My older younger brother (think before you ask) recently joined Facebook and asked me to sign up in order to share his photos. So, reluctantly, I did. Surprisingly, I found the interface to be infinitely more intuitive than Myspace which I hate but joined in order to communicate with my grandson, Dakota, while he was in Europe with his soccer team. I know, lots of folks love Myspace, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that thinks it’s a bloated, clumsy clunker.

Anyway, between the two, Facebook appears to provide a smoother user experience and a better sense of humor. For example, I found this post on the site’s own blog somewhat amusing. Apparently, some folks aren’t choosing a gender in their profiles, an omission that has caused some problems for Facebook’s language translators, so much so that they’ve asked members to kindly select one or the other. Of course, not to appear insensitive to users who haven’t yet decided which gender they want to be, Facebook has granted an exception:

“We’ve received pushback in the past from groups that find the male/female distinction too limiting. We have a lot of respect for these communities, which is why it will still be possible to remove gender entirely from your account, including how we refer to you in Mini-Feed.”

The male/female distinction is “too limiting”? How so, I wonder. What other distinctions might there be? Anyone?

Simple, concise and strategic. But not so in the U.S. where our politicians endlessly debate alternative fuel sources and vie for their favorites (read “special interests”) to get all the federal funding.

Oil companies want oil to remain “the” transportation fuel source unless they get distribution control of the alternatives; farmers want ethanol to play a big part even though, at best, it can only supplement oil; solar panel makers aren’t sure exactly how they might power autos but they want in on the apparent “green energy” boom; battery manufacturers have been challenged to make cells that provide greater driving range and cost efficiency than are available today; and some, including Bush, want to tap the bazillion gallons of oil under our own feet, although Democrats seem bent on preventing that from ever happening.

All have a place in the solution although none alone are the holy grail of transportation fuel. Problem is, we can’t move forward with any of them until the political squabbling ends and that doesn’t appear anywhere on the horizon. Meanwhile, we’re getting skewered by our dependence on foreign oil. And while some believe we can just “wait until prices come back down” (like that will ever happen!), our politicians continue whoring around with special interests while Rome burns.

The incandescent light bulb is a quintessential American invention, discovered by Thomas Edison more than 125 years ago, but its future seems to be fading to black amid an ever-greening society. As Americans become more environmentally conscious, consumers are being pushed to buy more earth friendly products including compact fluorescent lights, or CFLs, the latest help-the-planet issue du jour among concerned citizens.

At the federal level, President Bush signed an energy bill in December that, among other changes, will require all light bulbs sold in the United States by 2014 to be at least 70 percent more efficient than today. For those of you that haven’t already connected the dots, the mandate means that, without major improvements, incandescent bulbs will disappear from store shelves by 2014.

After Congress delivered its comprehensive energy bill to the White House in a Toyota Prius hybrid car, U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, waxed poetic about light bulbs, noting that little had changed since Edison and his glass tube and filament. “When it comes to illumination,” Harman said, “we still live in a cave.”

Click to read more ...

I’m a little surprised to hear msm buzz about the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. I mean, a racist/Marxist paired with a shrill socialist? C’mon, people! Don’t drink the coolaid!

Anyway, someone sent this to me when Obama and Hill were still slamming each other to get the Democratic party’s nod, but I never got around to posting it. Now I’ve forgotten who sent it, but with at least a few sheeple (the ones who would take Hillary any way they can get her) pining for a destructive duo ticket, it seems even more appropriate.

Armstrong and Getty were talking about this news story during their morning drive radio broadcast this morning and I had to shake my head. It’s wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know what needs fixing first.

According to Alisha Dean’s MySpace page, she’s a 19-year-old divorced woman who describes herself as “S-E-X-Y”. Her posted photos, some showing her in various states of undress, present an enticing picture. And she apparently gets a good deal of attention from the page, proving the old adage: advertising pays.

Enter Morris Williams, 22, a young man who was attracted to Dean by her MySpace page. After a few telephone conversations, the two met (she picked him up on the street) and eventually they had sex. Dean confided that she wasn’t really 19, that she had actually just turned 18. Doesn’t sound like an uncommon scenario in today’s world, does it?

But Williams later discovered that Dean had lied, that she was actually a very mature looking 13-year-old! Horrified, he went to her father whom he believed would want to know about his daughter’s “shenanigans”. But instead of dealing with his daughter, who clearly needs some control and guidance in her life, Dean’s father reported Williams to police. He was arrested and sentenced to one year in jail, five years subsequent probation (during which he’ll wear an ankle bracelet) and required registration as a sexual predator.

