HIV/AIDS Vaccine May Be Just Over The Horizon

Although you probably haven't heard much about it, if anything at all, we may be on the way to the development, finally, of a vaccine that might, depending on the results of the clinical trials now being conducted in South Africa, lead to the drastic reduction and hopefully the eventually elimination of HIV/AIDS. It's literally a matter of life and death for South Africa, the most infected country in all the developing world.

It doesn't take much more than a cursory glance at the article linked to discern the reason for this-politics, of course, which feeds on superstition and, more importantly, ignorance. For example, from the article-

South Africa launched clinical trials of the first Aids vaccine created by a developing country today, as its own scientists overcame deep skepticism from political leaders who had shocked the world with their unscientific pronouncements about the disease.

In the 1990s, South Africa's then-President Thabo Mbeki denied the link between HIV and Aids, and his health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, mistrusted conventional anti-Aids drugs and made the country a laughing stock trying to promote beets and lemon as Aids remedies.

I remember hearing once how AIDS and gay activists were responsible for the lack of research in the US for the creation of an HIV vaccine. They wanted the bulk of funding to go into finding cures, not something that would merely prevent the further spread of the disease. While this might be true to a point, it is worth pointing out that there might be yet another reason for the lack of vaccine research and development. That being, in order to conduct such a clinical trial, any person used in any experiment must risk actually becoming infected with the HIV virus in the event the tests are unsuccessful or have mixed results.

Yet, so dire are the circumstances now in South Africa, there seems to be no choice, nor lack of willing subjects where hundreds of people are infected daily, and an almost equal number succumb from the ravages of the disease-or more accurately, any of a number of those diseases the victim's immune system can no longer ward off.

At a ceremony in Cape Town's Crossroads shantytown, one of the first of 36 healthy volunteers was injected today before officials and journalists.

I suppose somebody somewhere decided they had better proceed with the trials while there were still a sufficient number of uninfected individuals upon whom to test the vaccine. Clinical trials are also currently being conducted in Boston.

American health officials manufactured the vaccine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and have given further technical help and assistance to the South African researchers. Here's hoping the first fruits of these much needed clinical trials bear worthwhile fruit.

The Homecoming

Kaitee Page And Elyse Haran-A Drunken Revelry Of Music

This will be my last post until my Lughnasadh Sabbat posts on or near August 2nd. Until then, I hope you enjoy this video by one of my YouTube friends, Kaitee Page of the band Lunic. Check out her MySpace page and YouTube page.

In this video, she teams up with one of her friends, Elyse Haran of Elyse And The Aftermaths, who also has her own YouTube page.

It's not a show, it's just two friends jamming to Alanis Morissette's Joining You. The two of them were both drunk and obviously having a great time. I think this was actually recorded in somebody's bathroom. Regardless, it's very good, until a series of mishaps leads to the session pretty much falling apart. Quite funny. By the way, Kaitee is the one singing and playing violin.

Sarah Palin-The Truth

Well, by God that proves it. Shameless hussy Sarah Palin had the unmitigated gall to wear an Arctic Cat coat during a recent snowmobile race, knowing full well Arctic Cat was the sponsor of husband Todd's snowmobile team. Or something like that. I guess its a good thing they finally managed to run her out of office. Had such corruption been allowed to proceed unhindered, who knows how far she would have gone? Thankfully, somebody had the guts to file an ethics complaint about this outrage.

In fact, various people filed a total of nineteen ethics complaints, which according to Alaska state law had to be investigated by an independent investigator appointed by the governor in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Naturally, this necessitated enough court time and expense to the state that it threatened to keep legitimate government business perpetually bogged down. There was no end in sight to the frivolous charges and filings.

Naturally, none of the Palins critics, such as Frank Lupica in this hit piece in the New York Daily News, bothers to point out that fact when they talk about her recent resignation from the governor's office. The real irony is that it was Sarah Palin who, in one of her first acts as governor, signed a law which made it easier to file such ethics complaints. It was one of her signature issues, and a weapon which she wielded to great effect against her own party.

This was only one among many things that endeared her to the vast majority of Alaskan voters and helped lead to her choice as the running mate of much harried GOP presidential candidate John McCain, whose campaign by the time of the Republican National Convention was practically on life support, and sinking fast. For an all too brief time, until the financial meltdown, Palin breathed new life into his hopeless campaign.

John McCain was beaten by John McCain, of that you should make no mistake. Even at that, Palin came close to dragging the decrepit old bastard across the finish line on top, but it was just not meant to be. Even the most hardy of us can only drag so much dead weight for so long.

And it is worth noting that, since the election, the criticisms of Palin have continued almost non-stop. McCain is almost forgotten. Palin lives on in the fevered nightmares of every Democratic politician and strategist who fears her fund-raising ability and endorsement value, now that Obama's numbers are slipping dangerously toward negative territories.

But just who are these people who hate Palin so much they are willing to do anything possible to sabotage any potential she might have to achieve higher office or exert any degree of national influence?

You might be surprised to learn that a good many of them are Republicans, such as Andree MacLeod. The following snippet from a CNN report should be illuminative-

Although the governor and her supporters have criticized the investigations, Andree McLeod, who has filed four complaints against Palin, thinks they are entirely appropriate.

"I don't really care what other people think. I am holding the governor accountable. Other people's ignorance is not going to stymie me," McLeod told CNN, surrounded by stacks of state documents she has collected from filing information requests and ethics complaints.

"I am exercising my right to get these public records to discover what Sarah Palin is up to," McLeod said.

McLeod, a registered Republican, has filed four complaints, including one alleging a friend of Palin's was given preferential treatment in getting a state job. That filing was dismissed by a state board which investigates the claims.

McLeod has also filed two lawsuits, including one regarding whether it was appropriate for state business to be discussed using private e-mail addresses.

When ethics complaints are filed against the governor or her staff, the state has to hire an independent counsel to investigate the claims to avoid conflict of interest.

That an influential Republican of Alaska might be behind so many frivolous, expensive, time consuming ethics complaints might come as a surprise to outsiders, but of course it will come as no great shock to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with Palin's record as Governor of Alaska or as a candidate for the office.

