Bajoobahead No. 2: Rachael Ray and Fox News

Okay, so while this may be trivial (Yahoo! always tells me trivial things when I get online; it's what they do best), I thought that this would qualify to make Rachael Ray and Fox News Bajoobaheads No. 2. Here's the story:

Rachael Ray's scarf sends blogosphere nuts

Buzz of the day: A Dunkin' Donuts ad featuring Rachael Ray wearing a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men, has been yanked. "The keffiyeh has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad," said conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, fueling the controversy.

Dunkin' says in a statement that the scarf was "selected by (Ray's) stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial."

The View gals raced to Ray's defense today in a long opening chat:
Joy: "Companies should have a little more integrity."
Whoopi, who was most outraged: "It flags Rachael to businesses ... as someone you might not be able to trust."
Elisabeth: "This is the best advertising they could get.

1) We all know that Rachael Ray is stupid anyway. As for Whoopi Golberg, she went downhill fast and is looking for some attention.
2) Aside from the fact that the Israeli government's part of the whole Palestinian-Israeli Conflict part is bloodier anyway (how would you feel if someone just up and kicked you off your home and then bulldozed your house and killed your relatives and then imprisoned you and whoever else was left? Probably not too happy), the keffiyeh while often associated with Palestinian groups is not limited to them (although it has become closely associated by Westerners, often ignorant of the Middle East, to Palestinian independence).
3) A jihad is not supposed to be violent. It's simply a personal quest. For example, a student might be on a jihad to do very well in school. That's all it is. You can chill out now, Westerners.
4) Rachael Ray's stylist claims that the keffiyeh was picked for the outfit. There was an article a while back about how Westerners are now using the keffiyeh in fashion without understanding its meaning and thus upsetting people because they have trivialized what it means for Arabs, especially Palestinian groups. So basically, Westerners stop ignoring important issues that need to be resolved peacefully by trivializing them (aka totally NOT helping) and Rachael Ray, get a brain. GaaAH.
5) Fox News....'nuff said (see part 2 about the Israeli government being the by far more aggressive side).
6) Here's what Stephen Colbert has to say about this:

7) J-Mad just added to the blogosphere craze. BAM!

Bajoobahead #1: Chester Bartels

Chester Bartels writes to the Grand Rapids Press:

Why has the press crowned Obama? [I mean so what if he has more delegates/votes than Hillary and has generally acted more ethically than she has?]

He is the most liberal senator, by record, and he has avoided voting on any issue of substance by voting here or not being present at all. What has he done? What has he proposed other than raising taxes and redistributing wealth (pure socialism)?

He is a hollow shell with no substance. Yet the media are largely behind him. Why? Do the media, too, find nothing to be proud of in the United States? [I am nothing but a patriot. I always wear a flag pin, even when I'm not wearing a lapel.] Do they want to ruin "the rich" so government can be the chief if not the only employer?

Do they want to stop an unfavorable war only to let the fundamentalist Islamic cults rule the Middle East? It would seem that a man with the given name of Barack Hussein Obama would have to be scrutinized a bit before we would want him to be a senator, let alone a president! [You can tell a lot about people by their middle name. For instance, my middle name is Hitler, and I'm a secret Nazi. That's why I didn't include my name because I'm hiding something.] Never forget that it was capitalism that won World Wars I and II, not socialism. [But do forget that capitalism also lost World Wars I and II and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was on the winning side of WWII. And don't consider Marx's complaint that capitalism leads to the objectification of the working class because that will only lead you to conclude that Hitler's Germany was the apotheosis of capitalism.] The opportunity for profit is what drives men to succeed, not the opportunity to be given someone's else's hard-earned dollars.

If the Democrats win the Congress and the presidency, increase taxes as they have promised, institute national insurance as they plan to do, and increase government size and influence, then we can forget freedom as we know it. [I'm talking real freedom here, not the due process and the Geneva Conventions that only the socialist Democrats care about.] Thinking citizens must keep these socialists out of office. Let's find out a lot more about Obama before we even consider him as fit to rule this country[, but not before we write a letter to the editor filled with no new information and conclusions that aren't supported by non-trivial facts].

This post was written in Sarcastic Trebuchet font. This post was intended to mock Chester Bartels' letter to the editor and to expose certain beliefs/conclusions as baseless or illogical. Any feelings of pique caused by this post are purely coincidental.

