Readers of my missives would not be surprised to know that I am no great fan of Senator John McCain.  And as we get closer to the election, my lackluster feelings for the author of McCain-Feingold only grow.  Quite frankly, if I have to listen to another "my friends" again, I might be forced to turn it into a drinking game.

Oh Wait.  Someone's already done that.

There will be NO Olympics in this house this year.

I cannot, in good conscience, support the International Olympic Committee and its 2008 Olympics in Beijing.  The government of the so-called People's Republic of China is an anti-moral, despicable, mysognistic tyranny that engages in the wholesale genocide of its people. They deny even the basic human rights to their citizens.  And their leaders are nothing more than an octogenarian collection of Sopranos-like thugs and murderers.

Michael Medved has a great post over at Townhall.com about the utter and incomparable lie that is the Congressional "apology" for slavery. 

Yet another argument against reparations:  if we cannot discuss the horrifying institution of slavery honestly and clearly, we defintely should not be held responsible for actions over which we had no control.

And if this position makes me a racist, so be it.

 The slavery reparation controversy is swirling again.  It seems we never can have a serious discussion on race in this country without this subject coming up.  As always, it generates more heat than light.

Proponents of slavery reparations have some serious hurdles to cross, however, and unless they start doing so in a responsible and straightforward manner, they may just ignite a fire that consumes them.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics thinks that delivering babies for free is an ethical violation of Senate Rules.  That's right-- the ratfucking Democrat leadership is driving through a censure through the Senate Ethics Committee targeted at Senator Dr. Tom Colburn, who continues to deliver babies for free at Muskogee Regional Medical Center.

The Maryland Public Service Commission is notorious for its fundamental inability to effectively regulate the energy business in Maryland.  And O'Guvnah O'Malley's inability to move beyond Progressive/Fascist mandates -- like compulsory subsidies for the sales of compact fluorescent bulbs -- is legion.

Government is lousy at picking winners and losers.  And the insistence that we all throw our incandescent bulbs in favor of mercury-laden CFLs is just another perfect example.  Why?  Because private industry is working hard to create another alternative:  LED-based light bulbs.

As usual, the drive-by media has totally missed a statement by Barack Obama that should worry many. Luckily, Powerline has picked up on it.  In a speech on July 2, Barack Obama stated:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Wow.  A civilian national security force that is just as "powerful" and just as "strong" and just as "well-funded".

Not long ago, the New York Times, the nation's most left-leaning and anti-American daily newspaper, wa outraged over the release of the name of a nominal CIA agent.  They demanded an investigation, hearings, judges, lawyers, and a perp walk for the perpetrator.  Of course, when it came to light that it was Richard Armitage that actually released the name, they backed way off that demand.  No, only the man whose recollection different from that of reporters -- Scooter Libby -- saw his name and reputation destroyed in a McCarthyite witch-hunt of questionable legality and import.

Fast forward to 2008, when the New York Times deliberately and with malice aforethought performs another "Armitage" -- this time releasing the name of an actual CIA agent who performed the interrogations of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- and all we see is what ratfucking, worthless "journalists" the New York Times really employ.

Over at Human Events, Chuck Norris tries to deliver a roundhouse that wildly misses its mark. Arguing that we can improve government by drastically shrinking the House of Representatives to a single Representative per state, Chuck completely misses the cattle drive by ignoring how and why the "House of Representatives" is based on proportional representation-- and why his idea of moving to static representation would not help the country.

After watching the Pickens plan a few times, and reading this excellent post by Mark Newgent over at Red Maryland, and giving it some serious thought, I am pretty much coming out against the chattering class' clamor for alternative energy sources.

Why?