The following, taken from the Alaska Dispatch, shines much light on Palin's relationship with her own party-

In early 2003, in a move reminiscent of a Greek tragedy, Murkowski paired Palin and Randy Ruedrich on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, an agency that oversees state energy industries.

Ruedrich was then, as now, the head of the state Republican Party, although he also holds a Ph.D. in engineering and has been involved in the oil and gas industry for 30 years. Besides running for lieutenant governor, Palin had been a Wasilla councilwoman for one term and Wasilla's mayor for two, and already was regarded as a rising star in the Republican Party of Alaska. She had the looks - the Frontiersman, her hometown paper, once called her "the most beauteous mayor in the world" - as well as the right conservative politics and religious convictions, and she'd campaigned hard for Frank Murkowski when he ran for governor. So she was loyal, apparently, and she'd be serving in a relatively low-profile position on the commission.

At least, that seems to have been the plan.

But in 2004, Palin ended up busting Ruedrich for conducting party business on state time, and for leaking a confidential memo to a lobbyist for one of the energy companies he was supposed to regulate. It was a big shiner for Murkowski's administration, one that still hasn't healed, and at the same time it cemented Palin's reputation as a squeaky-clean reformer.

A reformer who advocated for and signed into law the bill that would lead to her own downfall, it seems, with the moderate wing of her party more than happy to nail her to the cross. They have had plenty of eager and willing help, to be sure, but from whom?

Well, Democrats, of course, but that's just too simplistic. It's even too simplistic to point fingers at "The Left" or to the "Liberal Wing" (the flapping one) of the Democratic Party. The usual suspects of course have had their influence. The radical feminists, the Pro-Abortion advocates, gay activists, the anti-Second Amendment crowd, and of course anyone who looks with alarm at Palin and her expressed devotion to fundamentalist Christianity, have all joined in the chorus of condemnation, but I hold that the main ring-leaders of the virtually non-stop assault on Palin has been spearheaded, by and large, by environmental activists, concerned about her record and positions regarding Arctic drilling and her views on Global Warming. The above link details the following, from a post published in the environmental publication Grist-

Grist reports that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin strongly opposes the Alaskan gas tax, threw money at Alaskans to quiet their concerns over rising energy costs, and "recently sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species."

Ah,but here is another irony, in a press release from the Pew Report on Climate Change.


On September 14, 2007, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed Administrative Order 238, establishing the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. The sub-cabinet will consolidate the state’s knowledge of climate change in order to recommend policies and measures to guide the state’s mitigation and adaptation efforts. It includes the commissioners of the Departments of Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Natural Resources; Fish and Game; Transportation and Public Facilities; and Environmental Conservation (Chair). The Administrative Order also directs the group to consult with the president of the University of Alaska and explore ways to promote development of renewable energy sources such as geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and tidal resources. Governor also signed a letter adding Alaska as an observer to the Western Climate Initiative.

Is it possible that they feared that Palin's stance as what they might consider a moderate, hence technically a lukewarm, supporter of renewable energy and adaptation to climate change might in the long run make her a more dangerous foe than someone who was outwardly opposed? After all, this was a woman who expressed a belief in climate change, and the need to pursue policies to deal with it, while at the same time advocating for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the construction of a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope, and other measures which might over time be difficult to resist. Oh, and of course she shot wolves and bears from helicopters in what was an admittedly non-politic way to encourage and promote a reduction an overabundance of these wild populations.

Every other complaint leveled against Palin has been almost as frivolous as the for the most part unbelievably stupid ethics charges filed against her. She is a Christian, she is Pro-Life, she is against gay marriage (supposedly), she wants to force a right-wing Christian agenda on the nation (she does not). Oh, and of course, that old chestnut that has been leveled against every nationally known Republican of note and influence since the days of Eisenhower-she is stupid. Yet, somehow, she is at the same time not only some kind of far-right wing radical, but an incredibly devious and manipulative one to boot.

Doesn't that all seem contradictory? It does to me, even more so than the idea of radical Alaskan and nationally based environmentalist wackos joining forces with RINO Republicans. But then again, that's not really a contradiction when you know the whole story. Remember, John McCain was an early and vociferous proponent, at the time of the election, of the Cap-And-Trade policies of the radical environmental activists, and his selection of Palin was as much as anything an attempt to heal the fracture within his party that was caused by his position on this issue, among others. McCain, in his delusion, simply forgot to ask the permission or the input of the oil companies and other big business enterprises who support cap-and-trade, not only because they see the hand-writing on the wall and hope to cut their losses, but even more importantly, because they have so much to gain in the way of a leg up on those competitors who might not be in as good a position to take the hit to their bottom line that such a policy might bring.

When you stop to look at the real under-handed, back-stabbing deviousness that passed these days for power politics in America, it is astounding that so many people are taken in by such relatively trivial issues as a person's religious beliefs, or their views on such a relatively inconsequential issue like abortion.

But that's just the world we live in-a world that needs all the Sarah Palins it can find. Don't count her out just yet.

The Orphan-Just One Evil Little Bitch

Recent criticisms of the horror movie The Orphan are for the most part, let us say, out of all proportion to the films artistic merits. In fact, they have little, if anything whatsoever, to do with the film's artistic merits, regrettably, and almost everything to do with sociological matters which are wholly irrelevant.

Anymore, if you find a film objectionable, take heart. All you have to do is search through Twitter and there’s a chance you will find any number of people who share your views, and will go all out to do their part to insure the movie in question crashes and burns on its opening weekend. One case in point is the recent Sasha Baron Cohen film “Bruno”, which was roundly trashed on Twitter, so much to the point that it might have been the main factor behind the film’s dismal showing. Its first night garnered sixteen million dollars. Based in no small measure on what is probably the first unholy alliance between the Christian Right and gay activists, the following night’s take plunged to less than half of that.

Is this a portent of things to come? We might soon learn, depending on the overall performance of the latest offering in the evil child/bad seed horror genre, The Orphan.

