artistic abuse. As it became clear who Norman Lear and Rob Reiner were in later years, the portrayal of Archie made more sense. They had no understanding of the ideas they were mocking – even I, who also mocked them, found the stereotype to be more worthy of agit-prop than comedy. The artificial setups to always show Michael as the intelligent, thoughtful one held a childish unfairness.

But that wasn’t what stuck in my craw. Michael lived in Archie’s house. In all the commentary about Archie I never heard that mentioned. I imagine it came up on the show, but it was conveniently overlooked when people absorbed the stereotypes. It seemed the most basic fact about the situation: Gloria had a poorly-paying job, Edith took care of everyone, Archie provided most of the support, yet it was Michael who was delivered the put-down lines.

(…)

The Tea Parties and town halls have brought my thoughts back to Archie. The participants in those events are not Archie Bunker buffoons, but they are portrayed that way. So it occurs to me – even if the stereotype of those Joe the Plumbers were true, isn’t it their house? Aren’t they the ones supporting the rest? Aren’t their critics coming off a lot like Michael – self-righteous, condescending, sarcastic.

Although not very important.

The recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor winner that President Obama gave his “shout out” to…isn’t.

I guess his teleprompter wasn’t communicating very well – says it has a bit of a virus, maybe H1N1.

This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:

• While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
• The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
• In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
• The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
• The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

From the Foundry, the blog of the Heritage Foundation

His followers don’t think they’re funny and other people don’t think they’re jokes.

“But don’t expect anyone in Congress to admit that taxpayers are paying around $6,000 to provide a $4,500 rebate for a foreigner or illegal immigrant to buy a new car. “ (Lurita Doan)

read the rest (HT: The Foundry – blog of the Heritage Foundation)

I read an article today that makes a few political predictions that I found interesting and makes a commitment to rethink her political views if the predictions are wrong.

The author’s predictions:

So, here are my foreign policy predictions:

At the end of Obama’s first four-year term:

1. The US will still have an active military presence in Iraq.
2. The US will have attacked at least one more country that poses no direct threat to us. (I’m not even going to count his early air strikes on Pakistan.)
3. Military spending will have increased.
4. US citizens will be no safer from terrorist attacks. I say this because I believe the (sadly all-too-accurate) perception of the US as an imperialist warmongering nation will persist. I realize this one is open to interpretation. I would just ask you to honestly ask yourselves at the end of these four years whether this is the case.

[...]

What I do predict is the following. By the end of Obama’s first term in office:

1. More than 1% of US adults will still be in prison. This number will very likely be even higher than it is today, and the black and Hispanic portion of that population will not have decreased by any significant amount.
2. We will still suffer from the kind of police abuse that is becoming more and more common: military-style raids on unarmed civilians in their homes; the shooting and tasering of unarmed citizens; and police and judicial corruption leading to the jailing of many more innocent people than can be acceptable under any system. The militarization and aggressive behavior of police forces will probably become worse before they get any better. This is another one that is somewhat open to interpretation. I would ask you to rely on your own honest judgement regarding whether you believe things have really changed in this area.
3. “No-Fly” lists will still be in place, and there may even be more restrictions on travel.
4. There will be more restrictions on gun ownership and the right to self-defense.
5. The police tactics and suppression of dissent at the 2012 RNC and DNC conventions will be just as brutal as they were in 2008.
6. Government surveillance of US citizens will continue (remember that bill Obama voted for that gave immunity to the telecoms companies that assisted with this in the past?),

[...]

My prediction: By the end of Obama’s first four years in office, the US economy will be in much, much worse shape than it is now. Specifically:

1. The US will have massive inflation. The dollar will lose at least 50% of its value against most goods and services, and certainly against the goods and services most people use every day. This is a very conservative estimate. It will probably be much worse.
2. Unemployment in the US will be worse than it is now. It will be at least in the double digits.