Devolution

The European Court of Human Rights might hear a case in which they will be asked to legally declare a chimpanzee to be a person.

A British animal rights activist wants to become the legal guardian of Matthew, a 26 year-old chimp, so that she can take care of him if the bankrupt animal sanctuary in Vienna, Austria, that is his home, is closed.

However, under Austrian law, only a human being can have a guardian. Austria's supreme court has upheld that law in this case.

But that's not stopping the Association Against Animal Factories, who filed the appeal in the European court on behalf of the chimp.

Why is this worth noting? I'll tell you.

In a recent post, I wrote about my objections to embryonic stem cell research, on the grounds that such research destroys human life. These are the same grounds on which I base my objections to abortion - I believe that upon the meeting of a sperm and egg, a human life is conceived, and cannot be aborted. However, not everyone agrees.

One roadblock to outlawing abortion is that many pro-choice activists argue that a fetus is not a human. In my opinion, a fetus conceived by two people cannot be anything else - it won't be anything else, regardless of how similar a human embryo might look to an embryo of another species. It is genetically programmed to develop into a human. But many refuse to label a fetus a human, so that it is easier to permit abortion.

My point is this: what sort of society have we become when we refuse to call our most vulnerable members human beings, whereas it is conceivable to fight for a chimpanzee to be given this distinction?

I want to cry.

I'll be keeping an eye on this case to see what develops. Hopefully, the European Court of Human Rights will maintain the same position as the Austrian supreme court. Only time will tell.

Headlines: 20 May 2008 (and Older)

• 'W,' Oliver Stone's Bush Biopic
  

  A little crass.
  

• Klein on Obama:
  

  A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves.
  

• Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment
  

  And the award for Best Use of Sarcasm goes to...
  

• The Fall of Conservatism
  

  The pendulum swings left? Long, but interesting.
  

• Obama and
  Ahma-gonna-kill-myself-if-the-primary-season-doesn't-end-soon-ijad
  

  Obama said that he would meet with the leadership of Iran, but he never said he'd meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So why does McCain and everyone on the Right say he did? And when is that McCain-Obama foreign policy debate going to be?
  

• Underplayed Story of the Day
  

  Remember when the EPA denied the state of California to legislate its own fuel-efficiency standards? Well, it turns out that, like everything else in the Bush Administration, the decision was based on sound science, and not politics.
  

• Obama Is Expected to Hit a Milestone in Today's Votes
  

  After primaries in Kentucky & Oregon, Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates, which will hopefully trigger a superdelegate-slide in his direction.

A Petition to Cure Diseases

I was riding my bike home from work last week when a man with a petition stepped in my path, forcing me to stop. "Do you have a moment? Just a moment for a petition! It's about stem cells."

I had been asked once before to "sign a petition to cure diseases." After seeing it was about legalizing stem cell research, I declined. This time, I wanted to make sure I knew what I was blowing off, so I started asking some questions about it.

Are they adult, umbilical, or embryonic, I wondered. I was told "they get them from the baby and from the mother." That didn't answer my question, so I asked to read the petition. The petitioner kept talking, trying to worm out of two questions now. I again asked for the petition to read it, and he said this:

"You can read all you want man, but I just explained it to you."

Damn right, I wanted to say! I'll read what I want (this is America, after all) and I'm not going to have you, a person I've just seen for the first time in my life, "explain" it to me. I have no reason to take your word, I would have liked to say. But there was no point in being antagonistic.

I saw it was indeed about legalizing embryonic stem cell research, to which I am vehemently opposed. One phrase caused me to stop and think, though, and that was the stipulation that embryos used in this research would be those that are not suitable for implantation (think of Snowflake Children) and would otherwise be discarded.

But this was more designed to appeal to an individual's distaste for waste, rather than his or her distaste for disrespect for human life. Clever.

I again declined to sign the petition. I have no problem with adult or umbilical stem cells, but creating an embryo - a human at one of its most basic and vulnerable stages - with a purpose that prevents it from doing what it is genetically programmed to do, destroys a life. (Yes, I believe an embryo is a life, but I'm not going to defend that belief right now).

This experience left me with this conclusion: What about curing social diseases, like this proposed biocannibalism? I understand why the argument is made that these embryos will otherwise be discarded. However, allowing such embryos to be used for stem cell research will only promote those enterprises which produce those embryos in the first place. Ending practices that create human life only for it to be destroyed will be much harder, if embryonic stem cell research is to become legal. I think most people who share my position - that embryos are indeed human life - would agree also that it is desirable to end practices that produce embryos that are ultimately to be destroyed.