The first half of the film is a psychological thriller. From there, the second half veers into what some might regard as a typical slasher flick. Some have complained about the movie’s length, clocking in just at two hours. Others have complained about too great a reliance on the standard horror film clichés that have become almost trite-the running up the stairs, the sudden apparition of evil in the closing medicine cabinet mirror, the suddenly ominous soundtrack that leads to absolutely nothing but dashed expectations, etc.

Moreover, of course, some have complained about the so-called gratuitous violence and, especially, the role of the title character itself, some pointing out that the level of violence and language exhibited by a character portrayed by a preteen child might even rise to the level of child abuse.

Mainly, however, the vast majority of the complaints center not on these, many of which are valid enough criticisms of the film on its artistic merits, but on the idea that this film is exploitative not only of little Miss Fuhrman and the other child stars, but of the whole idea of child adoption. Some adoption advocates have even called for a boycott. In a seeming effort to take up their cause, a film critic for the Washington Post has written what amounts to about one half of one percent film review, while the bulk of the hit piece is basically an editorial about the sociological implications of the film, which she calls a “piece of filth”.

A more balanced review (among many others) is posted by Kurt Loder on MTV, and I am happy to note that in the latest MTV on-line poll, the majority favor the prospect of seeing “Esther” over the other weekend offerings, The Orphan drawing well over fifty percent of the vote. This might well be a case of backlash against what many with not a little merit feel to be an unfair propaganda campaign run by yet another would-be entitled special interest group-adoption advocates.

A good gauge of the films actual impact and worth might well be the IMBD comments to the review itself. Out of a considerable number of posts, the vast majority seem to like the film to one degree or another. I never read one in fact that described it as a bad film.


Esther, the title character played by eleven year-old (at time of filming) actress Isabella Fuhrman, is one evil little bitch, but she somehow manages to worm her way into the hearts of adoptive parents John and Kate, despite the suspicions of the couple’s older son, who advises them at one point that they should send Esther “back to retard camp”. Before long, a box-cutter held strategically to his genitals convinces the suspicious little boy to put his dislike of his newly adopted sister in perspective.

Before long, though, other things happen, including the near murder of a neighbor’s child, which induces Kate to start viewing Esther with a great and growing deal of alarm. One wonders well before this point why alarm bells did not go off upon learning that Esther was the lone survivor of a house fire that destroyed her previous adoptive family. On the other hand, Esther, in addition to being a prodigy, is a charming little devil, not at all the way she appears in the film’s trailers (at least not at first). She has John suckered in a big way, to the point he is blind to the obvious and growing signs that, indeed, something might be wrong with Esther.

Eventually, in fact, Esther, the charming little psychopath, makes an attempt to seduce her very adult albeit naive adopted father, who has previously had a tendency to stray from the confines of his marriage, especially following the stillbirth of the couple’s last child. This in fact is the event, portrayed at the movie’s beginning in a horribly grotesque and bloody dream sequence, which leads to Esther’s adoption. Due to Kate’s tendencies to engage in alcoholic binges, John blames her for the miscarriage, just as he blames her for the accident that lead to the near-deafness and muteness of their daughter Alex, due to an accident on a frozen pond that occurred while Kate lay passed out drunk.

John and Kate is in fact a delightfully dysfunctional couple, and they play their roles to the hilt, as do the film’s child stars. Another treat for fans of the old FX television series The Shield will be the appearance of an old friend, CCH Pounder, in the role of the nun who runs the orphanage from where our hopeful couple meets and adopts Esther.

Finally, while it is true that this at first glance seems to be a typical standard evil child movie, this film has a twist that should be so unexpected, it would leave you stunned, breathless and, yes, even horrified. Unfortunately, it is easy enough to find out what the plot twist is merely by browsing the internet. It is so devious, so calculatingly cunning and diabolical, it is all I can do to keep from shouting it out in bold all caps, but I will restrain myself.

I advise you to similarly restrain yourself from reading any spoilers and just go see the damn film. The character development and the acting (especially from Isabella Fuhrman as Esther) are on their own reason enough to see this film, but if you positively have to have a clue as to what the surprise twist of the film is, I will give you one hint, and one hint only.

There is a very good reason why no one can find any records pertaining to Esther’s birth and origins.

That’s all I can say, though I will add one observation for the sake of those adoption advocates who seem determined to read something into this film that just isn't there-that Esther, at least on some deep, subconscious, symbolic level, is somehow representative of your average adopted child. If you do happen to stumble across a prospective adoptive couple who might be swayed against child adoption by the subject matter of this film, I would advise you to refer them to a good animal shelter.

The Professor Henry Louis Gates Drinking Game

Just chug one down whenever you hear any of the following over the next few days, or weeks.

* We need to have a national dialogue on race relations
* We have come a long way in addressing the problem of racial prejudice, but we still have a long way to go
* There is still a lot of residual racism in this country

Feel free to chug-a-lug three anytime you hear this gem, my favorite one of all-

*It's time for all Americans to work together to put the specter of racism behind us.

Continue throughout the coming weekend and beyond. The object of the game is simple-

Get so ripping, roaring, falling down dog-ass drunk that eventually, whenever somebody spouts any of the above, you tell them-

SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

In the meantime, a tip of the mug to Professor Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard Professor who got the game going. I am almost sure it was not an accident. Him being such a close friend of the President and all, and probably frustrated at Obama's lack of addressing his pet peeve the way he thinks he should, I would almost bet he and his neighbor friend started this shit on purpose. Too bad for Gates and Obama he picked on the wrong stupid cop.

UPDATE: Professor Gates has cordially agreed to join in the drinking game. He said that he will have that beer with President Obama and Officer Crowley at the White House, adding-get ready for it now-

"I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sgt. Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige," Gates said in a statement on TheRoot.com, an Internet newsletter he edits.

Gates said he hoped his arrest would help reduce racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.

CHUG-A-LUG-A-LUG-A-LUG-A-LUG-A-LUG-GURGLE

Yep, Professor Gates wants to get me smashed. Do these people have no sense of irony? On the other hand, they did have enough sense to wait until between seasons of Saturday Night Live to get this shit started. John Stewart doesn't do sketch comedy, does he?

