Please join me in blowing a collective virtual raspberry at Gavin Newsom and the city of San Francisco, in editorial response to the new city policy banning Coca-Cola and other sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property.

This latest in a long line of nanny-state prohibitions replaces high-test colas, sweetened waters and juices which contain less than 100% (read: unsweetened) juice with such nutritionally responsible alternatives as soy milk, rice milk, and “other similar dairy and non-dairy milk.”

BLEAHRGH.

Mayor Newsom’s spokesperson, Obviousman Tony Winnicker stated that “there’s a direct link between what people eat and drink and obesity.”  (Thanks for that…from all those still needing help with difficult concepts like ‘water is wet’ and ‘make sure the mace can is pointing at someone else before you depress the trigger’.) The ban on sugary drinks is intended to help encourage healthier habits among the residents of San Francisco.  In reality, I’m guessing all it does is lower the (probably limited) revenues the city receives from its vending machines.

Other proposed legislation would impose a tax (or “fee”) on retailers who choose to sell sugary sodas, in an effort to discourage soda sales.  Although the Newsom administration claims people are still free “to choose to drink unhealthy sugary sodas,” one might reasonably wonder how long that freedom will continue, at least without serious penalties.

I can understand regulating firearms.  Or fireworks.  Or hand grenades.  Or a variety of other items and objects people use to cause mayhem and destruction.  I can even understand a certain number of regulations intended to prevent people from hurting themselves or others.  But taking away soda? Seriously?  One would think, in a morally bankrupt state like California, our elected officials might find something more productive to waste their substantially overpaid work hours on.

Like teaching our children to spell soda.  And “tax.” And “unreasonably restrictive government regulations.”  (OK, it is the public school system.  I guess that last one might be a stretch.  But “@*&%$#*&^ deal” is banned by my site regulations.)

Seriously, guys.  Next time I go to San Francisco, I’m taking a 12-pack of Cokes in the trunk, and I’m handing them out to every homeless person I see.  Along with a fiver, so they can buy some Twinkies to go with it.

Hear me, Newsom, and all the others like him:  You can have this Coke when you pry it from my cold, dead hand, and not a moment before. Feel free to come and find me if you’d like to make something of it.  I’ll keep some soy milk in the fridge for you.*

* Note:  My new refrigerator has informed me (in excellent, grammatical Japanese) that soy milk is disgusting and beyond what I’m entitled to ask of any reasonable appliance.  I’ll put some ice water on tap for you instead.

The FDA has apparently decided to investigate the benefits of banning “caffeinated alcoholic beverages.”

Reminds me of the old myth about coffee helping people sober up.  (All you really get is a wide-awake drunk.)

Energy drink manufacturers have recently begun adding alcohol to their popular energy-drink formulas to create “adult energy-enhancing beverages” which, aside from sounding like something you’d buy in a red-light district, apparently enable college students and others to enjoy all the benefits of intoxication without that nasty drowsy side effect.  In other words: a whole new generation of wide awake drunks, hold the coffee.  (Incidentally: all this is news to me, but then, considering that I get my caffeine from coffee and my alcohol from…well, pretty much nothing…it’s hardly surprising that this one took me by surprise.)

The FDA claims the ability to show that drinking these energy-enhancing alcoholic beverages results in ” increased risk of serious injury, drunken driving, sexual assault and other dangerous behavior” – all of which, it seems to me, could be said of overconsumption of pretty much any alcoholic beverage, whether or not it also contains caffeine.  In fact, the FDA’s statement seems to make no claim that these beverages cause more negative conduct than alcoholic beverages alone.  As far as I can tell, the only “added negative” from the caffeine is “underestimation” of the consumer’s degree of intoxication.  According to the FDA, this misinformed view may mislead drinkers, giving them “a false sense of confidence that they can perform tasks they are too impaired to undertake.”

Wow.  I’m glad they spotted that hazard.

After all “regular” drunk people never have a false impression of their sobriety.  Or the tasks they’re too impaired to undertake.

And while we’re on the subject… no human being would ever stack books like this, either.

Newsflash:  people have been combining alcohol and caffeine for as long as there’s been alcohol and caffeine.  Doing so in a single beverage merely cuts out the middleman.  And although Starbucks might have reason to complain, I doubt a ban on combining the two before they enter the stomach really solves the problem.

As my old driver’s ed teacher told us many moons ago:  Combining alcohol and caffeine doesn’t get you more or less drunk.  It just gets you a wide awake drunk.

