I think I'll go for a walk...

Obamacare's end of life care consultations in a nutshell:

Reaching across the aisle...Racism?

Michelle Malkin's book was just released the other day, and she posted some of the hate mail she received upon its release. The racism of the left continually astounds me, considering their unrelenting claims of right wing racist hate-mongering. One writer says:

How do you, an Oriental, get on national TV

Are we in the dark ages here? We have a black president, for goodness sakes! Obviously the majority of the country is not racist. And I would say at least 90% of those who didn't vote for Obama did so on the basis of his lack of experience and radical leftism, not the pigmentation of his skin! Of course their are still racists in this country, Michelle's hate mail clearly reveals that.

Another writer says:

You being an Asian who forgot where she is coming from.

How bout we preface every statement we make about someone else (or ourselves) with our racial background?

"Hi, me, being Alaska Native, would like to know where your restroom is."

"Hey, did you, being black, get a good score on the Chem test?"

Or maybe we should tell all liberal black people that they should remember where they came from and how the Democratic party once needed the KKK's support to win any election. But no! That would be racist. The only issue of race in this country is the issue of politicians using it to coddle people into voting for them, and for ad hominem arguments against smart conservative people.

Black (and apparently any minority) people cannot be conservative! They are traitors! Uninformed! Misled! Don't they know that republicans and conservatives are racists who want to keep them from succeeding?? There is more racism in this country against conservative people of non-white ethnicities than in any other group of people. There is more ideologism than racism, I propose. You're conservative? Then you are a moronic uninformed dolt. And! You are a racist homophobic bigot. Oh and I forgot, you are sexist. You're a woman? Whoops, I guess you're just stupid then.

I have a feeling the hate for Michelle Malkin is just a strain of Palin Derangement Syndrome, which is marked by hatred of articulate, well informed, conservative women who just happen to be attractive as well. Remember Playboy's conservative women hate-f*ck list? Top ten conservative women we love to hate? For all the claims of the right wing being "hate mongering" there sure seems to be a lot of hate out there on the left for conservative women.

They only hate the people they fear, otherwise there'd be no reason to hate them. Boyfriends don't dislike men they don't view as a threat. Girls will let their boyfriends hang out with girls they don't care about. Liberals don't want people listening to these brilliant women because they are just that- brilliant. So stop listening to them! You might start agreeing with what they are saying!

Mrs. Underestimated

I completely agree with Ann Coulter here. I think people miss the point of Sarah's resignation. They miss the point that people in Alaska support her decision, as it is in the best interest of Alaska and Alaskans. Obviously if she runs for office nationally (which I doubt she will do), Alaskans won't be who votes for her, but the fact remains that she represents Alaskans. Her decisions as governor must protect the interest of her constituents, not her own interests in future public office.

As for the argument that she's incapable of doing her job, perhaps she was, but it was not due to her ineptitude. She had her hands tied behind her back by frivolous ethics complaints which were designed to cripple her effectiveness as governor. It feels like we have to say this over an over, and that her opponents still don't get it! We Alaskans don't want our governor to be swamped by ethics complaints so much so that she can't focus on her job. AND we don't want those frivolous charges to be defended by our state taxpayer money! If this means we have to give up Sarah as our Governor, then so be it! She is making the right decision for us, for our best interest.

I thank Ann for recognizing Alaskans' point of view. So often people in the lower 48 just don't get Alaskans. They think they understand us and our issues and our politics, all at the same time they are asking us if we drive dog sleds and if it's dark all the time. If you don't know what it's like to live in Alaska so much that you have to ask if the sun never sets in the summer and if we live in igloos, why do you think you can know what it's like to govern there?

I know Sean Parnell personally, and he will be just as great as Palin in leading our state forward in the right direction. As Palin has repeatedly said, "North to the Future." Nothing could be more true.

Trickle Down

(ramirez)

Ah, I have been absent for some time! I would have hailed my absence prior to abandoning the internet, but I left suddenly. I am currently camping, and will be for the next week and a half. I will try to continue updating, but it all depends on whether our campgrounds have internet. Today, we do!