I'm sorry, but there were just far too few prematurely exploding homemade bombs during the sixties.

Fun With Yahoo Answers

Yes, it's time once again to troll Yahoo Answers, this time with the following gem-

If me and my friends have sex with a woman after one of us drugs her are we all guilty of gang rape?

Okay here's the deal. Me and my best buddy I'll call him Chuck we got with some friends and went to a bar and picked up this girl. Okay now she was smokin hawt and she seemed eager and willing and high so we all had a go at her. I didn't find out til later that one of us had drugged her. I don't even know what it was but I noticed the second time I had a go at her she was really out of it. Now I'm really worried and would appreciate some advice. One of the guys turns out was her uncle though so I guess if she starts some **** at least we got that much on her. She was all over his *** before she really got out of it.

I have an idea I'm going to be catching a lot of hell here.

Just Another Day

I don't know why this never occurred to me before, but the Chappaquiddick Incident happened roughly halfway through the journey of Apollo 11 to the moon, where two days later Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin would be the first two humans to ever set foot upon it.

What is particularly ironic about all that is that it is Kennedy's late brother President John F. Kennedy who usually gets the credit for pushing the space program and setting as a goal the moon landing which would indeed take place within a decade of Kennedy's pronouncement to that effect.

And, although I don't put much stock in it, and in fact put it down to a problem with oxygen deprivation to the brain, Aldrin would later state that he saw a UFO sometime during the journey.

We may be going through the fortieth year anniversary of one of the pivotal times in mankind's history. Arguably mankind's ultimate achievement to date ran parallel to one of the darkest examples of the depths of human depravity to which a man could sink. Both of them without a doubt set the future course of American and world history. Three men at considerable risk to their lives achieved a dream millions had only imagined and billions never dared hope possible. One man displayed the ultimate craven contempt for his fellow man and so cost an innocent person her life and yet, in a brazen act of cowardly self-preservation, exhibited concern for nothing more than the protection of his political aspirations.

Ever since mankind rose out of the jungles and swamps and evolved to his current human form, he has tried to rise from the muck and the mud all the while being drawn and driven back towards it. In the meantime, during some point in time that counts as the morning on a strangely beautiful and faraway world, the earth will rise again, as always.

Band-Aids, Placebos, And Snake-Oil Politicians

Sure, something has to be done about health care. Agreed, it is a national problem, and indeed a disgrace. The question remains, what and how-and of course at what cost.

I find it interesting that, forty years after the Chappaquiddick Incident that derailed the presidential aspirations of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Kennedy penned a rather long and thoughtful, though arduous and yet somewhat simplistic article in the latest edition of Newsweek.

It is rather telling to peruse the comments section of the article. I know it can not be considered a scientific sampling of American public opinion on the issue, but at the same time, it bears mention that you practically need a divining rod to ferret out those who actually support the current proposal making its way through Congress. At last check, it was probably going about ten-to-one AGAINST.

I was very surprised at this, because I assumed Newsweek's readers to make up close to an accurate measurement of the political landscape in terms of percentages. If anything, I would guess their readership would be skewered more toward left-of-center. Nor is it very likely that this is a case of a concerted effort by far-right wingers to purposely skewer the discussion to their favor. Out of all the many comments that I perused-and they were a considerable number-only one mentioned the Kopechne case. That in itself is amazing seeing as to the timing of Kennedy's article, in which he waxes somewhat eloquently about the health problems of himself and various family members, and how this supposedly inspired him to work tirelessly on behalf of poorer families who could not afford the health care or insurance he himself enjoyed.

He goes out of his way to paint himself as a man willing to work with both sides of the debate to come to an accord, while admitting that no one will get everything they want.

Well, evidently not too many people want what Kennedy is selling, and they are getting more and more vocal about it. Will it be enough to derail the legislation? Probably not entirely. I am almost sure there will be some kind of bill, though it will undoubtedly be pared down considerably.

Note I said almost sure. When the governors of the states balk at your plan, you have the makings of a serious potential states rights revolt, with not a few Democrats joining in the fray opposed to any possibility of any more unfunded mandates, such as No Child Left Behind, another signature Teddy Kennedy "achievement".

It Was Forty Years Ago Today

Reprinted from the long ago, appearing originally in The National Lampoon, and gleefully stolen from Lemuel Calhoun of Hillbilly White Trash, the Pagan Temple is now proud to present a timeless work of art for your viewing pleasure, spiritual edification, and mirth-

In my opinion, Teddy never really killed this girl. If the truth was known, he probably attempted to rape her-and might have succeeded-after which the enraged Kopechne pushed him to the ground or possibly hit him. This would explain the one injury Kennedy sustained to his head in the aftermath of the Chappaquiddick affair. Kopechne then jumped into Kennedy's car, where the keys still rested in the ignition. The car was probably still running when she shot out away from the scene, and into eternity. Kennedy might not even have been aware that she ended up accidentally driving off the bridge into the tidal pond of Chappaquiddick.

Nevertheless, a worried Kennedy frantically contacted his friends and made several phone calls in a vain attempt to seek advice on how to protect himself and his political career from what he believed was a sure to come charge of attempted rape, or actual rape. Once they realized what really happened, they had to come up with as good an explanation as they could conceivably dream up on short notice.

The rest is now history, and Teddy Kennedy is forever more stuck with the story he gave, on pain of perjury.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving piece of shit. As for Kopechne, the irony is that even though she was probably every bit as much of a liberal as Kennedy, she is probably single-handedly responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and some would argue the saving of the nation.

Thanks to her, when Kennedy ran against Carter in the Democratic primaries in 1980, all he managed to accomplish was to split the Democratic Party, which as much as any other single factor led to Reagan's election. Had it not been for the wraith of Mary Jo Kopechne and it's presence throughout the primaries and convention, the result might have been somewhat different. In fact, if not for her, it might have been Teddy running for re-election that year.

No wonder the Left goes bat-shit crazy whenever the incident is brought up.