Equal Rights?

I was enjoying a cigar with my brother last night when conversation drifted to the recent ruling in California that legalized gay marriage. I realize I'm going to get some flack for what I'm about to say, but I don't give a damn.

I remarked that while I have no problem with homosexual civil unions, I don't agree with something like "gay marriage." It's always been my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, and should indeed be a sacred commitment between that one man and that one woman.

I explained that as far as civil unions, I don't see how, given the legal framework (i.e., the 14th Amendment), the United States government could deny tax and other legal benefits to individuals in committed relationships with another individual of the same sex. I just don't agree with the use of the term marriage.

My brother pointed out that from one standpoint, it's not about equal rights. For instance, a heterosexual man cannot marry another man. That's something that was illegal for every man - gay or straight.

Ah, you say. It's not about that. It's that people should be able to marry whomever they love, correct?

All right, then. Take this scenario: A man and a woman apply for a marriage license, saying they're very deeply in love, and can't wait.

The clerk has them fill out the paperwork, and it turns out both individuals sign with the same last name.

The clerk asks if it's a coincidence.

It's not, they say. They're brother and sister. They just happen to be very deeply in love.

Now you say that will never happen. That's outrageous to suggest it! But I think it could be said that there was definitely a time when "gay marriage" was unthinkable, as well.

This takes us back to the legal framework that I mentioned earlier: the Equal Protection Clause. It basically says no rights can arbitrarily (or on the basis of any discrimination) be denied to one individual, while granted to another. Given the nature of this amendment, isn't it the correct legal course now for the government to legalize and sanction any sort of union between anybody? We have to no choice now but to be fair and open the doors to incest, polygamy, and polyandry. I could go on, but I risk being misquoted and villified already.

My brother and I have concluded a simple solution for this: end any sort of government benefit for marriage or civil unions, even for heterosexual couples. Certainly, such benefits were in the past intended to promote the growth of families as the basic unit of society, but frankly, I don't think that should be government's job. In my perfect world, government would provide basic national defense and protect - not grant - the welfare of its citizens. The importance of the family is much more integral in religious institutions, who have their own verdicts on this issue. With that said, I don't think government should be exclusive to families, either. I don't think my suggestion would be.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care what people want to do in their private lives, as long as it causes no harm to another individual without that individual's consent. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support something to which I object. That's been said about the war in Iraq, and now I'm saying it about gay marriage.

Do what you want, folks. I swear I'm not trying to preach to anyone. An individual's choice is his or her own. Just don't ask me to pay for it, if I would never make the choice myself.

In Case You Missed It

The last few days have seen George W. Bush's outrageous comments comparing Obama's willingness to engage in diplomacy with appeasing Hitler (while Bush was on a trip to Israel to mark the country's 60th anniversary, no less)...

...and the fracas between Obama and McCain that ensued.

FCX Clarity. A Solution to Our Gas Problems?

Lo and behold, Honda is making progress with our energy concerns over oil. In 2007, Honda released it's preview of its next generation vehicle: the FCX Clarity. What make this car so remarkable is that it only runs on hydrogen. It is a Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV). The only by-product it emits is water. No greenhouse gases here. Some might remember the stunt J. Leno did when he actually drank the water that came out of the tailpipe.

But let's not get overly excited about this car yet. Currently you can only get it in three Southern California towns (Torrance, Santa Monica, Irvine). They will only be leased because the hydrogen refueling infrastructure is not built up enough to have these cars driving around anywhere else.

If you are wondering how fast this thing can really go, you'll be surprised to know that the FCX Clarity easily reaches 100 mph and talk about gas mileage, the FCX Clarity can go 270 miles on one tank. That's about 68 miles per gallon or double what most cars get today. But what about refueling? Well, the researchers at Honda are working on that. While construction is underway for hydrogen refueling stations, Honda is developing a possible in home refueling station. The plan is for the station to take natural gas and convert it into hydrogen so it refuels the car in a garage or outside. The other benefit is that it will power our home with the excess energy.

The interior of this beauty is none the less brilliant. It is very flashy with a futuristic look. It can easily fit four. Test drivers found the layout of the panel easy to read and it was quieter than anything they have ever ridden. The FCX Clarity comes with all of the features one would expect from Honda such as their navigation system and even a built in i-Pod dock.