My thoughts today were in relation to the economy. I know, big surprise. Like everyone's thoughts every day aren't on the economy. My thoughts were mainly spurred by our RVing lifestyle currently. We spend A LOT of money RVing. Pretty much anyone who RVs spends A LOT of money. And anyone who buys an RV spends A LOT of money. It takes two credit card swipes to fill the gas tank of this thing because the gas pump will stop at $75.00. And the maintenance when it breaks down or just plain breaks is significant. But I'm not whining about it, I'm telling you this because it relates to the economy. We are spending a lot of money traveling right now. But we are pumping that money directly into the economy. We buy gas, we buy food, occasionally we buy stupid souvenirs, we pay people to work on the RV, we pay people for the campgrounds we sleep at every night. That money goes directly to people who are not as wealthy as we are.

Redistribution of wealth? Perhaps, but no Robin Hood need be involved. You see, when someone with the means buys a yacht, the person the yacht is purchased from makes a commission on that sale of however much it cost (say $300,000). That broker is then going to use that money to maybe buy a new car, or maybe a motorboat. He gives money to the car salesman or the boat salesman. The boat salesman can then buy a used car. The used car salesman can buy a new flatscreen. Or maybe the yacht broker will pay off some debts with the money and buy a used car. Either way, rich people are not the problem in the economy. Rather, rich people are the ones with the means to energize the economy.

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor just doesn't make sense to me. The rich are always giving money to those poorer than them. The rich are constantly spending their money. Sure they save some, but the thing about the wealthy is that they have enough money to both save and spend at the same time.

I've been told that taking money from those who won't miss it (since they will still be comfortably living with out it) and giving it to those who do need it and who won't live comfortably without it. I see that side of things as well. At the same time, I feel like taking money from people against their will and giving it to others is unamerican. Taking 50% of someone's income feels wrong to me. If you took 50% of my income I would be making less than $4.00 an hour. I understand that taking half of a millionaire's income still leaves them very wealthy, but it's more of an issue of principle to me.

The Capitol Hills

Ah Meghan McCain.

I just read James Kirchick's article on her, and I sort of just want to shake my head in my hands. I personally am for equal rights for gays. One of my close friends is gay, and I can't imagine someone hating him because of who he loves. He was beat up until he was unconscious and had to be taken to the hospital this past spring mere steps from my college's campus. That kind of violent behavior is an unacceptable method of protest- as is the murder of Dr. Tiller (though the name "Tiller the baby killer" I would say is pretty apt).

But gay right's aren't my bone to pick with Meghan. I just don't think she's the voice of young conservative women. I think she's the voice of young conservative-at-heart-but-stuck-at-a-liberal-indoctrinating-college woman. I will admit that for a couple days, I was entranced with Obama's rhetoric. He said the right things, and all my friends though he was the cat's meow! But while they were being entranced with his eloquence, I was learning about who he was and what he actually believed.

Meghan McCain wants to fit in with the 20-somethings who are either in college or fresh out of college and are all pumped up on change they can believe in. She wants the MTV sector to like her, and would probably be thrilled to hang out with Heidi Montag. Oh wait, she already does. Great. Perhaps Heidi is training her on "reality tv etiquette" for Meghan's new show "The Capitol Hills." (Dear MTV, please ignore that suggestion. PLEASE).

As a young conservative woman freshly freed from the grip of liberal higher-education, I want a spokeswoman for my age group who doesn't say things like, "Does it sound campy to say I love gay men?" YES, Meghan, it does. It also sounds pandering and condescending. I doubt gay men go about saying, "Does it sound campy to say I love Meghan McCain?" At least, I hope they don't. I don't understand why it's acceptable to say that you love a group of people simply because of their sexual orientation. I judge a person individually, not based on the group they "belong" to. But I digress.

We need a Palin for our generation. We need a no-nonsense conservative whose first concern is not being hip and cool. When MTV thinks I'm doing something right, I know I must be on the wrong path. Must we endure Meghan any longer? Or do I have to go out there and do it myself?

P.S.

The first comment on that Kirchick article says:

"It is nice to see a Republican with common sense like Ms. McCain. Plus she is so unbelievably hot it wouldn't really matter if she was speaking gibberish I would still agree with her."

Apparently, though Sarah Palin does not speak in gibberish she is still plastered by the media, despite her attractiveness. I guess she is not "unbelievably hot" enough for them to not lob 20 ethics complaints at her. Go figure

Oh, and: Stimulus Update! WA pissed!

Welcome to Washington state, more specifically, the western/Puget sound region. We have the largest fleet of ferries in the United States. Ferries are vital in the transport and economy of this region. Enter President Obama's stimulus:

When it comes to landing federal stimulus money for ferries, Washington state appears to have missed the boat.