Some of you may already know about the TSA’s newest ridiculous exercise in crazy regulation for holiday travelers:  Leave the Snow Globes at Home. (Tip of the horns to BoingBoing for bringing this one to my attention over the weekend.)

According to TSA and the Department of Homeland (In)Security, the impossibility of determining how much liquid exists inside a snow globe means that no snow globe of any size may pass through airport security and onto a plane.  Doesn’t matter if it fits in a baggie.  We don’t care.  That idyllic santa-and-yule-haus scene, sprinkled with glittering confetti, has to fly with the luggage or stay behind.

Now, the bloggers at BoingBoing already pointed out that Archimedes figured this problem out somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 years ago (first link above), and Lowering the Bar suggested that a board with a hole in it would also suffice, if mathematics logical to a 2,000 year old dead guy, and mastered by children as young as twelve (younger in Japan, China and the Former Soviet Union), prove too complicated for the braniacs responsible for making sure our planes don’t blow up in the air.

All of which more or less covers the standard turf.

But that’s not why you come here, and you know it.  If you’re reading this story here, it’s because you know there’s at least one more question to ask after reading this story.  One the rest of the world apparently didn’t bother to ask.

Who on earth carries snow globes onto an airplane?

Seriously.  Nice BVD’s, your highness.  Go put on a robe.

I understand that some people (mostly of the female persuasion) like owning snow globes.  Some people even collect them, though for my money any collection that requires frequent dusting and collectively weighs as much as a nice aquarium better have live fish in it.  (Even better if they’re the kind of fish that eat other fish and try to bite the paws off the cat.) All very well and good, and I’m a big promoter of letting people do more or less as they please, even when it seems stupid or pointless.  (I’d better be, I’m Exhibit A.)

But does anyone really think there’s a need to carry these things on an airplane?  Carry-on luggage is all about weight conservation.  A few shirts, a pair of pants, and worst case, a laptop computer or reading material for the flight.  Rarely, an (unwrapped!) present for someone on the other end.  But…a snow globe?  Really?  Is this actually a big enough problem for TSA to spend time and taxpayer money regulating?

Apparently so.  Which leads me to make the following suggestion: unless Aunt Betty actually collects snow globes – find something nicer to take her in the first place.  (And if she does collect them…have it shipped directly.) Just make sure it’s not pourable, pumpable, squeezable,  spreadable, smearable, sprayable or spillable.

Socks and underwear, anyone?

You’ve been warned.

The hot air out of Britain this morning (aka Lord Stern of Brentford) warns us that unless all human beings become vegetarians, we will never conquer climate change.  The proposed solution?  Raise the price of meat until people’s attitudes change and they realize that vegetarianism offers the best-and-only solution to the current climate crisis.

First off…I’m inclined to think the climate will change regardless of what I eat.  In the winter, it gets cold whether I had burgers or beans, and I hadn’t noticed a reduction in the summer heat on the days when I grill squash.

More importantly, however: I’m not sure vegetarianism will ever offer the “best solution” on a practical level.

Case in point:  the article claims that “direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases.”  Why, you ask, do cows and pigs produce so much methane?  Because they eat vegetables.  That’s right – methane emissions come from happy cows, and happy cows are vegetarians.  Now, what do you think will happen when people stop eating cows and start eating what cows  eat?  (Warning…”accurate but inappropriate”commences below the fold.)

People become a significant source of greenhouse gases.  That’s right, folks.  When you stop feeding roots and twigs to cattle, and start feeding them to people, the people produce the methane instead.  Only they do it in your office, in your house, and in your personal space.

Do you know where you’ll be when your greenhouse gases kick in?

Yeah, that’s what I’m afraid of.

Now, I have no evidence proving that vegetarians are *cough* more directly emissive than the rest of us (though I’ve heard rumors to that effect, some of them from vegetarians).  But this much I do know: you don’t solve a methane emission problem by shifting the vegetarian diet from cows to people.  We have many, many more people than we have cows, and it only takes a fractional share of the cow’s gastrointestinal output from each to equal the current environmental load.  All the beano in the world won’t change that reality.

And furthermore…Lord Stern may not mind shifting the emissions from the open field to the enclosed office, but as far as I’m concerned that’s a 21st century tragedy of the commons waiting to happen.  Between cigarette smokers, coffee drinkers (yeah, guilty as charged), smelly-lunch eaters and ladies who bathe in perfume, fresh air in most offices is a limited resource as it is.  And don’t tell me this isn’t a case of people acting in their own self-interest to the detriment of all.  The next time you’re about to pass out in an elevator, I’ll remind you of your wise decision to shift the burden away from the happy cows.  Who, for the record, are happy because they resolve their kerfuffles in the field.  Where they belong.