Sometimes the tree of liberty must needs by watered by the blood of patriots. Sometimes all it takes is the life of naive idealist who got in just a little bit over her head with somebody that was maybe nothing but a fucking creep.

The Dream That Should Die With The Dreamer

A one world government perversion of the Federalist philosophy of our Founding Fathers as enunciated by the late Walter Cronkite, who in this YouTube video clip pronounces his fealty to Alexander Hamilton and to Satan, and is then honored by then First Lady Hillary Clinton.

A Million Dollar Mistake

What kind of chump pays over a million dollars to build a home, and ends up building it not on his property, but city property. Luckily he managed to make a land trade to the city of Baltimore, but at the loss of one acre. Plus, he has to pay back rent. Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

Democratic Appointed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Puts On A Happy Face

Here are the recent words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, uttered in the course of an interview.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae—in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion....

Many on the left are defending Ginsburg on the grounds that she wasn't giving her own feelings, but what she assumed was the feelings of many others involved in the debate at the time the particular case in question was decided.

Naturally, Jonah Goldberg takes exception, and points out the long history of progressive support for the eugenics movement, from Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes (a former Supreme Court Justice, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson), and myriads of others.

It might surprise many to read that, even though I agree with Jonah Goldberg's assessment as to Ginsburg's true intent-she meant what she said, in other words-it is my intention to actually come to Miss Ginsburg's defense.

Yes, of course many if not most who believe in abortion rights do so as a means of controlling the populations of those they would prefer there not be so many of. And, so do I.

In fact, the great master plan, set in motion years ago by the great trickster gods of the universe rolls full steam ahead as we speak. Not a year goes by that tens of thousands of leftists, Democrats, and Republican RINOs take part in the plot that, if allowed to continue as it should, will lessen their numbers within the great human family. Seeing as how fully two thirds, at the very least, of babies that are aborted in the womb would otherwise over time come eventually to adopt the political beliefs of the parents that aborted them, I can only imagine the gods sigh with relief every time the procedure is performed.

As such, I call on the Republican Party and other conservatives to drop their opposition to the policy of abortion, though I certainly understand and to an extent sympathize with certain aspects of their opposition, such as federal funding of abortions, and any move towards a federal, one-size fits all rule that would allow abortions throughout all states, with no limitations as to the type or when during the pregnancy they are performed.

Look at it this way though. The more and more abortions that are performed on a yearly basis, then the more time goes by, as if by magic, the less and less will be performed, for the simple fact there will be less and less people born likely to take part in such a procedure, unless there is of course valid reasons to do so.

Before you know, abortion as a form of birth control will be a rarity-an extreme rarity.

As for you Democrats, Leftists, Greens, and others who are so determined to maintain your rights to butcher your progeny while they are still residing within the wombs of your women, I say to you-take heart. In this endeavor, you will always have my wholehearted support.

So much to the point that, if the Republicans should ever be successful in their long term stated goals to end the procedure, I will do everything I can to help you. Just let me know, and whatever you need-bicycle spokes, rusty coat hangers, quining, turpentine, you name it-I will do my utmost to see that you acquire whatever you need, unhindered and unmolested.

On this, you have my solemn vow. And as a true blue pagan that wants to see the world become a better place, regardless of what it takes to achieve that goal, you know that means something.

Sonia Sotomayor And Political Pigskin

Come on now fellow Americans, give the woman a break. After all, as pointed out here, Obama never questioned Sonia Sotomayor as to her stand on such issues as abortion, gun rights, etc.

Yeah, that's what I said-bullshit. Sure he never questioned her, because he obviously never had to. This woman's past record on the Appellate Court is a damn good indication of where she is going to stand during her tenure on the Supreme Court. Now she has a chance to vote her beliefs, and know that she can set established precedent that is unlikely to be overturned at least in her lifetime.

But let's be clear, this woman is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice, so why waste any more time on it? Sure, I understand why the Senate Judiciary Committee has to go through the motions, and let Americans know as much about her as they can pull out of her, so they can hold her supporters in the Congress accountable for the decisions she makes, but everybody else might as well acclimate themselves to the reality that, barring a miracle-and probably even despite one of those-she is going to be confirmed. The Republicans know this as well, and some of them will vote for her, for a variety of reasons, not the least is that they know all too well that, if by some unforeseen circumstances she should not be confirmed, it would probably go downhill from there.

Translation-If Sonia Sotomayor is not confirmed, Obama's next appointment will not be Robert Bork.

You can thank the Pro-Life activists in large part for this reality. In any given election, the closer it is, the more likely they are to swing the election one way or another. When the electorate is trending Democratic for whatever reason, that is not a good thing. Now, thanks to them, every bit as much as to the harpies that run the Pro-Choice movement riling up the majority of women, who legitimately fear that if they are raped they'll be forced to just squat down and spit out some bastard that was forced on them, we are where we are-and it ain't lookin' good, amigos.

Both sides of the debate have hi-jacked the electoral process for thirty six years and going, and what do we have to show for it? A Democratic Congressional majority in both houses just chomping at the bits to tax, spend, and regulate us into "prosperity", a Democratic President who is somewhere just barely to the right of Saul Alinsky (we hope), and very possibly coming soon to a Supreme Court near you, a majority clique of liberal hacks known as Democratic apparatchiks operating under the guise of judicial independence.

In the meantime, we have to listen to yet more bullshit about how a judge is like an umpire, and you know (if you are paying attention) just how a typical politician thinks. If we are going to go with a sports analogy, let's do football.

You have the owners, who are the captains of industry and the property owners. The investor class all sit in the front seats and own the season tickets, and they share more and more of their seats with the lobbyists and special interests. The lower classes are all relegated to the cheap seats. The working classes, the skilled and unskilled laborers, are all assigned specific duties inside the stadium during, before and after game time.

The team is made up of the members of society who keep everything running and are considered the pillars of society. The linesmen are made up of your first responders, those who are consigned the task of keeping society safe. The most creative members of society rise to the top. They become your quarterbacks, your wide-receivers, your cornerbacks and tight ends, and of course your running backs.