I’m going to post the article in its entirety in June of 2012 and look at the predictions and see how they play out (assuming that the inflation thing doesn’t rule out my blogging.)  (first unplanned difficulty…wordpress won’t let me publish that far ahead…so I’m setting it to publish in Decempber of this year and will edit the date stamp accordingly.)

Okay…so we have a few hundrend billion dollars (this time around) on the basis that it might stimulate the economy, but nobody can really say for sure.

But conservatives are supposed to prove that borrowing from future generations won’t work before opposing the spending package.

Shouldn’t it be the job of those who want to spend the money to prove that it will work – before committing to trillions in national debt?

My son’s car blew its clutch.  It will cost $600.00 to fix it…and it might work and it might not – it’s a 22 year old ford that he paid $400 for.

It’s his job to convince me that fixing the clutch will make the car drivable.

It’s not my job to convince him that it won’t work.

here.

Interesting.  My city is getting millions of dollars for projects that have already been completed – school buildings that have been rebuilt – that we’re paying extra millages for, raising our property taxes.

That must be what liberals mean by “tax relief” – putting our children into debt for projects that we’re already paying for, already completed.

Fla. doctor loses license after botched abortion

The board on Friday found Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique in violation of Florida statutes by committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel, and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

It’s not like the problem was that

(…) a live baby was delivered, but ended up dead in a cardboard box.

Oh no…the whole “live baby in a baggie” thing was not the problem.

I guess Florida doesn’t have a version of the “Born Alive” bill…

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Fast forward:

UPDATE: February 2, 9:15AM: WASHINGTON (AP) — Tom Daschle says he’s “deeply embarrassed and disappointed” about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.

And

Also, the financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the industry that President Barack Obama wants him to reform.

Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter.

Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the money he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose a conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.

Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he’s confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.

Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

from Glenn Reynolds

OUCH: “Tom Daschle never met a tax hike he didn’t like for us. But why the hell can’t he pay his own taxes?”

I thought I had written on the terms “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” before, but there were a few posts that got “lost” when I changed web hosts.  I’ll end up writing again, because I do not self-identify as “pro-life”, but prefer the term “anti-abortion”.

I read an article at “GetReligion.org” about a couple of news stories:

This one is from “Newsbusters“:

Christianity Today Favors ‘Anti-abortion’ Over ‘Pro-life’ Label?

Evangelical magazine Christianity Today is using the term “anti-abortion,” rather than “pro-life,” to refer to a CatholicVote.com ad which NBC has refused to air during the Super Bowl. (h/t @pdavidy8)

The term “anti-abortion” isn’t used by reporter Sarah Pulliam in the body of her article posted at CTliveblog, but it is used in her January 30 article’s headline — Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NBC — on the magazine’s Twitter page (see screencap at right).

By using “anti-abortion” in its headline, Christianity Today appears to be following the lead of the Associated Press. The AP calls for the term “anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice” in its Stylebook. AP goes further and frowns on the term “abortionist,” saying it “connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions,” so a reporter should “use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner,” it counsels.

The gist of the story seems to be saying that “Christianity Today” magazine prefers one label over the other.  The reality is that the ad being spoke of is not “pro-life” in general, but is specific to the abortion issue.  Thus, if CT generally uses “pro-life”, but for this specific, anti-abortion ad, uses “anti-abortion”, it doesn’t mean that they prefer the label in general, only that it is more accurate for that particular ad.

Here is the CT story in question.

I think that this is a “not a story”, but rather a commentary  on how groups “self-describe”.

I self-describe as “anti-abortion”.  I also make a distinction between those more general “pro-choice” folks and those who have never seen an abortion that they did not support (pro-abortion).

For example:  Roe v. Wade is “pro-choice”.  FOCA is pro-abortion.

On a lot of things, there is a more liberal and a more conservative viewpoint.

On most of these things, I tend to the more conservative side.

Here is what I have learned:

• If a person on the more liberal side criticizes a person or group on the more conservative side…good!  We need to be aware of the faults of the “other” side.
• If a person on the more liberal side criticizes a person or group on the liberal side…well, by and large it just doesn’t happen.  “We need to stick together against the conservatives or we will lose the ground that we have gained”
• If a person on the more conservative side criticizes a person or group on the more conservative side, that’s just the way that it should be.  “After all, you should know the faults of your own side and now, you’re “getting it.”