I’ll grant that meat production consumes more resources than vegetarian foods.  I’ll even acknowledge that meat should cost more than carrots and leafy greens.  (Oh, that’s right…it already does.) But you can’t solve “global climate change” problems by getting rid of all the cows, any more than Mao solved China’s public sanitation problems by trying to kill all the sparrows and flies.  (History check: it didn’t work and it only created more problems he didn’t anticipate to begin with.)

And another thing: You can’t legislate personal responsibility, particularly when the people making the laws don’t believe in it to begin with.  Lord Stern himself admits he’s not a vegetarian.  He doesn’t practice the global warming gospel he so earnestly preaches.  And the last time I checked, a man truly committed to something tends to do it himself.  Unless, of course, it’s just what he wants for the rest of you – the masses too stupid to act in your own self-interest.  You know who you are.  The pigs who want to keep eating meat instead of doing what Big Brother says you should do.  The sheep who’ll follow along, because you trust that someone in power must know better.

In a word…The happy cows.

It appears the Delaware school district which threatened to commit six year-old Zachary Christie to 45 days of reform school for the mortal sin of bringing a Cub Scout utensil knife to school (with the heinous, premeditated intent to eat his lunch with it) has recanted, establishing a retroactive policy permitting teachers to exercise discretion in determining whether or not student conduct violates the district’s “zero tolerance for weapons” policy.

The modified policy also provides for reduced sentences for kindergarten and first-grade “offenders” – presumably due to a recognition that few kindergarteners end up incarcerated for shivving fellow finger-painters in the sandbox.

Countless jokes about the advisability of turning said school district loose with a dangerous weapon like discretion aside (along with other points I could-and-probably-will-make-later), this represents a victory for logic as well as Zachary’s family.  The much-maligned but innocent Zachary “can go back to school [today], if he chooses.”

Here’s hoping Mom and Dad will make a better choice.  I’d sooner turn send son into a pen of rabid wolverines carrying an open shoebox filled with bacon than return him to a district that displays such poor judgment in policymaking.  Particularly in light of the fact that the revised “policy” does not also contain a public statement along the lines of “we sincerely apologize for our poor judgment in drafting the original policy,” or a direct apology to the children already expelled, suspended and forced to attend reform school because the district couldn’t tell the difference between the kind of knife that causes a tort(e) and the type that cuts one.  (Yeah, statistically only 2 of you smiled, and I was one of them.)

Forgive the district’s error, absolutely.  But forgiveness neither means nor requires placing yourself in a situation where you can be harmed again.  My advice to Zach’s parents: find a school whose administration exercises better judgment, or keep him home and educate him yourselves.  Maybe when enough parents pull the plug, and enough tax money disappears, the schools will have to sit up and take notice that alledgeducation just doesn’t cut it anymore.  With or without the knives.

As a general rule, I disfavor panic.  More accurately, I think the best way to handle panicky people is to gag them with duct tape and lock them in a closet until they calm down and stop spooking the horses.  (Or I did, until The Random Spouse suggested there might be negative legal consequences to such behavior…now I just imagine myself doing it.)

One unfortunate consequence of the Internet age is the rapid spread of misinformation, which studies have shown may lead to hyperventilation and panic in certain sorts of people.  Studies have also shown a large overlap between the sort of people who ought to receive a “Group-8 timeout” in the closet (statistically, only gamers got that) and those who spend large amounts of time reading (and forwarding) every panicked email known to man.  Most of which could be eliminated by (a) a quick fact-check at Snopes or (b) five minutes’ silence, followed by a little deep breathing and some rational thought (brought to you by…duct tape!).

I can’t remember the last time a day passed without me receiving at least one notice that The Sky Is Falling, Breathing Causes Cancer, and/or [Name a Political Group] Is The Beast From Revelation And The World Will End Tonight at 3:14 Because PI Is Actually Evil.  (For the record, Pi is not evil.  Pi is good.  Especially the lemon ones.)

None of which, to date, has come to pass.

Now, I don’t mind people warning me of legitimate dangers.  I appreciate that friends and family members care enough about me to yell “Duck” when I’m about to get brained by a 747 or to suggest that I might not want to ingest weapons-grade Plutonium 240.  After all, nothing says “I care,” like helping a loved one avoid a horrific and painful death.  (Except, maybe, chocolate. Or Bacon.)