Angry and confused state and congressional leaders say they're puzzled why Washington, operator of the nation's largest ferry system, was virtually shut out of $60 million in federal allocations announced Tuesday.

"I am extremely disappointed, and I am asking questions," said a visibly upset Gov. Chris Gregoire. "We have the largest ferry fleet in America, and we didn't get anything. I don't get it."

This is beyond me. If we're going to borrow billions and throw them at states to do stuff with, why don't we at least give the money in a way that makes sense. Though WA has the largest ferry system in America, they are # 18 on the list of federal stimulus funds for ferries. The only money given to the Washington ferries? $750,000 for a new ferry terminal on the tiny Guemes Island.

Washington's request for $26 million to replace the Anacortes ferry terminal was snubbed, as was a request for $9 million to refurbish the ferry Hyak, now serving the Seattle-Bremerton route.

Meanwhile, a small river ferry in Oregon that now operates only half the year landed $3.2 million. The money will pay for a new boat and other improvements to the Buena Vista ferry across the Willamette River near Albany.

This came as a surprise to the WA senator Patty Murray, who worked hard to get federal money for ferries included in the Stimulus bill. Who knows how the decisions were made for how this money was doled out, but it clearly snubbed Washington state's huge ferry system. I guess way out here in lil' ol' quaint Northwest WA, we don't have enough clout inside the beltway. It's just another example of this administration punishing success. The ferry system in Washington is definitely the best in the country, not to mention the largest- yet unlike justice, Porkulus is not blind.

An interesting case study in Pork redistribution.

UPDATE: Beggars can be choosers!

After going back to congress and questioning the process for deciding the payouts to ferries, WA has been granted 7 million more for ferry projects. This money is NOT coming from the stimulus, however, it is separate federal money.

As a patriotic act...

...someone should do the nation a favor and introduce Levi Johnston to Spencer Pratt. Their combined fame-whoredom could be the most epic anyone has ever seen.

Plus they could share their love of the flesh-beard, acting like five year olds, and being complete douchebags.

Whoops, did I just say that out loud?

21 gun salute

(ramirez)

Lately I have been incredibly moved by the sacrifices of our military. I think this probably has a lot to do with the grotesque fanfare given to Michael Jackson since his death a couple weeks ago. The story of Lt. Brian Bradshaw, who was killed in Afghanistan on the same day as Jackson, is one of those which is so moving. WaPo published a letter from Capt. James Adair, one of the pilots who flew Bradshaw's body back to base. It is impossible to know the incredible stories of all our fallen troops, or even those brave ones who survive their deployments and come back home to loved ones.

It is extremely depressing to me to hear things like this caller to Mark Levin:

Treating our uniformed men and women the way this administration (and the Clinton administration, for that matter) has is unacceptable to me. I have many friends whose parents are or have been active duty, and the sacrifices they give for our country are great. My english teacher in high school gave birth to her newest little baby while her husband was on duty in Afghanistan. My friend's father was unable to attend his wedding because he was deployed. And just the time apart from loved ones is a huge and difficult sacrifice to make for these families. Not to mention the fear that must be in the background of life, worrying that their loved one may not return alive.

The military gives great opportunities to those who can't afford to go to college, or don't have the means to support themselves. They'll take you in, feed you, house you, give you healthcare, give you all the training you need, and give you the support you need when you do go into war zones.

We have the most skilled troops, the best intelligence, the most advanced weaponry, and the smartest leadership. Disrespecting this advanced force of ALL VOLUNTEER troops is absolutely outrageous. Every person fighting for freedom around the world signed up for it themselves. They may not agree with the battles they are sent to fight, but they are an honorable group of men and women willing to follow our commander in chief even to their own death. How can anyone disrespect these people?

To be honest with you, I have been considering joining the military as an officer because of all this. One of the biggest reasons I wouldn't, though, is because I don't know if I would want to be subject to the whims of this administration. The Clintons made a mockery of our military, making it weak and not as able to respond to the threats posed to our national security. Who knows how Obama will treat the military (I mean... I can guess). Cutting our anti-missile defense when Kim Jong Il is lobbing nukes at us is a grim peek at things to come.

I know that most of the American people (read: all of the sane ones) are still beaming with pride for our military. I don't think I can say the same for the Obamas. Especially Michelle "I'm proud of my country for the first time" Obama.

Bidding freedom a fond farewell...

This blew my mind. Read the whole thing, it's unbelievable. Thank God for talk radio, where this kind of thing is exposed. Lord knows the Drive By's won't cover it...

