Abuse your power.org

We thought states were prohibited from promoting religion. But at flexyourpower.org the state of California is pushing the religion of the Global Warmists. We are appalled.

Thursday Night Ballgame

The wife and us went to ballgame Thursday night. This is how close we were to the action. For the uninformed that is NOMAR!!!! The Dodgers lost to the Braves 8-6.

#5 Nomar Garciaparra

These are the seats that you can get some autographs at. We got James Loney to sign our son's ball.

United States Foreign Aid

According to this chart, the United States lags behind in foreign aid per capita. In 2002 (and I don't expect these numbers have changed much since) we gave 13 cents per capita. compared to 103 cents from Norway. Never mind that we top the list in private foreign aid.
Now let's consider the Iraq war. If you, like us, consider the war not just a defense of the United States but also a defense of the entire civilized world we can justifiably call the costs of this war foreign aid. According to liberal backstabbing newspaper that hates America, the NY Times, the war's cost amounts to 2 trillion dollars. That amounts to 1654 DOLLARS per capita in foreign aid!
Not only that but all these countries are not obliged to spend very much on their own defense at any time as they rely on the United States to defend the civilized world. If that's not foreign aid, we don't know what is!
You'll notice that the Times article describes what we could otherwise do with that 2 trillion. Ah yes, everyone could have their own personal buttwiper!

Supreme Court cont'd

We would just like to add that even though we do not have a law degree we know we have a better understanding of constitutional law and the role of the Supreme Court than David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens. These justices simply do not see any limit to the what the supremes can and should do. It's gone beyond an objection to originalism and strict construction. These justices simply believe there are no constraints on them to right wrongs and make law. They are aided and abetted by the public's (including many who should know better) astonishing misunderstanding of the court's role.
Imagine a court restrained only by their own sense of right and wrong and morality. That is simply a tyrannical dictatorship regardless of what their politics are. The so-called conservative wing of the court understands that the court is limited by the constitution in what it is allowed to do. This stance leads to decisions that many see as "conservative" or heartless but are nevertheless correct.

Supreme Court

We generally agree with all the SC decisions handed down this week, except maybe for the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. We are very ambivalent about that case. Free speech rights are not absolute especially for schoolkids but it is dangerous to decide that this speech is unprotected because it promotes drug use. Maybe he was trying to promote marijuana legalization, a legitimate political issue--exactly the kind of speech that is protected. But even if he admitted that he was trying to promote marijuana use the SC is saying that this is a category of unprotected speech. What other categories of unprotected speech might be created? But again, we're not too worried that this SC will curtail speech rights very drastically so....whatever.
This case and the school integration cases illustrate (at least to us) that the government should not be in the education business at all. These cases would not exist and there would be no need to piss a bunch of people off (granted people who don't understand constitutional law). Schools would be able to do their jobs without being taken all the way to Supreme court by a pothead slacker truant (rumors that we may have fit that description back in high school are nothing but lies!). Private schools would still be prevented from racially discriminating but state and local governments would have no authority to implement racial diversity plans that violate the constitution leading to rulings like this.
We may not agree with all of Chief Justice Roberts' opinions but but they are more in line with the constitution than most of the dissents. The justice we agree with most of the time is Scalia. Anyway, my point is that the SC is not a court of universal grievances to right wrongs and make liberals happy. The SC applies the constitution to the relevant statutes and/or rules under consideration. The result may make no one happy---including the justices who are in the majority. That is why we have a legislative and executive branch and the states--they make laws and constitutional amendments which should be designed to maximize human welfare (not the entitlement payments---the general welfare). If the laws are unconstitutional they can and should be struck down by the SC. Constitutional amendments, of course, are not subject to judicial review.

Recycling

Trash Can #2 (or the "recycling" bin as our wife calls it)

Trash Can #1

We like to throw the newspaper in the trash just to piss people off, especially Patt Morrison.

Bastards

Ok, so this isn't about recycling.

Just to remind everyone what filthy, treacherous whore bastards represent the Guantanamo scum.