Honda is not the only car company that has developed a fuel-cell vehicle. BMW recently released its version of a hydrogen powered car.

The FCX Clarity is exciting a lot of people and Honda hopes that by 2010 it will be available to the majority of the country.

Anti-Obamaism: From the Almost Legitimate to the Scurrilous

Look what arrived in my inbox this morning: an email forwarded by my Italian grandfather, Nonno to us grandkids, mostly containing this article by Ken Blackwell. I love Nonno dearly, but the email angered me so much that I had to respond to it. What follows is excerpts of Blackwell's article (in italics for clarity) and a slightly edited and reformatted version of my reply.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

It's true that the National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, but I challenge this on two counts: (1) Liberalism is not a bad thing, in my opinion. I understand if somebody disagrees with that, which brings me to my second point: (2) The ranking is nonsense. Two votes that the National Journal considered "liberal," he voted against Sen. Clinton and with such conservatives as Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel.

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

What Obama actually said about Pakistan:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

I fail to understand the neoconservatives: We shouldn't go into Pakistan (where al-Qaeda is), but we should go into Iraq (where al-Qaeda isn't).

As for diplomacy without preconditions, when the Bush Administration refuses to talk with people with whom they have disagreements, nothing constructive is accomplished. In fact, refusing to talk with people in Iran or in Palestine bolsters the hardliners in those areas. They can take our actions and say that we're out to get them, that we're on a crusade against Islam, etc. In fact, the major success of the Iraq War--getting al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) out of al-Anbar province--was achieved by working with former Sunni insurgents. And even the Bush administration has met with Kim Jong Il.

And I don't understand how you could use a nuclear missile against an organization. I can understand how it can be used to annihilate a city, to end a conventional war against a state, but how can it be used against a group of individuals?

Furthermore, Obama is not out of the mainstream on foreign policy.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction.

To some extent, haven't Christian leaders hijacked Christianity? Haven't some far-right Christian leaders made outrageous statements in the name of Christianity? I don't think most Christians would identify with these statements:

• Pat Robertson: "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
• "[John] Hagee has argued that Hurricane Katrina 'was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans' for hosting a gay-pride parade."

I could go on, I'm sure.

Just because Obama agrees with Margaret Sanger on one issue doesn't mean that he agrees with that person on all issues. This is another scurrilous attack that has defined the Republican/conservative machine since at least 2000, when the Bush campaign implied that the girl John McCain adopted from Bangladesh was his illegitimate, black daughter.

And why shouldn't gay people receive equal treatment with straight people? Surely, allowing gay people to marry would be less of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than two-day, celebrity marriages.

Ken Blackwell's moral outrage is particularly hypocritical, considering that during the Ohio gubernatorial race, he implied that his opponent was having a homosexual affair with a man convicted of public exposure. The Courier, an Ohio newspaper, thought his actions so egregious that they took the unusual step of un-endorsing him.

What's worse than Blackwell's actual editorial is the statements that succeed it, statements so vile that I think even Blackwell would be appalled by it:

According to The Book of Revelation the anti-christ...will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

First, the Book of Revelation does not say this, nor could it have, because Islam wasn't even founded until centuries after Revelations was written. Second, Obama is not a Muslim. Finally, just as Blackwell rightly says that eloquence and race should not be criteria by which we elect a president, neither should his religion. Even if he were a Muslim, why should that matter?

HIV Myths Sentence Man to 35 Years

As reported by the Associated Press:

DALLAS - An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Because a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon, the 42-year-old will have to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Campbell was being arrested in May 2006 for public intoxication when he began resisting and kicking inside the patrol car, Dallas police office Dan Waller testified.

Campbell was convicted of harassment of a public servant.

This is absolutely idiotic on so many levels. First of all, Campbell was drunk and therefore it is questionable as to his actual intent in spitting in the officer's face. More than likely, he was angry at being arrested and expressed his anger by spitting, not with the premeditated intent of infecting or killing the officer. Secondly, the officer was at NO RISK of contracting HIV/AIDS through the saliva of an HIV positive man. The jury therefore sentenced a man to 35 years in prison for spitting, an act which didn't harm anyone, only insulted the officer. If the jury wanted to punish Campbell for anything, it should have been for being publicly intoxicated.