The fourth leaning?

If a conservative criticizes a person or group on the more liberal side – even if it is just recognizing extremes…

OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS!!!  It is as if the world is beginning to implode!

The message?

Criticize conservatives.  Conservatives, look to your own faults.

Leave the liberals alone, or there will be consequences.

You will be accused of hatred, you will be accused of divisiveness, you will be called ignorant, you will be told to “get a life”.  You will be called a dinosaur, a bigot or worse.

The moral…liberals are sensitive beings who do not wish to be examined and who do not wish to examine themselves.

liberals are also in the business of examining conservatives and insist that conservatives examine themselves.

Careful…your double standard is showing.

One of my co-workers said that he voted for Barack Obama because he (the co-worker) believed that Obama would govern more centrist than what he campaigned.

“So…you’re saying that you voted for the man because you believed that his campaign promises were lies?”

Within minutes of our new president taking the oath of office, the White House web page had been changed.  A few of the “changes” on his agenda could directly target Christians and Christian organizations.

• It could become illegal for a Christian hospital to deny abortions for any reason.
• It could become illegal for a Christian adoption agency to adopt only to heterosexual married couples.

“Changes” directly contradict the Constitution’s mandate of “state’s rights”.

FOCA would effectively make ALL abortion issues federal issues and would effectively (and purposefully) overturn laws made at a state level.

FOCA would not only take away state’s rights to make laws that do not concern things in the Constitution, they also take away the citizen’s rights to vote on proposals concerning abortion at the state level.

President Obama’s agenda is a two-prong offensive against

• state’s rights
• Christians following their consciences in matters of the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.

I will pray for our president’s safety and health.  I will pray that God guide his heart and change his attitude toward the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens – the unborn.  I will pray that God sway his mind in a way that guides his toward the Living God.

I will not support him, which includes by necessity supporting his agenda.

I will “all work together” in much the same way that liberals “worked together” with President Bush.  They fought him every step of the way and were outspoken about where they disagreed.

So will I be.

For those who voted for Barack Obama because his expanded abortion policies would reduce abortion… (HELLO?  what happens when you make a service cheaper and more available????)

It seems that the “office of the president elect” has a page where you can write questions and people can vote on them.

Justin Taylor submitted a question:  “Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?”

notice: it was removed from the vote because “people think it is inappropriate”.

Myself, before I asked a question, I’d consider “Joe the Plumber”

It seems that used coffee grounds are about 15% oil (a little less than the usual feedstock used for biodiesel) and that they make a very suitable material for creating usable fuel…

VERY suitable.

Consider:

- This is already a “recycled” product, so no food product would need to be diverted from feeding people, thus driving the price of the product higher for people who may already be in the midst of a cash or food crisis.

- Coffee (and coffee grounds) are high in anti-oxidants, which would delay rancification – thus making a more stable biodiesel than many other feedstocks.

- The “leftovers” – the grounds left over after the oil has been extracted – is dry and still high in nitrogen, making great compost for fertilizer (note:  I feed my plants leftover coffee and the ones that get that treatment do great.)

- These leftovers can also be made into pellets for heating stoves (like the ones that use corn pellets), taking some of the heating load off of petroleum heating fuel.

In my opinion, these things should make the biodiesel industry sit up and take a look at the trash coming out of coffee shops.  How much of this “stuff” is available and would it be worth it?

Just Starbucks generates about ”210 million pounds of spent coffee grounds per year in the US, the researchers calculate that it could amount to 2.92 million gallons of biodiesel and 89,000 tons of fuel pellets…”

Just Starbucks!  and then there’s McDonald’s…and all the other coffee shops and breakfast shops….

The story is here…

The cost per gallon is high…but so is the $8 million profit.  If this venture were taken on as a low-profit venture, the cost would come down and the profit could still be quite high.