Your politicians, by all rights, can come from any level previously mentioned, though they tend to come from one group more than the other. They tend to rise to the coaches positions, or to offensive coach or defensive coordinators. Anymore, however, more and more of them make up what we will refer to as the player's unions, and as such they tend to look more and more out for their own interests than they do the actual players, or anybody else who actually makes the game work (that is, the citizens they allegedly "serve").

This bring us round full circle to the referees, who of course are the judges. But the on-field referees are your lower court judges and your appellate court judges, and in some cases, if they do good enough and gain enough seniority, your state Supreme Court judges. So where does that leave the Supreme Court? What level do they rise to in the great game of football?

Those would be the motherfuckers who sit up in the booths, away and safe from the judgment and displeasure of the crowds, while they conduct the final playback reviews. Their word is the final say, and it is irreversible.

Now, does anybody believe that how a judge conducts himself on the field is not a good indication as to how they will conduct themselves up in the booths, where their decisions are irreversible, and where they are unanswerable to the opinions of not only the crowds and players, but of those who appointed them? I hardly think so.

The bad thing is, life and politics are nowhere near as concrete and written in stone as football, and in fact, there are two different rulebooks being adhered to in the game of political pigskin. That's the real problem. You have two entirely differing views of the constitution, and which side is predominant in that view is wholly dependent on which side makes the appointments.

Thus, the next time the right objects to the prospect of the left committing group suicide by killing off their progeny in the womb-for whatever reason-I might suggest that they stop, take a deep breath and ask themselves, "what the fuck am I thinking?"

Otherwise, we can look forward to perhaps decades of a country run as though the states are little more than overgrown counties, much like a French Department, and going more and more down the road to adherence to international law, all in the meantime following a playbook that is straight out of Rules For Radicals.

Edward Moore Kennedy And The Art Of Selling Of Indulgences

Senator Ted Kennedy is at it again. He has proposed a Senate bill that would grant exclusivity to pharmaceutical company Amgen, and a few others, for the making of certain biologic drugs, which are drugs made from living human cells. Obama has proposed granting this exclusivity for seven years. Some in the Senate favor five years. Kennedy, in his bill, has proposed a whopping thirteen years. In what seems to be an obvious quid pro quo, Amgen has agreed to make a remarkably generous donation to a proposed Kennedy Institute in the Senator's honor, to be constructed at some point as an annex to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. So have a number of other pharmaceutical companies and research centers, all of whom have benefited from Kennedy's influence over the years in the way of funding.

Yet, what would this proposed Kennedy Institute involve? Is it yet another research facility, a glorified health care lobbyist or think tank? No, it's not that relatively benign. Its proposed purpose is, in fact, as a "training ground for incoming Senators." There will also be a program of mock Senate sessions, and a theater which will feature film clips of past Senate speeches. This is what Amgen has donated five million dollars to, while many others have donated similar amounts.

And what do they get in return to this monument to Kennedy's ego? They get thirteen years of a guaranteed monopoly on the creation, production, sale and distribution of biologic pharmaceuticals, which guarantees the elimination of any competition, especially from any possible generic products.

Does somebody want to explain to me again just how it is the Democratic Party is the stalwart opponent of the excesses of big business? They are encouraging the protection of a monopoly at the expense of free enterprise. As a result, if this bill is passed, you can not only expect any such drug produced by these companies to be priced higher than it should be by all rights, you can even more certainly expect limits on the quality of these drugs, the best of which might well be shelved, after they are patented in order to prevent any potential competitor from producing a similar product. Will they produce cures? Possibly, in some cases, but at what cost? More than likely, the bulk of the output will be limited to merely more efficient means of treating symptoms.

All so Ted Kennedy can have an Institute named in his honor, the main purpose of which, other than as an outlet to Kennedy's hubris, would seem to be that of making sure in-coming Democratic Senators know their places and tow the party line, under the guise of orientation. Think of it as a kind of kindergarten for newly-elected Democratic Senators. I guess Republicans, if they should want to attend for whatever reason only the gods could hope to comprehend, can do so as well. Maybe they should construct a secret underground section that leads to a hidden tidal pond for the disposal of the more incorrigible, the out-of place conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was originally passed to prevent the creation of monopolies, and the unfair trade and business practices that would entail. It was meant to promote free enterprise and competition. Kennedy and his ilk have turned that principle on its head, by selling indulgences in the form of exclusivity.

The next thing you know they're going to be selling large corporations the right to pollute so they can make sure their smaller competitors are run out business.

Oh, wait a minute.

Bruno-Gay Archetype

Stereotypes become so due to their prevalence in society, and so they are a kind of archetype. Sasha Baron Cohen has utilized the stereotype of the flamboyantly gay archetype to great effect in Bruno, as can be clearly seen even from the trailers for the movie. Bruno takes humanities natural, seemingly ingrained homophobic fears of homosexuality and shoves it in all our faces. What Cohen and the producers of the movie seemingly failed to realize is that there is a corresponding fear and loathing on the part of the gay community that is every bit as visceral-the fear and loathing of societies fear and loathing, one that can produce self-esteem issues to the point of self-loathing.

As such, perhaps it is understandable that many gay activists groups such as GLAAD, and their supporters, and many others, don’t get the joke. It goes beyond that, though. There is some concern that Bruno might well cause a backlash towards the gay community, with a spokesman for GLAAD opining that he felt sorry for the many gay public school children who might now find themselves identified with the Cohen character to such an extent their peers tag them with the nickname Bruno.

Of course, before the advent of Bruno, you see, gay public school children never had to concern themselves with being assaulted, ridiculed, and humiliated, or hearing, “Hey faggot” shouted at them on their way to and from classes.

But, I digress.