The jury's decision came from gross misunderstandings about HIV/AIDS which will be corrected through this post. These are taken from Heroes Project India's FAQs, but the same information is easily available through other HIV/AIDS-prevention organizations.1) There are no risks involved working in close physical contact with an infected person. You may share the same telephone with other people in your office or work side by side in a crowded factory with other HIV infected persons, even share the same cup of tea, but this will not expose you to the risk of contracting the infection. Being in contact with dirt and sweat will also not give you the infection.

2) This virus is spread through the blood, semen, and vaginal discharges of an HIV-infected person. People can get HIV infection when they have contact with these fluids. This can happen by engaging in specific sexual and/or drug use practices. Also, HIV-infected women can pass the virus to their newborns during pregnancy and childbirth. Lastly, some people who received blood products before March 1985 got infected blood. Now all donated blood is being screened for HIV. Many people do not know they have this virus and therefore can unknowingly pass it to others. This is because they usually look and feel fine for many years after HIV infection occurs.

• Sex and HIV:
  Both men and women, including teenagers, can pass HIV to a sex partner, whether he or she is the same sex or the opposite sex. This can occur during unprotected anal, vaginal, and oral (mouth) sex through contact with infected semen, blood, or vaginal secretions.
• Drugs, Sex and HIV:
  People can get infected with HIV through sharing needles, cookers, or cottons (works) with someone who is infected. This can happen even when the person passing the works looks clean and healthy. Some people stopped shooting and/or sharing works many years ago and do not realize that they may have become infected with HIV back when they were still shooting drugs. They also may not realize they can pass it through unprotected sex now.
• Pregnancy and HIV:
  Treatment during pregnancy can help an HIV-infected woman protect her baby from becoming infected. Without treatment, more than a third of all babies born to HIV-infected women will have the virus and eventually get sick.
  

3) As made quite obvious in the last two points, you CANNOT contract the HIV/AIDS virus through saliva, tears, and sweat. It is ONLY transmitted through blood, semen, vaginal discharge, and breast milk.

4) Additionally, an HIV positive person may not necessarily have AIDS. Since 1992, scientists have estimated that about half the people with HIV develop AIDS within 10 years after becoming infected. This time varies greatly from person to person and can depend on many factors, including a person's health status and their health-related behaviors.

Today there are medical treatments that can slow down the rate at which HIV weakens the immune system. There are other treatments that can prevent or cure some of the illnesses associated with AIDS, though the treatments do not cure AIDS itself. As with other diseases, early detection offers more options for treatment and preventative health care.

5) No discussion on HIV/AIDS is complete, however, without mention of methods of prevention.

• Abstain from vaginal, anal, and oral sex.
• Use condoms.
  
• Effectiveness: Studies have shown that latex condoms are highly effective in preventing HIV transmission when used consistently and correctly. These studies looked at uninfected people considered to be at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected people. The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100 percent of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.

• If lubricant is used, it must be water-based. Lubricants containing oil (such as Vaseline) might cause latex condoms to break.
• If spermicidal (birth control) foams and jellies are used, they must be used along with condoms, not in place of condoms. The effectiveness of spermicidal in preventing HIV is unknown.
• If you shoot drugs, seek help. And never share needles.
• Avoid mixing alcohol or other drugs with sexual activities-they might cloud one's judgment and lead to engagement in unsafe sexual practices.

For more about HIV/AIDS and prevention, please visit the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO).

Click here for the Heroes Project India FAQs.

For the AP's report on Campbell, click here.

Let's Do It

The Energy Department released a report yesterday that said that wind power could supply 20% of the nation's energy by 2030. Wind power currently supplies 1% of our energy. To achieve the 20% goal, the amount of electricity produced by wind would have to jump from 16 to 300 gigawatts per year. Such growth is predicted to decrease natural gas consumption by 11% and decrease coal consumption by 18%, removing 825 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. "This is the equivalent of taking 140 million cars off the road."

Such growth is not without its challenges. It would require improving turbine technology, constructing power lines from high-wind areas to high-usage areas, and opening new areas to wind development. But we must move away from fossil fuels, and as this report shows, wind energy can play a prominent role in moving toward a sustainable future.

For more.

Cents-less

Currently, the cost it takes to produce one penny (1.26 cents) is greater than the value of that penny. Same thing for nickels (7.7 cents). But Congress is acting! The House unanimously passed H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act, on Thursday. (I had two friends--one liberal, one conservative--who said that if they agreed on something, they must be right. Expand this to 435 friends and you can see how right this bill is.) The bill would require pennies and nickels to be primarily made of steel and is estimated to save $1 billion over the next decade.