Glenn Beck: Put that Constitution away!

Audio Available:

July 14, 2009 - 12:45 ET

Helen Glover of 920 WHJJ

GLENN: Helen Glover is with us from our affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, 920 WHJJ. Helen, tell me about the tea party that happened this July 4th?

CALLER: Good morning, Glenn. Well, you know, the tea party movement's growing across the country and certainly here in Rhode Island, one of the most liberal states in the union, there's really been a real grassroots effort to get this tea party going. One April 15th and another one in June and then we put together a float for the Bristol Fourth of July parade which by the way is the oldest parade in the country. And it was pretty much made clear to the Rhode Island tea party association that they weren't wanted in the parade to begin with and

GLENN: Why?

CALLER: Well, because apparently we're a subversive group, Glenn. We're on the terror watch list.

GLENN: Hang on, I'm looking at the picture. I'm looking at the picture. This is from the HJJ website. Is that the picture of everybody dressed in colonial clothes that looks like a giant boat?

CALLER: Yeah, it's actually the British slip the beaver that was ransacked by the colonists they Boston tea party in 1773. Now, we were told that we could not dress as Indians. I don't know why because the original colonists dressed as Indians. They said we could not do that. So we said, fine, we'll dress as patriots.

GLENN: Hold it, hold it. Is there a possibility that I mean, let's take a wild guess here on why you couldn't because it would be offensive to Native Americans?

CALLER: Well, I'm sure that was the reason. However, there were other floats with other people in the parade that were dressed as Indians. Some of them are legitimate Native Americans but others were not. But that, you know, the stipulation was only put on our float.

GLENN: Huh.

CALLER: Oh, it gets better.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: I asked for a PA system. I said, you know, because let's face it, they are looking for a reason to kick is out of the parade. So let's just have a PA system on the boat and play on the float and pay patriotic music because you can't go wrong with that, right? I thought.

GLENN: Right.

CALLER: Then we were told we couldn't have a PA system on the boat.

GLENN: Why?

CALLER: No reason given, but

GLENN: I'm sure all of the other floats, none of them had a PA system.

CALLER: All of the other floats if they wanted them had them.

GLENN: That's a different parade. I'm sure you are thinking of a different parade.

CALLER: That's right. Well, of course, we were also told we couldn't throw tea bags off the float because that's dangerous. It could put an eye out.

GLENN: Well, if they had knives in the tea bags. They don't know. Maybe you had some of those Chinese death stars.

CALLER: Exactly.

GLENN: They were and you were throwing the tea bags out like that. They didn't know.

CALLER: Even wet a tea bag's not going to cause bodily harm.

GLENN: Hang on just a second because I know that I have been in parades before where you are not supposed to throw out candy because it's dangerous because people run to the street and then they, you know, get hit by a, you know, a giant float.

CALLER: Completely understandable. Completely understandable and that is in the regulation that the tea party, the application that they signed and agreed to those rules, that's fine. We adhere to those rules.

GLENN: Okay. So did anybody else throw things at them?

CALLER: Of course they did. Of course they did. Lollipops off one float, flyers announcing a roller derby schedule. There were flyers to and again I can understand if they don't want somebody soliciting during a parade but there was one dairy that was allowed to hand out information if you want to sign up for home delivery of milk, eggs and the like. Apparently that was okay.

GLENN: What wasn't okay? Did you throw the tea bags at people?

CALLER: No. We didn't know.

GLENN: What was the problem?

CALLER: Glenn, I'm a rule follower and I made that very clear when I got involved with the parade and the float. I said, I don't want to be the reason you are thrown out. I obey the rules. That's just one of those quirks I have. So I said I'm not going to do anything that's against the rules. So we didn't throw anything off that float.

GLENN: And you didn't dress as Indians.

CALLER: I didn't dress as an Indian

GLENN: And you didn't have a sound system.

CALLER: But they gave us a bullhorn. And that was my other fear, Glenn, because I tend to be, kind of like you, I sometimes am not politically correct, especially on my show.

GLENN: Sure.

CALLER: So I said, you know what, maybe the safest thing is for me not to use that bullhorn. So I gave it to a few other people but they really

GLENN: That was a mistake.