Ironically, many of the funniest moments of the movie have little if anything to do with Bruno’s gay lifestyle. Much of it is more to do with the fact that Bruno is simply an ass. For example, in an interview segment featuring Paula Abdul, he convinces her to sit on the bare back of a groundskeeper, as there is no furniture in the newly acquired house/studio on which to sit. Abdul, though taken aback, obliges the ridiculous request, though she draws the line when Bruno offers her fresh sushi off the back of yet another of the workers. LaToya Jackson, who gives Bruno the cell phone number of brother Michael in a scene that was hurriedly cut from the film after Jackson’s death, also sits on the worker’s back and, amazingly, accepts the offer of sushi. (Note to self-I really, really, really want to meet LaToya Jackson).

The most amazing segment concerns a faux television interview show in which Bruno introduces his adopted African baby, an initiative of Bruno to mimic (and of Cohen to ridicule) the fad of celebrities adopting babies from poverty-stricken regions, seemingly as little more than accessories on the order of lap dogs while pretending to display their humanitarian concerns. He explains to the quickly outraged mainly African American audience that he has given the tyke, whom he acquired by trading an Ipod, the traditional African American name of OJ. The baby is with him, dressed in a shirt emblazoned with the word “Gayby”. Bruno assures the audience that if the child decides later in life to get a sex-change operation, he will support his decision one hundred percent. However, if the child turns out to be straight, he will disown him.

Much of the movie seems obviously staged, and revolves around Bruno’s decision to increase his potential for popularity and acceptance in America by trying to turn straight. In one such segment, a fundamentalist Christian minister promises to turn Bruno into a straight man. In another, Bruno enters a military boot camp. In yet another, he embarks on a camping trip with three Alabama good ol’ boys who insist that they have nothing in common with the girls from “Sex And The City”, contrary to Bruno’s observations around the campfire at night. Later, a stark naked Bruno accosts them inside their tent, to their utter horror and outrage.

We have to take such scenes with a grain of salt. After all, the camera crew could not have gone unnoticed. On the other hand, what reasons did Bruno give for their presence? It’s easy to assume such scenes were staged, but how were they staged? What did the victims really know, and when did they know it? Did they really think this was a gay Austrian fashion designer and recent immigrant to America who decided to try to “cure” his homosexuality and was filming a documentary of his quest-or were they actually in on the joke the entire time?

Bruno also accosted Ron Paul, who uttered a gay slur as he hurried away as quick as he could from the faux “interview” Bruno had pretended to seek with the elderly politician, after Bruno disrobed in front of him in an apparent attempt to seduce him.

The comedy of Sasha Baron Cohen is wholly dependent on such reactions from his victims, and that is what makes the character of Bruno as much an archetype as a stereotype. From the safety and security of the theater, we can appreciate the joke, and laugh at the visceral reactions of his victims, all the while knowing deep down we are laughing at ourselves, at our own fears and insecurities. It might even lead us to ponder them more thoughtfully, over time.

What are they based on? Is it possibly in part the fear of not being normal, or of our manhood and sexuality called into question, with all the humiliation that would imply? Is it possibly even an outgrowth of some ingrained, unconscious racial fear that we as individuals are not good enough to pass our heritage on to a succeeding generation? Might such individuals even be under some kind of divine curse? Is this perhaps what leads us as a society to despise homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle?

It is perhaps because of our innate fears, whatever they are based on, that it is perhaps understandably not so funny to many gays.

Nevertheless, Sasha Baron Cohen does outrageous, in-your-face comedy of an evolved type of slapstick variety, albeit a slapstick with a very pointed end. He does not do “humor”. Had he made the film of a more sober, restrained type that concentrated on American’s reactions to, say for example, an outwardly gay man who merely wanted a normal degree of acceptance and respect, it would have been an entirely different type of movie. It might have been humorous, even funny in parts, but it would by its nature be a far more serious work, more poignant and even overtly depressing. One thing it would not be, could not be, is a comedy, at least and certainly not the kind designed to evoke sidesplitting, knee slapping, rolling in the aisles laughter.

That is precisely what kind of movie is Bruno. From the minute he comes to America after being fired from his Austrian talk show for wrecking a fashion show in Milan (he walked through the placed dressed in a Velcro suit and ended up making a shambles of the event), to the moment he arrived in America. Through all his subsequent misadventures, Bruno doesn’t just pronounce his openly gay lifestyle, he screams it. He doesn’t merely ask for or even demand acceptance. He arrogantly takes for granted that anything he wants is his for the asking-and the taking. When it starts to sink in that its not that easy, he is willing then to do whatever it takes to gain the fame and adoration he craves, even if that means changing his sexual orientation, which proves an impossible task. He is to what many believe to be the average straight American, a living nightmare of an in-your-face hedonistic and unapologetic gay man, and what such a creature might be if unrestrained by societal constraints-a creature without any core values, with no redeeming social qualities, a depraved individual beyond hope of redemption. He is to them a man who revels in his sickness and perversions.

The ending brings release, in the form of an Arkansas based professional wrestling event, at which Bruno attends and, in the ring, declares his heterosexuality to the cheers of the audience. Then, he is accosted by a plant in the audience, who happens to be his assistant throughout the entirety of the movie, a man with a starry-eyed crush on Bruno, yet whose attentions and affections have never been returned. Bruno challenges him to enter the ring, and when they do, the audience gets an eye full. Suffice it to say, the fur flies. So do a few folding chairs. Sasha Baron Cohen deserves credit if, for nothing else, unmitigated courage to the point of foolhardiness.

If you don’t mind the thought of Bruno swinging his dick like a lariat-or even if you do-among the many other outrageous antics, I strongly recommend the movie Bruno.

Rated ARRRRRGH

Bruno-Ins Or Da Aus

The title of this video is misleading. Sasha Baron Cohen as Bruno, from this old clip from The Ali G Show, doesn't actually meet Paris Hilton. He just makes some fashion designers/critics look about as stupid in reality as she is by reputation-and even more pretentious.



I'll have another post up later today or tomorrow with my thoughts on the Bruno phenomenon.

A Crime Against Human Decency

The desecration of Emmett Tills grave in Burr Oak Cemetery just outside of Chicago might be hard to understand. At first, I thought it was a matter of a casket exposed to fifty years of constantly changing soil temperature and, especially, rain. How good shape could it be in after so long? And, after all, they gave him a new casket when they dug the old one up in order to further an investigation into the crime of his murder in 1955, a despicable act of wanton savagery that helped ignite the Civil Rights movement.