But the Bush administration is balking at the bill, mostly because it doesn't like Congress telling any twig on the Executive Branch what to do. Never mind that the Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

So President Bush doesn't like this bill, even though it clearly has wide popularity and makes good business sense, because he doesn't like being told what to do. Now I understand why the oil companies in which he had major stakes in the 80's failed miserably.

The Crisis in Myanmar

View Larger Map

A week ago, Cyclone Nargis slammed into the southeast Asian country of Myanmar (AKA Burma). Although the death count stood as low as 350 a few days ago, it is now estimated that 100,000 people have died, and millions more are homeless and at serious risk of disease due to a lack of clean drinking water.

The military junta that runs the country has acted irresponsibly and continues to do so. The government was warned that the cyclone was coming, but did nothing to inform the people. Now, the junta is making it harder for international aid organizations to bring aid into the country and distribute it among the people.

Luckily, there are a couple actions you can take to help the people of Myanmar. You can donate money to the International Burmese Monks Organization. According to Avaaz.org:

In many of the worst-hit areas, the monasteries are the only source of shelter and food for Burma's poorest people. They have been on the front lines of the aid effort since the storm struck. Other forms of aid could be delayed, diverted or manipulated by the Burmese government--but the monks are the most trusted and reliable institution in the country.

If you are unable to give money, you can donate rice to the UN World Food Program while developing your vocabulary through FreeRice.com. Although Free Rice began in October 2007 and will likely be around long after the Myanmar crisis, rest assured that the UN World Food Program is working to send supplies into Myanmar. And since the damage to the Irrawaddy Delta, Myanmar's "Rice Basket", will limit the supply of rice, raising prices when prices are already high, the work of the World Food Program is needed more than ever, not just for Burma but for the world.

Update: Through Amnesty International, you can also email the Burmese ambassador to the U.S., urging his country not to restrict aid or in away way influence its dispersion.

Best Study Ever

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a new study entitled "Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs: 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' Examined". It's a fascinating read (complete with clips of the show!), but here are some highlights:

• In a 2007 poll, Americans chose Jon Stewart as one of their most trusted journalists, tying for 4th with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper and beating out Matt Lauer, Ted Koppel and Barbara Walters.
• Stewart makes fun of Republicans/conservatives more than Democrats/liberals, but the study did not conclude whether this was because the Daily Show was liberal or anti-establishment. (Hopefully, they can find out in 2009!)
• "In its subject matter, The Daily Show is indeed journalistic. Its topic agenda is highly focused on the public square, on issues of significance, particularly those focused around Washington. Its agenda is not dissimilar, indeed, from other cable talk shows." I'm taking this to mean that Jon Stewart is as much of a responsible journalist as anyone on cable news or talk radio. I think this says less about the quality of the Daily Show than it does about the lack of quality in cable news and talk radio.

I like the circularity involved in including this clip from last night:

The Winner?

Political pundit Tim Russert declared last night that Illinois Senator Barack is the uncontested Democratic presidential nominee.

After winning the primary in North Carolina, Obama appears to be November's candidate, while New York Senator Hillary Clinton is using her narrow margin of victory in Indiana to justify continuing her fight. This comes as Mrs. Clinton has cancelled all public appearances for today to consider her options. Add to that the fact that a congressional source has told the Drudge Report that Hillary's also having trouble convincing uncommitted superdelegates even to meet with her.

While Democrats have this to mull over this Wednesday, there are murmurs on the Republican side about the lack of faith in their presumptive candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain. ABC News shows on their website that a quarter of all Republicans voting in the primaries (Indiana and North Carolina) yesterday voted against McCain. While Mike Huckabee was still a popular choice, it is important to note that his campaign is over for 08. However, Representative Ron Paul's campaign is still ongoing, despite media reports. Even though his chances are slim at best, his continued presence on the Republican battlefield is sending the message that Republicans aren't all satisfied with McCain, and if the Republicans want to see more red states in November, McCain is going to have to pay attention to the conservative voters. Even Paul's book sales are a testament to this.

For conservatives like me, the fact that Ron Paul still represents a substantial movement toward conservatism is invigorating. It's a shame we won't be able to vote for him as a Republican come the fall.

$5 a Gallon and $120 a Barrell!?!