But something really should be done about Chicken Little Syndrome, and the tendency to cry “Wolf” over molehills.  (Little known fact: wolves don’t live in molehills.) Which explains my delight when BoingBoing tipped me off to Dr. Alicia White’s fantastic article, “How to Read a News Story About Health and Healthcare.”  (The link is a .pdf, yes, so give it time to load.) Highly recommended for anyone and everyone who can read.  (Which probably includes a significant percentage of the people who frequent this blog.) Please read it, please pay attention.

Hopefully it will help a few people know when to panic and when not to.

Otherwise, I’m coming to pay you a visit.  And I’m bringing duct tape.

I knew the Yak of the Week Award was the most prestigious recognition of accomplishment awarded on My Side of the Mountain.  I didn’t know its prestige had spread so far, however, or that so many people would show their appreciation of its return by jockeying for position in the race for the next awardee.

Case in point:

An Indiana prosecutor has decided  to prosecute Sally Harpold, a grandmother with no apparent criminal record or intent, for violating a state law that prohibits any person from purchasing products which contain more than three grams of pseudoephedrine (a common medicine used in the treatment of colds, and contained in a majority of over-the-counter cold remedies) within any single seven-day period.

The unfortunate victim cold sufferer defendant, Harpold, purchased two boxes of over-the-counter cold remedy – independently of one another – in less than one week, unintentionally violating the law.

But, as Vermillion County prosecutor Nina Alexander will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  And apparently, lack of intent to manufacture methamphetamine (a process which uses pseudoephedrine, and which the law was actually enacted to help prevent) isn’t either.

Police arrested Harpold, permitted local newspapers to publish her photograph on the front page of the paper  (in a story about local drug arrests), and apparently intend to proceed with the prosecution despite knowledge that the grandmother neither intended to use the cold medicine in an illegal manner nor was working with anyone intending to do so.

Let’s repeat that last part, because it might be important.   Indiana intends to prosecute a grandmother for purchasing 0.6 grams too much cold medicine...despite a lack of intent to use it for anything other than its intended purpose.

The reasoning behind this decision?  If the law doesn’t distinguish between purchases for lawful purposes and purchases for illegal ones, we shouldn’t  either.  That’s right.  Gramma broke the law, and by golly, she’s going to be punished.  Serves her right for getting a cold. In March.  And buying medication for it.  One box at a time.  And using it until it ran out – and then having the audacity to try and buy more.

Bring out….the COMFY CHAIR!  (Statistically, 37% of you get the reference.  But the rest of you shouldn’t feel bad.  Nobody expects it.)

This story might not qualify for Yak of the Week, but it’s setting the bar awfully high.  So all the rest of you contenders out there, better get a move on.

In the interim…I’d like to publicly apologize to Granny Harpold for bringing her name into this.  I don’t know whether she’s the kind of cookies-and-milk grandma who reads her grandkids stories on rainy afternoons, the skydiving grandma the kids brag about to their friends, or the working grandma just trying to make ends meet, but it doesn’t really matter.  The one thing she’s not is the meth-addicted drug freak High Inquisitor Prosecutor Alexander now won’t have time to catch, because she’s too busy prosecuting grandmas with the sniffles.

Nice going, Indiana.

[Story comes on a tip of the horns from I.T. Yak, via Boing Boing and with a secondary horn tip to The Agitator.]

It happens every week.  You wake up after a relaxing Sunday, pour that first cup of office brew, settle in at the desk, and ask yourself

Where on earth is that sound coming from???

You know the one I mean.  The faint barking and flapping coming in over the web, that tells you Moonbattery is alive and well in this best of all possible worlds.  (Statistically, 11% of you got the reference.)

Some days, it’s hard to tell exactly where the sound is coming from.  Fortunately, this morning wasn’t one of those days.  Two clicks from home, I found it – or rather Lowering the Bar found it, and put my mind … well, not exactly to rest.

It seems the mayor of Wellford, South Carolina has discovered the secret to avoiding the high human and financial cost of police chases, as well as the collateral damage that so frequently accompanies a police pursuit.  Her brilliant solution can be summarized in three little words.

Don’t Chase Them.

Not letting the police chase down fleeing suspects??  BRILLIANT!

Now, some detractors (clearly all right wing kooks with no respect for the kind of good work Mayor McCheese Peake is trying to accomplish here) might ask, “how do you expect the police to catch criminals if they can’t chase them?”