But here’s the kicker. Dean had done the same thing before! Ask 24-year-old Darwin Mills who was sentenced to five years in prison after being enticed by Dean’s MySpace page!

So where do I start? Dean is clearly a sexual predator despite her young age,  guilty of fraud if nothing else. But…

Click to read more ...

With the memory of Barbaro’s death after last year’s Preakness still fresh in our minds, Saturday’s Kentucky Derby spectators saw for themselves the sordid truth about what racing really means for the horses involved, as the filly Eight Belles collapsed, her front ankles broken, and had to be euthanised on the track.

Her death may have seemed humane, but the agony she endured running her final race most certainly was not. And while the trainers, jockeys and owners may weep their crocodile tears today over Eight Belles’ euthanasia, they will be back on the track tomorrow, putting other horses at risk.

Although their bones are not yet fully developed, Thoroughbreds begin their racing careers as 2-year-olds. Compounding the risk to their young bones, they are raced on hard dirt surfaces like the one at Churchill Downs. And as Eight Belles’ two broken front legs showed Saturday, the combination is deadly.

Despite the wealth and glamour associated with Thoroughbred racing, there exists a dark underbelly that most of us never see. For the horses, life isn’t much different than it was for the ancient Roman gladiators. Some live, some die, but most end up broken, cast off, or sent to Europe to be killed for the dinner table. It’s a dirty business, not much better than dog fighting.

I hope people finally come to their senses and recognize that Thoroughbred horse racing, as it’s conducted today, is barbaric and in need of immediate and drastic reform. It should be a no-brainer that these magnificent animals should not be trained or raced until age three when their bones are fully formed. Equally obvious should be the need for cushioned tracks like those used in California. And the number of races a horse is allowed to run per season should be limited, another no-brainer. Finally, whipping should be disallowed. If no one is allowed to whip, the playing field remains level.

It’s rare to find me on the same side of an issue as PETA, but that’s exactly where I stand on this one, at least as regards the need for reform. They’re calling for the Kentucky Racing Authority to institute sweeping reforms that would stop much of the suffering. Story

They’ve made it simple. Complete this form email to the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority to insist that they take immediate steps to prevent future tragedies. It’s a simple gesture requiring little effort on our parts yet making our voices heard. It’s the right thing to do.

The YFZ Ranch story, originally centered on child abuse, has reopened a Pandora’s box of confusion and misinformation about the legal and moral issues surrounding polygyny, polyandry and polygamy.

In the strict legal sense, polygamy is illegal in the United States. Yet enforcement has become touchy because of challenges based on Constitutional equal protection.

When the courts said it was alright for two consenting adults to live together (as if married) under a “contract” other than one of marriage, they opened the door, some argue, for a man and multiple women to also live together under a slightly different “contract”. And following that line of reasoning, a woman would likewise be able to take multiple “husbands” under a “contract”. The fine point in this argument is that, as long as the participants don’t call their arrangement “marriage” and don’t apply for a marriage license (or call themselves husband and wife), they shouldn’t be prosecuted for polygamy.

The YFG Ranch story has rekindled the debate. I doubt we’ll ever accept polygamy in the U.S. — it doesn’t fit well with our culture and history — but unless we take some legal position against “what” is being done and stop dancing around what it’s “called,” cults like this one will continue to spring up under the guises of religion and equal protection.

Today is Earth Day, the April 22nd one, not to be confused with the Equinox Earth Day in March or the Earth Hour, also in March, or any of the various World Days (World Day for Water, World Day for Cultural Diversity, World Jump Day, et al). Each year, the April 22 Earth Day marks the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970.

Among other things, 1970 in the United States brought with it the Kent State shootings, the advent of fiber optics, “Bridge over Troubled Water,” Apollo 13, the Beatles’ last album, the death of Jimi Hendrix, and the meltdown of fuel rods in the Savannah River nuclear plant near Aiken, South Carolina — an incident not acknowledged for 18 years. At the time, Americans were slurping leaded gas through massive V8 sedans, industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of legal consequences or bad press, and air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. “Environment” was a word that appeared more often in spelling bees than on the evening news.

But Earth Day 1970 turned that all around, thrusting the environment onto the national agenda. On April 22, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment.