As most of you have probably seen, gas prices are on the up and up. Here in Arizona, we are paying $3.41. That relatively cheap for a western state considering that one state west of us is paying over $4 in some parts. A recent poll done by CNN showed that 94% of Americans think that we'll be paying over $4 a gallon this spring and 78% think we will be paying over $5 some time this year.
On a strange note to this, demand for gas has actually gone down. How is this? People have the uncanny ability to adapt. More people are commuting to work together or using their city's mass transit system. SUV sales are also dropping like a rock. With more fuel efficient vehicles on the market, people are buying them. Toyota's Prius sales increased by 67% this April.

Now the price of oil has broken many barriers. It has made a new record by breaking the $120 wall and forecasters say that the price will most likely just keep increasing. The only way experts think it will go down is by depreciating the value of oil. Will it happen? Who knows.
It's nice to know that 83% of Americans think oil companies are making too much profit.

Headlines: Cinco de Mayo 2008

• Baghdad Disneyland contractor: Violence in Baghdad is like 'drive-bys' in L.A.
  

  No, Disney is not building a theme park in Iraq.
  

• Two die in Somali currency riot
  

  Due to inflation caused by counterfeiting, vendors are only accepting American dollars, which the people don't have.
  

• Up to 10,000 feared dead in Burma cyclone
  

  The official count is at 3,934 dead, but yesterday's count was 350. This trishaw driver has it right:
  

  "Where are all those uniformed people who are always ready to beat civilians?"

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iran.

Political figures love to threaten to go to war with Iran. Most recently, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton was on Fox News arguing that attacking Iran would be "the most prudent thing to do."

In the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton said that following an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, her administration would "obliterate" Iran in a "massive retaliation":

(Barack Obama is hammering Clinton about her statements not only on Iran, but on her gas-tax holiday political pandering. The Iranian president lodged a formal complaint with the U.N. because of Clinton's comments.)

But nobody can mess with the original:

Obama is right. Saber-rattling only emboldens hardliners by lending credence to their claims that we are seeking to destroy Islam. The way we ensure that extremists stay out of power is by communicating and working with moderates.

Headlines: Flowers & Showers

30 April 2008:

• Cage Match
  

  McCain is worried about what Jim Webb's (D-VA) "21^st Century G.I. Bill of Rights" will do to the Armed Forces' retention rates.
  

• Federal Money in Health Care Plan from McCain
  

  "Let's take away the tax credit we give to companies to provide insurance and give $5000 to every family in America to pay for an insurance policy that costs, on average, $12,106. Don't worry; the forces of the free market will drive the price down 59%!"
  

• Obama Repudiates Wright:
  

  I'm the one in the back applauding arrhythmically.
  

1 May 2008:

• Belarus Expels 10 U.S. Diplomats
  

  Apparently, somebody is a little authoritarian.
  

• Another Move to Obama
  

  Former DNC chair Joe Andrew switches from Hillary to Obama. Funny thing: he was appointed to head the DNC by Bill Clinton.

Having Their Cake, and Eating It, Too

New Jersey wants to enact a new "sin tax" on fast food. Presumably, this is another effort to get people to make healthier eating choices, but if you ask me, anyone considering this as a good idea needs to think about what this means.

If the plan works, less people will eat fast food. People eating less fast food means fast food establishments will earn less revenue. Employees of fast food establishments will make less money, and some will lose their jobs. Those restaurants won't be able to afford as much staff as they have now.

But wait a second. Didn't the federal government recently raise minimum wage? Furthermore, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development explicitly says food service employees are protected by minimum wage laws.

Somebody needs to get their head out of the sand. What kind of message are they sending? First, we need to make sure that those poor souls flipping Mickey D's burgers have enough to live on (never mind that fast food is not a job meant to completely support an individual). Now that we've done that, we'll put the squeeze on those same fast food restaurants again by targeting them with a sin tax. Add to this the already-occurring rampant inflation in food prices.

Never mind that fast food happens to be more affordable than healthy food. As long as we're messing with the market, why not just force health-food companies to lower their prices? That's a tactic people want to see in the oil industry, so let's bring it into the health-food industry, too.

I've got three words for New Jersey, if they go through with this:

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Face it, Governor Corzine, you can't have your cake (paying fast food employees more), and eat it, too (by raising the taxes on the work of those same fast food employees).

On a related note, I was going to call this post "Having Their Taco, and Eating It, Too," but I realized that might get some people unnecessarily excited.