CALLER: Well, they thought maybe reading some quotes from the founding fathers. But, you know, you are going along a parade route with a bullhorn. That's not the same as a PA system. You are not going to be able to understand, you know, something that Ben Franklin said that's maybe a couple of sentences long. So I thought, okay, maybe simply reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance" keeping out the subversive line one nation under God. And I thought, you know what, I'm just going to stick to real quick bullet points. You are going by in a parade, people only have a couple of seconds to absorb something. So I said something that came from the house of parliament when one of the British politicians said, "Quite frankly, sir, you've run out of our money." I thought that's a good one, no more taxes, we've been taxed enough, hold your elected officials to a higher standard, make them accountable. That was the kind of stuff I said.

GLENN: This is crazy. Stu, crazy. I mean, Helen is crazy.

CALLER: Radical stuff.

PAT: Crazy talk.

GLENN: How are you not in handcuffs?

CALLER: Well, strange as it seems when I found out we were kicked out of the parade the first thing I said was oh, no. And Marina Peterson who was the first one who got the call on this was told it wasn't because of something I said which I'm relieved at although, you know, I can stand behind anything I said. I made sure it was not political. We were thrown out of the parade because a gentleman who was not on the float, by the way, had been walking up and down the parade route for about an hour and a half with his 10 year old, 11 year old son handing out little pocket you've probably seen them, little pocket guide of the Constitution Bill of Rights.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh!

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: What, are you crazy? That thing is so ancient and distorted. I mean, it was an updated version of the Constitution, wasn't it? It wasn't like I didn't include, like, the preamble and all the other stuff.

CALLER: No, unfortunately it was the whole shebang, the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: That's extremism. Do we have a warrantless wiretap?

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Are we tracing the call? We are tracing the call? Just stay on the line with me. Just talk to me. So what else is happening?

CALLER: I think the Secret Service are at the door right now.

GLENN: So they kicked you out because you were handing out the Constitution.

CALLER: I believe, Glenn, the words were, "Don't even bother wasting the stamp for an application next year. You are..." and not just kicked out, Glenn. We are banned for life. It's like double secret probation in Animal House. We are banned.

GLENN: The oldest parade in the country.

CALLER: You got it.

GLENN: For the Fourth of July.

CALLER: Banned for life.

GLENN: You are banned for life.

CALLER: Yep.

GLENN: For handing out... the Fourth of July parade... the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

CALLER: Yeah. They said

GLENN: What is the name of the organization that does this little parade?

CALLER: It is the Bristol Fourth of July parade committee. And believe me, that is a group that you know what, that is ironclad. Apparently they can make law, enforce it and you have no recourse.

GLENN: Stu, could you get a hold of the I tell you what

CALLER: Good luck.

GLENN: Have one of the producers at Fox get a hold of them and let them know that we would love to hear the explanation of this.

CALLER: Yeah, good luck. Good luck.

GLENN: Oh, no, no, no. Make sure they know if they don't appear on the show, somebody will appear for them.

CALLER: (Laughing).

GLENN: Can you do that?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And report back to me tomorrow. Hopefully they can find it in their schedule in the next couple of days. Helen, thank you for bringing this to our attention. You stay in touch with me and I'll let you know. I'll let you know because we'll open up the show at any time they can be on to tell us because they must have had a good excuse.

CALLER: Oh, absolutely, yes.

GLENN: And I'm sure America would love to hear it and I sure would because I can't trust you, Helen.

CALLER: Oh, no.

GLENN: You are a crazy woman.

CALLER: Absolutely.

GLENN: You were dressed up in colonial garb on a big boat in a Fourth of July parade, you know. Next thing you know, you'll be dressing up like an Indian. We can't trust you. So we'll get a hold of the parade people and we'll keep you up to speed on this.

Wa-Po, meet Sar-Pal

The Washington Post published an op-ed by Sarah Palin today. I thought it was great.

"There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan."

Undoubtedly the left will characterize it as rambling and incoherent, but I think regular Americans who don't speak inside-the-beltway-ese will jive with it and agree with her. It seems like lefty's and politicians in general feel like someone who talks like a regular American is speaking in tongues. Perhaps politicians should go to classes to learn American english, because our congressmen don't seem to understand what "OPPOSE CAP AND TRADE" means.

In other news: I am no longer part of the unemployment problem!

The Neo-Feminist

There's probably nothing that can be done to stop Sotomayor's path to the Supreme Court, thanks to the liberal drones in the senate. She will likely be treated with kid-gloves because any hard questions lobbed at her will be deemed "racist." I'm sorry, but I'm not racist, I just want someone qualified and dedicated to upholding the constitution to be on the Supreme court. I don't care what color skin they have, or what "richness of experience" in life that they have. AND, I don't care what gender they are. In fact, I think that treating her the way they have and her own comments about being the perfect affirmative-action baby are stunting women in America.