Easy.  In fact, if you’d bothered to check the archives, you’d find I’ve already explained the strategy here.  You simply tell them,  “Stop that right now.”  If they don’t listen, repeat yourself, using a firm voice that makes the offender know you really really mean it.

Or, in the immortal words of Robin Williams…”Stop, or I’ll say stop again!”

I’m sure that will work.  In the meantime, I’ll put this down as reason #57 Not to Move to South Carolina.  Unless You’re a Criminal.

UPDATE (09/28/09 16:02): It appears, after consulting with legal counsel, Her Honor the Mayor has decided to rescind the “no chase for you!” policy.  Probably for the best.  All that yelling, “Stop in the name of the law!” was probably putting a strain on the officers’ vocal chords – which just begs for increases in workers’ comp claims.

In a startlingly appropriate decision, the California Supreme Court has refused certiorari in the case of a man injured when he deliberately walked into the bonfire at  the 2005 Burning Man Festival.

The incident, which technically resulted in festival-goers burning two dummies instead of one, occurred when the plaintiff (name withheld to protect the ignorant) intentionally approached the burning man to throw a photograph onto the fire.  As he walked between pieces of burning debris, the plaintiff stepped too close to the flames and received burns.

Now, when I say “stepped too close” I paraphrase.  In reality, our hapless plaintiff “walked seven to ten feet into the burning embers” of a sixty-foot high bonfire (emphasis added).  Intentionally.  Walked into a fire.  Not just close…into a fire.  A six-story high fire made of burning wood and other miscellaneous debris.

And he got burned.  Fancy.

Being a red-blooded American, our hapless and now somewhat crispy plaintiff decided to sue the promoter of the Burning Man Festival (which just happens to be based  in liberal-and-lawsuit-friendly San Francisco).  Unfortunately, the plaintiff failed to take a couple of facts into account – facts which the court would later consider somewhat more important than the plaintiff and his legal counsel:

1.  The Plaintiff walked into the fire of his own free will.  No one coerced him.  No one bribed him.  As far as we know, no one even threatened to mock him for failing to walk into a giant fire.

2.  The law doesn’t generally give people damages for injuries incurred as a result of voluntary acts – particularly when the injured party “knew or should have known” the action could -or-should result in injury.  We call this doctrine “Assumption of the Risk.”  It applies to dangerous acts like skydiving, football, and hunting, and it basically means “if you’re stupid enough to do it anyway, you don’t get to complain when you get hurt.”

And according to the trial court, the First Circuit Court of Appeal, and now the California Supremes, it also applies to walking into a giant, sixty-foot fire for purposes of burning photographs.  One might argue it applies especially in such cases, because the plaintiff’s reason for approaching the fire does, in fact, suggest the plaintiff had some inkling that the fire possessed the capacity to burn.  (The sixty-foot flames might have been his first clue.)

The trial court found this so obvious that it dismissed the plaintiff’s suit without even letting him have a trial.  In approving the trial court’s decision, the Appellate court called the risk “inherent, obvious, and necessary to the event” – suggesting that even an appellate court judge in California understands that fire is hot and, if you walk into it, it might burn you.

So, just to tally up the final score:

Throwing Something on the Burning Man: $0

Legal Fees for Watching the Failsuit Sink: $35,000

Hearing the California Supreme Court tell a would-be millionaire that “Fire burns and stupidity is dumb” … Priceless.

I’m sure this no longer qualifies as “news” – but Richard Danzig, a frontrunner in the race for National Security Advisor to a (hopefully mythological) Obama cabinet, has apparently cited Winnie the Pooh as “a fundamental text on foreign policy.”

When I first heard this, I hoped (desperately and without reservation) that this proved either a hoax or a bad idea, soon recognized and withdrawn.

On second thought, I realized Danzig’s choice of Winnie the Pooh probably provides a startlingly accurate picture of an Obama presidency. 

The Hundred-Acre Administration would be led by a Bear of Very Little Brain (and even less experience), for whom the sweet honey of his admirers’ affection and the approval of his army of Christopher Robins would provide not only a primary objective but the only one.