Earth Day 1990 mobilized 200 million people in 141 countries and lifted the status of environmental issues onto the world stage, giving a huge boost to recycling efforts worldwide and helping pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Earth Day 2000 combined the big-picture feistiness of the first Earth Day with the international grassroots activism of Earth Day 1990. Using the Internet to help link 5,000 environmental groups in a record 184 countries, it sent the message loud and clear that citizens around the world wanted quick and decisive action on clean energy. And Earth Day 2007 was one of the largest Earth Days to date, with an estimated billion people participating in the activities world wide.

Today, Earth Day Network reaches over 17,000 organizations in 174 countries, while the domestic program engages 5,000 groups and over 25,000 educators coordinating millions of community development and environmental protection activities throughout the year. Notable is that Earth Day is the only event celebrated simultaneously around the globe by people of all backgrounds, faiths and nationalities with more than a half billion people participating in Earth Day Network campaigns every year.

Who cares? Well, we all should. We can argue whether the pendulum has swung too far or not yet far enough, but we all agree that environmental issues command an important place on the world agenda and that we all share responsibility for the proper care and feeding of Mother Earth.

By the way, what ever happened to Captain Planet and the Planeteers? Did environmental extremists (or Turner) render them irrelevant? Anyone?

In his March 27 article for AP, Tom Raum notes that while there’s little enthusiasm for government bailouts in general, voters are increasingly demanding immediate government relief as the economy ebbs. And Democratic presidential candidates, quick to recognize potential votes, are fanning the flames with promises of government aid for homeowners facing foreclosure. Clinton wants a $30 billion fund to assist those at risk of foreclosure, while Obama’s “plan” includes $10 billion to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

I’m afraid I have to agree with Senator McCain: “It’s not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

Sure, the Fed orchestrated a bailout, if that’s you want to call it, for Bear Stearns. It reasoned that allowing a major investment bank to fail could so adversely affect the nation’s economy that helping shore it up, even with some detrimental economic effects of its own, would be the lesser of two evils. But now homeowners facing foreclosure want a slice of bailout pie as well, and both Clinton and Obama want government (read “taxpayers”) to serve them one. But is that such a good idea?

Not as I see it. I’m a believer in the philosophy that if you make a mess, you’re responsible for cleaning it up. And in this case, we taxpayers didn’t make the mess. So who did?

Click to read more ...

Well, another successful Earth Hour. For those of you that participated, I’m sure the glow from knowing you did your part to save the planet lasted all weekend. Today, you’ll have to restart your computers, reset clocks and get back to your real life. I’ll bet you can hardly wait to do it again next year!

For those of you in the dark about why the lights went out for an hour on the Golden Gate Bridge and many buildings Saturday night, it was the second annual grand gesture to raise awareness of global warming climate change. Our office building was one of those that went dark for an hour to demonstrate support, and we turned off everything in our office except the AS/400 which I suspect would have burned more power to restart than letting it idle for the hour. I’m sure you saw it on the news and wished you’d participated. You’ll have to wait until next year to get that “green all over” feeling.

Or will you? What if you turn everything off for an hour tonight? Oh, you won’t get any recognition from your peers for “caring” but you’ll know, deep in your heart of hearts, that you, too, helped save the world from global warming climate change.

What’s that? It only counts if your fellow greenies know you were on the front lines? Oh, yeah. Well, next year, right? See ya’ there.

In the wake of the pop psychology gabfest spawned by the ever-evolving sex scandals of the New York governor’s office, and with every other conversation having something to do with hookers or managing to incorporate cheesy innuendo about “Client 9,” Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum writes that she’s “still not entirely clear as to what we’re supposed to take away from this.” She concludes in her well written March 22 article, “No wonder we keep searching for meaning in a story whose real meaning is something we don’t exactly want to know.”

I disagree. I think we not only want to know, we want to clean up the mess and elect a better, more morally grounded class of officials. Trouble is, we feel helpless to stem the polluted tide of politicians from which we are allowed to choose. In our frustration, we sooth our disappointment with humor. We lick our wounds and try to laugh about the elephant in the room we feel powerless to get to leave.

It’s refreshing to see a major news source take issue with the way the Clintons are twisting the words of Barack Obama, their primary political foe in the primaries. It’s certainly not a new tactic for the Clinton camp, but it seems as though most mainstream news media rarely call them on it, not wanting, it would appear, to rain on their parade. It helped get Bill elected and it’s probably helped Hillary to this point in time.