As a young woman, I am completely opposed to any kind of affirmative action for genders. If I'm qualified for the job, hire me, if I'm not- don't! Sotomayor even said herself that, " My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale." If I was another woman (even a minority woman) who DID have those comparable test scores and got into Princeton or Yale, I would be very annoyed. In fact, because I am Alaska Native, Stanford University sent me email after email trying to get me to finish my application to their school- simply because I am Alaska Native. Never mind that I was actually smart enough to get into Stanford without my Native blood.

I ended up not going to Stanford, but it still annoys me to this day that they pretty much begged me to finish applying just so they could fill their Alaska Native quota. When I say I have Native blood, I don't expect people to feel like they owe me anything. But with Sotomayor bragging about her affirmative action past and the rude and uncalled-for comments about Palin, I think it's a bad era for women in America. Any woman in America who has worked her butt off to get where she is should be very concerned about Sotomayor. Throw me in with the sharks, if I sink, I sink because I wasn't qualified; if I swim, it's because I was- NOT because I'm a woman.

This should be a new era for feminism. Traditional feminists have let women down in this new era. Feminists didn't stand up for Sarah Palin when Maureen Dowd called her "Caribou Barbie" or told to take her tanning bed with her when she leaves office. Feminists were deafeningly silent when Letterman said she had a "slutty flight attendant look" or when her 14 year old daughter was the butt of a knocked-up joke. Neo-Feminists should stand up for their right to equal treatment- not treatment with kid gloves. I'm don't want to be babied because I'm a female, or told that I am a bad feminist because I choose to stay home and raise a child instead of try to become a CEO, or told that I'm a bad mother because I choose to have a career, or because I'm pretty.

All my life I've been opposed to calling myself a feminist because of the liberal associations that word brought with it. Not to mention the bra-burning, masculine, angry image of a feminist. No, the Neo-Feminist is every normal American woman who is tired of this double standard upheld by the mainstream media. We are mothers, small-business owners, college grads, high school grads, valedictorians, cheerleaders, PhD's, PTA members, CEOs, bloggers, beauty queens, teachers, and so on. We are American women, and we are tired of the elite liberal feminist women letting all of us down. If Palin does run for president, her slogan should be "We can do it!" instead of "Yes we can,"

In other news, the shadow government growing in D.C. is pretty frightening. One look at Science Czar John Holdren should scare any freedom-loving American.

The sunday funnies

If it weren't true, it'd probably be funnier...

(Ramirez)

Go check out this article at Big Hollywood, it said pretty much everything that frustrates me today as a conservative under Obama.

The Smoking Gun

I ran across this article at Hot Air, and it made me stop for a second. The Pentagon is claiming that they'd like to ban smoking because their VA hospitals have to deal with the aftermath of tobacco related health issues. "Smoking causes health issues that the VA has to spend a great deal of money treating later down the road. They could eliminate some of that spending and perhaps apply the resources to other issues (or just save costs outright) if they stopped the smoking culture of the military entirely."

Now, I don't agree with taking military members' right to smoking away, but that wasn't what made my mind stop for a sec. Since the military already has a government run healthcare system, couldn't this be a sneak peek of things to come with ObamaCare? We already know that this administration is trying to place taxes on things deemed unhealthy, like sodas and alcohol. "If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now"

But if the government is willing to raise taxes on unhealthy food and drinks, what does this proposed ban mean for our future, assuming government healthcare makes it through the house and senate? The claim that they are banning smoking now to eliminate excess healthcare costs later on seems like a possible legislation for civilians in the (possible) future of socialized healthcare. The government already tried prohibition of alcohol, but that was before socialism was en vogue. Now with the new popularity of socialism, and the legislature owned by the left, who knows?

I hope our military doesn't allow the government to take away their freedom to smoke. They put their lives on the line to protect our country, I figure I'll let them decide if they want to slowly kill themselves with tobacco. I don't like smoking, myself, but I'm not going to tell someone they can't do it. I can tell them the dangers of it, and urge them to consider their health, but I don't think I'm so holier-that-thou than to BAN them from doing it.

This almost makes me want to start smoking. Not really.

Lucky for smokers, if this legislation ever does happen to civilians, Americans are such capitalists at heart that we'll have back alley speakeasies for smokers.