Only there was more to the story than that. The manager of the cemetery, who replaced the old casket, promised to use it as the centerpiece of an Emmett Till memorial museum and even solicited donations to that effect. When the casket was found, however, in a state of disrepair in a storage building surrounded by garbage, and reportedly inhabited by opossum, it was yet another wound to the black community. Instead of a memorial to Till, his old casket was the centerpiece of a growing criminal investigation into the practice by a number of Burr Oak Cemetery employees, including the same manager, of digging up old graves and reselling the plots. In some cases, the bodies and caskets were smashed by heavy equipment in order to make room. In other cases, the bodies were removed and unceremoniously dumped, in what has to be the most despicable act of craven greed in quite some time. I think we can avoid the use of the term "alleged" here. The only remaining question is, how many bodies have been displaced and/or destroyed? The number at last count was three hundred. I bet it turns out to be more.

Emmett Till was just one of a number of notable figures from the African-American community buried at this cemetery just outside Chicago. Aside from the controversy with his casket, his grave had not been disturbed. Of course, these were black employees, and maybe the thoughts of acting in such a despicable fashion towards the remains of such an iconic figure was too much even for them. Possibly for that reason alone, until the investigation fifty years after his death required his exhumation, Emmett Till remained in his grave.

Not so in the case of many, many unknown others, and it is in fact yet unknown how many persons have been dug up and discarded or destroyed over the years. This has brought further grief and despair upon many of the deceased's surviving family members, who are now learning the hard way that respect for the dead lasts about as long as human memory-actually, it would seem in this case, not even that long. Naturally, there are calls now for further regulations of the funeral industry, something the industry has strongly opposed for years, and something which will, if enacted, merely be yet another cost passed on to the consumer-the family of the deceased, and/or his estate. And to what real effect? What could possibly be done to prevent such an atrocity from occurring in the future?

Once you are dead and gone, you are at the mercy of everyone, regardless of written wills and the wishes of the bereaved, and probably, when you get right down to it, despite any government regulation you could possibly conceive. You don't get a vote-except of course, this being Chicago, on election day.

Prince Michael II

Just wondering if I'm the only one who ever wondered if Prince Michael II, known as Blanket, who is the youngest child of Michael Jackson, and pictured at the bottom of the second photo (the first is of Jackson himself at roughly the same age), might be a clone of Jackson. Would that be so unusual, coming from Michael Jackson? It would certainly explain Jackson's mysterious rambling and contradictory answers concerning the child's mother. The lighter skin is possibly explainable by way of some sort of medical procedure, or even genetic manipulation.

It makes sense when you consider the possibility Jackson might have seen it as a chance to relive his childhood, and at the same time give himself all the things and experiences he never got to have as a child himself.

Not so far-fetched as it might seem. Just Michael being Michael.

The Old One-Two

While defense analysts had their attention focused on North Korea's missile tests, conducted over the Fourth of July weekend, the North Koreans seemed to have been engaged in a duel game of simultaneously conducting a "denial-of-service" attack on the Department of Defense-in addition to the Treasury Department, Secret Service, the White House, the New York Stock Exchange, and who knows where else both in the US and in South Korea. Though it has been called a "sophisticated" cyber-attack, it did no damage, nor did it compromise any security firewalls.

So how do you handle such a provocation? I would be tempted to knock out the North Korean power grid. That shouldn't be hard to do, frankly. This would also provide a good excuse to knock out their nuclear testing facilities, and anything else we can think of, just for good measure. I don't expect the Administration will go that route though. On the other hand, what else can they really do otherwise that they aren't already doing?

The scariest thing about this? The Defense Department didn't even know they were being attacked until they found out in the press. The only people here who knew it was going on was the Department of Homeland Security, who said nothing at the time to anybody.

You have to wonder exactly what the North Koreans were trying to accomplish. It looks to me like they were trying to disable both the South Koreans, and ourselves, probably with the aim of massing an invasion of the South. Of course, since there were no signs of troop movements near the border, at least not so far as we have been told, you have to wonder whether they planned to lob a few missiles at certain strategic targets in Seoul.

I look for Kim to bite the big one here really soon. The North Koreans will have to have something in the way of saving face after such an unmitigated embarrassment of a failure. Blaming Kim, after he is gone, would seem to be the best option. If I am right, there might be a power struggle once he is dead, a power struggle that might leave Kim's son holding the short end of the stick.

UPDATE-I don't really know what to make of this, but on NBC News with Brian Williams tonight, even though this was the lead story of the broadcast, you would think no one has any idea who was behind the attack. Sure, they mentioned once that the South Koreans suspected North Korea, but that was almost a "by-the-way", something not to be given a great deal, or even a little credence.

What is the reason for this? I don't mean to imply that NBC News is sympathetic to North Korea or to Kim Jung Il, but I do wonder if they, while obliged to report the attack, are loathe to say anything that might detract from what they would have us believe to be a major accomplishment of Obama, during his visit to the G8, in securing support for a strong stance against the Iranian nuclear program.

As incredible as it might seem, I think they might also be wanting to plant seeds in the minds of their viewers that this attack might well be a result of some kind of domestic terror group-probably a right-wing one.

I can't prove any of this, of course, but I find it remarkable that all of the sources I have read concerning this attack seem adamant that the most likely culprit-in fact, the seemingly most obvious and only suspect-is North Korea. Yet, they get barely a mention, and that almost in passing.

Make of it what you will.

UPDATE II-It seems a lot of people might have jumped the gun. According to this report from Reuters, the cyber-attack, while its too early to tell for sure whether North Korea was or was not involved, almost certainly did not originate from within the country, which does have a sophisticated cyber-spy network. According to many analysts, the Denial-of-service attack was too unsophisticated to come from North Korea, and points to the possibility of cyber-terrorists who might even, in fact, be unemployed IT professionals.

Okay, but I still think its pretty suspicious that the attacks were made on the US AND on South Korea simultaneously.