I’m not surprised that Obama told South Carolina’s The State newspaper that former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, are lying about him and his record purposefully. “There is a concrete strategy by the Clintons,” Obama said.

What surprised me was the response by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper. In the article, he writes, “Any objective review of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have been twisting comments Obama made about Ronald Reagan and the Republican party would concur.”

Tapper provides a link to the interview of Obama by the Reno Gazette-Journal that, though lengthy, is well worth viewing. Listen to what Obama said. Contrast that to what the Clintons claim he said. It leaves little room for doubt that Hillary (and Bill) will say anything to win.

My favorite illustrator, John Cox, came up with this illustration that echoes, I think, public sentiment. Many believe we are abandoning our nation’s manufacturing roots in favor of becoming a country that makes nothing and buys everything from abroad but likes to think we’ll be dominant in the development of technology (with any related manufacturing, of course, being outsourced offshore.) Whew! Long sentence!

I think we’re deluding ourselves. We could regain our dominance in manufacturer if we simply uncoupled ourselves from trade unions. Why can’t we compete in auto manufacturing, even against Japanese auto makers who manufacture cars right here in the U.S.A.? Because the Japanese car makers are exempt from our trade unions. Not a level playing field, is it. But what are we doing about it? Nothing.

Anyway, I thought John’s illustration was particularly poignant at this time of year when we’re concerned about unsafe toys from China. Fisher-Price, Mattel - many of this country’s major toy manufacturers - have outsourced the manufacturing of their toys to China, and quality and safety have suffered. Not too many years ago, Americans wouldn’t have accepted poor quality. But we’ve become “sheeple,” too lazy to control our own government. I hope we come to our senses.

I’m sure you all followed the story of British school teacher Gillian Gibbons who was recently imprisoned in Sudan for “inciting religious hatred” by allowing her 1st grade (equivalent) students at a private Sudanese school to name a class teddy bear “Muhammad.” Sudanese Muslims filled the streets demanding she be killed and beheaded.

So afraid were authorities that harm would befall her before her trial that she had to be whisked to a secret location for her own protection. After eight days in custody, she was convicted and sentenced to fifteen days in prison, a much lighter sentence than she could have received, and one that further inflamed Muslims, some of whom said they would kill her themselves if they saw her on the streets.

Two British Muslim members of Parliament hurried to Sudan to beg — yes, beg — for her pardon and release which were ultimately granted. She appeared on Good Morning America this morning and said she hopes no one will be angry with the people of Sudan, the ones who wanted her beheaded, over the incident for which she deeply apologizes.

In order to understand the issues involved, you first need to realize that Muhammad is a very common name in Muslim countries, including Sudan, and boys are often so named by their families. In fact, Gibbons’ young students voted to name the teddy bear after a boy in their class!

So why all the fuss? My take is that Muslims are so brainwashed that they can be easily incited by clerics who tell them that a crime against Islam has been perpetrated and that they must seek vengeance, usually by killing someone. And Britain, in fact most of Europe, has allowed such fanaticism to fester for so long under the guise of religious tolerance that it will be all but impossible to ever correct. Indeed, the Europe we once knew is no more.

Watch the video (excuse the advertisement) that accompanies this news link. Note the “religion of peace” marching in the streets and demanding death to the infidel teacher. This is what liberals want us to be “tolerant” of. This is what will happen in the U.S. if we continue along the present primrose path of misdirected “tolerance.”

I’m sorry, but I have to say something about this insanity. It falls squarely in the “dumb, idiotic, fool-hardy” category. Here are the first four paragraphs, enough to demonstrate the raging stupidity of this so-called “movement,” but you should read the entire article.

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

“The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won’t need another miracle,” said Liad Ortar, the campaign’s cofounder, who runs the Arkada environmental consulting firm and the Ynet Web site’s environmental forum. “Global warming is a milestone in human evolution that requires us to rethink how we live our lives, and one of the main paradigms of that is religion and how it fits into the current situation.”

Cofounder Tom Wegner, who heads the public relations firm Update Marketing Media, spread the campaign via mass e-mails and through social interaction Web sites like Facebook and Hook.co.il. He said no money had been invested in the campaign, but it had already raised awareness around the world and made people realize that they have to consider the environment this Hanukka. …

Environmentalists have been weirding out at an alarming rate these last few years, but this proves they’ve now gone completely around the reality bend. Gather them all up in a gunny sack and drag them off to the nearest looney bin! Aargh!