Pesky facts.

This Cap and Trade legislation seems an awful lot like a trojan horse to me.

I don't believe in this catastrophic man-caused global warming which Al Gore claims will destroy our planet. I believe that the Earth definitely has its cycles and that we probably play some role in its climate, simply because we are part of the Earth's ecosystems. That is beside the point in this discussion, though. Cap and Trade's advocates tell us that we have to do this in order to keep global warming from ruining the planet. The facts simply do not support that this bill will do anything substantial to lessen carbon. The EPA and Energy Secretary Steven Chu are even in disagreement over the supposed effects of Cap and Trade, with the EPA agreeing that the US alone passing this legislation will make little to no difference in the worldwide CO2 emissions. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says of the chart outlining the difference made in CO2 levels, "I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels." Since China has already stated its opposition to a Cap and Trade type legislation, it's clear that the United States would be going it alone in its noble cause to save the Earth- rendering it's efforts effectively useless. In the meantime, Americans will be saddled beneath the tremendous yoke that this legislation will place on the cost of living.

With all the disagreement as to Cap and Trade's environmental impact, liberals still are going full ahead on this legislation. I can only conclude that their actual hopes and dreams are not the end to global warming, but the continued socialist-ization of the United States.

Forcing people to make their homes fit environmental codes before putting them on the market? That kind of control was never meant to happen in America, where people are free from the shackles of an over-powering government. If we don't watch out, this is going to lead us down the road of government mandated child limits like China. After all, isn't creating more human beings anti-environmental?

I know Obama said that we all would have to make sacrifices, but sacrificing my Liberty for the sake of some un-proven theory? No thank you. I'll join the Navy first and make sacrifices that will actually matter before that happens.

Michael: BEAT IT.

With all the crazy political things going on with the power to greatly affect America's future (healthcare and cap and trade, most notably), the media's obsession with Michael Jackson has struck me as both bizarre and frightening. Culminating (hopefully) with yesterday's funeral service, if you want to call it that, it has been a week full of Jackson-mania.

Almost everything about the whole situation has been puzzling to me. The black community's response to his death, the media's response to his death, his family's response to his death, and his children.

After Jamie Foxx's comment at the BET Awards claiming that Michael Jackson, "this black man - he belongs to us - and we shared him with everybody else," I was blown away by the overt racism being touted as pride. This was a man who was definitely a black man, but who chose to use his fortune to mutilate his image into a white person. Honor his musical accomplishments, by all means, but re-inducting him into some racially elite club which white people may enjoy the privilege of- that is unacceptable in a supposedly post-racial country. I won't even go into the fact that this happened at the Black Entertainment Television Awards.

The media's response was rather disappointing to me. For the last week it seems like every news outlet has turned into the national enquirer. It is a newsworthy story definitely, but it felt like Michael Jackson's death and the controversy surrounding it got about the same amount of coverage as hurricane Katrina, for goodness' sake! Every channel I turned to had something about Michael. Fair enough if there isn't anything going on in the news world, but we're in an economic crisis here. The president of the United States is trying to adopt radical legislation which would alter our country drastically, don't you think this is at least notable? NBC? CBS? Anyone? I know it's far more boring to talk about economics than the king of pop. I just wish, in my idealistic world, that journalistic integrity mattered more than ratings. Since Sarah Palin sprung on the scene, it's become painfully obvious that this is not the case.

I'm pretty disappointed in his family and friends as well. Everyone who saw him in the past 10 years knew he was troubled. Where were the people who cared about him as he killed himself slowly? This is obviously not just an issue with just Michael's family and friends, but anyone who does this kind of thing to themselves. Anna Nicole, Jim Morrison, Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain. Fair enough that they are mourning, it is a tragedy- but it's almost more of a tragedy that these people have to share some of the blame for his death.

I don't even want to talk about his children. I do feel like it was very weird and somewhat sick that his daughter had to speak at his funeral. I guess if she wanted to speak, then it was nice that they let her, but the way that they were shoving her face in the microphone just made it seem like some odd publicity stunt by the family. Exploiting the children Michael worked so hard to keep out of the spotlight.

That is all I am going to say about Michael Jackson. I feel like I had to say something because I think I'm going to shoot myself in the head if I hear "Beat It" on TV one more time.

Deep and Dire?

Dropped by Donald Marron's post on the recession the other day after seeing this graph at Political Math:

The characterization of this recession as the likes of the Great Depression seems disingenuous at best. Obama's continued insistence on reminding us over and over again that our economy sucks does us no good in restoring confidence in it.

"We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and a lot of you, I think, are worried bout your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts." -October 7, 2008

"But I think what unifies this group is a recognition that we are experiencing an unprecidented, perhaps, economic crisis that has to be dealt with, and dealt with rapidly." -January 23, 2009

"I want to say a few words about the deepening economic crisis that we've inherited." -January 26, 2009

"We've inherited a terrible mess." -February 4, 2009

"We've inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the Great Depression." -February 10, 2009

"By any measure, my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster." -March 4, 2009

The left constantly claimed President Bush used scare tactics to push us into the war on terror (excuse me- man-caused disasters, that is), but Obama's scare tactics pushing us into this stimulus plan were (and continue to be) some of the most obvious and destructive I have seen yet. Nary a day goes by that we aren't reminded of our crisis by this administration. Why he would expect that anyone would place confidence in an economy which is almost daily referred to as being "as deep and dire as any since the great depression" is beyond me. Yet consumer confidence is precisely that which we are told is needed to pull the country out of the recession. Obama is shooting the economy in the foot with his speeches.

I presume that as long as people will go out and spend hundreds of dollars on fireworks for the 4th of July, our economy is certainly not in a crisis as deep and dire as the Great Depression.

The million dollar question

Sarah Palin: Why did she step down? Is this really what's best for Alaska? Will she run for president in 2012? Doesn't this mean that she's a quitter?

Why did she step down?

Despite all the speculation of whether there's some huge scandal that's forcing her out, or that the smears have "gotten to her", or that she wants to gear up for a presidential campaign, I believe she told us straight out her reasoning for resigning. She is crippled as a governor by the unrelenting smear campaign the media has been focusing their efforts on since August 2008. She has been forced to focus most of her time on defending herself, instead of moving forward her important plans for Alaska. As an Alaskan myself, I find this move incredibly honorable by Palin. She refused to selfishly hold on to an office in which she was rendered useless by the left's attacks. She could have held on to her term to fulfill the political expectations those in Washington had for her as a potential 2012 candidate, however, it would be doing nothing good for Alaskans. Holding on to her office would have been for purely political reasons, and Palin is, as we should know by now, not a political creature. Palin took office to make changes. She joined the school board to make changes, she ran for city council to make change, she ran for mayor to make change. Alaska has benefited greatly from her dedication to changing the regular old politics which dominated and crippled our government from doing what it's supposed to do.

Is this best for Alaska?

Most of the country, and certainly those inside the Beltway, do not understand Alaska and Alaskans. Alaskans are not like the rest of the country and are the furthest thing from the east coast blue blooded politician types which seem to misunderstand Palin on a daily basis. Of course until recently no one really cared about understanding Alaskans or Alaskan issues. Come September of 2008, though, everyone wanted to be an expert about her policies in our great state. We have far different issues than most of the country. You CAN see Russia from Alaska. We DO have great great stores of natural resources. We have the largest salmon fishery in the world. Our military bases are some of the closest to those unfriendly to us. Running the largest state in the union, and the wildest state if I may, is far different from governing Massachusetts. By and large, Alaskans are hardworking, friendly, hardy, straightforward people. We do not care about how east coast politics are done. Frankly, east coast politics are useless in Alaska. So I believe she stepped down because she cares deeply about Alaskans and was heartbroken by having to hand over the reins to a more able public servant. For what it's worth, though I loved Palin as governor, Sean Parnell is an excellent person to take over. He will be an incredible successor. He worked closely with her and will be able to make a great transition. It is the best move for Alaska.

Will she run for president in 2012?

Honestly, I don't think she will. I think she probably realizes that if the media and left were that ruthless and out of line in their smears of her as a mere governor, paralyzing her governing effectiveness, then their smears of her as president (and during her campaign) will do the same. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be president if I was her. She is a powerful voice for America and for conservatism, and she doesn't need to run for/be president to get her voice out there.

Doesn't this mean she's a quitter?

I liked her comparison to the full court press in basketball. Holding on to the ball in a full court press, when there are other more capable you could pass to, is irresponsible. You can't win by being the only player. Palin knows that Sean Parnell is a great player to pass the ball to in order to advance the agenda in Alaska. While Palin is stymied by the full court press of her legal battles, Parnell is not. I think she is one of the most responsible politicians I've even encountered by sacrificing (perhaps) her own political career for the good of her constituents.