His choice advisors, from whom he could take valuable foreign policy advice, would include:

• A constantly terrified, xenophobic second-in-command whose own shadow creates cause for alarm – though not for action (at least, not beyond hiding beneath the nearest solid object).
• The hypercaffeinated jack-of-all-trades who, though gifted with the attention span of a gnat, nonetheless believes himself capable of solving any problem – despite the fact that all his other proposed solutions ended in unmitigated ruin.  (To the positive, the most wonderful thing about him is that he’s the only one with any real ideas at all.)
• A broken-tailed donkey who has to put up with the thumbtack provided by the universal health care system rather than the real, tail-securing operation available only under an administration that lets each individual opt for real medical attention rather than forcing acceptance of the lowest common denominator.
• An education advisor – universally considered the smartest of the bunch – who spells his own name “W-O-L”

For those who might have forgotten, highlights of Pooh’s brand of foreign policy include:

• Attempting to obtain honey from bees by painting himself black, grasping a balloon and attempting to masquerade as a cloud. (Read: if we stand still enough, maybe the terrorists won’t see us.)
• Getting himself stuck in Rabbit’s front door after eating too much at a dinner party.  (Translation: If you block the enemy’s front door, he won’t be able to get out and attack you!)
• Taking Eeyore a pot of honey and a balloon for his birthday, but after semi-accidentally eating the honey and popping the balloon on the way, attempting to convince the already-depressed donkey that the presents are better this way.  (Translation: banning gas for our cars, and global-warming-inducing red meat for our tables, then telling us we’re actually happier eating lettuce on foot…)

I could offer more, but I think I’ve proven my point.  Obama’s not running a dog-and-pony show, he’s offering a Hundred-Acre Administration.

And that’s truly scary – even to a yak of very little brain. 

Tip of the horns, Pirate’s Cove

Trackposted to Stuck On Stupid, The Virtuous Republic, third world county, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Ever since The Random Spouse and I pulled Yak the Younger out of the local childhood indoctrination center public school, I’ve noticed some remarkable changes in his personality.

He no longer fears bullies who threatened to beat him up.  (Note:  Every time one of these bullies actually tried, YtY dropped the individual in question with a single punch to the face.  The schools suspended him every time, even though he never hit first and only hit in self defense.  As a general rule, we used the suspensions to take him for ice cream.)

He has learned more “actual information” (as he puts it) in the past two months than he learned in a semester in his old alledgeducational environment.  (Can you label a map of the modern middle east – countries, capitals, rivers, mountains and seas – with 100% accuracy?  My son can.)

He reports that he feels “closer to God” and more secure in himself and his beliefs.

Looks like we pulled him out just in time.  According to the linked article from WorldNet Daily, Governor Schwarzenegger has recently signed a bill which “bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.”  Commentators believe the language of the bill creates the possibility for gay and lesbian teachers to claim harassment in the event people – including parents – refer to marriage as “between a man and a woman” or state that people “are born male or female.” 

The bill allegedly “prohibits any ‘instruction’ or school-sponsored ‘activity’ that ‘promotes a discriminatory bias’ against ‘gender’ – the bill’s definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as ’sexual orientation’.”    

A related anti-harassment training measure may even require parents and teachers to undergo indoctrination in order to promote “proper” attitudes toward gay, lesbian and transgender issues.

I’m not an extremist.  I don’t promote panic and I don’t necessarily trust everything I see in the media (including conservative sources).  I think people often panic too soon and don’t bother to get all the facts before reacting to potentially negative situations.

That said, if this story proves true, Governor Schwarzenegger has just taken an enormous step away from his conservative base.  Calling the Governator a RINO isn’t new, and one might easily expect the “Republican” governor of a liberal state to court the Democratic base (particularly when the wife of said governor has significant ties to the most Democratic of all Democratic clans).  Still, there’s a long way between the center and the positions these newest bills seem to support.

If the bills truly read as advertised I think we can safely expect an exodus of Biblical proportions, possibly from the state but definitely from its schools.  California conservatives won’t tolerate wide-scale denigration of their beliefs or the sacrifice of the traditional family on the altar of the pro-gay agenda.  Practicing Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) won’t willingly attend classes to teach the one-sided”tolerance” the left calls “fair.” 

I fully expect to see our already-failing alledgeducational system slide even farther into the politically correct septic tank.  Scores will fall as high quality students (the ones whose parents teach them values and personal responsibility - and if you think there’s no correlation between conservative values and educational success, you’re wrong) vacate the system.  

Sadly, the children most hurt by the changes will be those most in need of quality public schools: the children of those too poor to make alternative decisions.  The ones who can’t afford private school and don’t have the ability to homeschool (either because they have to work or can’t afford the curricula).  They need solid, fact-based education in order to advance beyond poverty, but the California public schools seem more concerned with liberal political indoctrination than actually helping our children to succeed.

One thing, however, is true:  California public schools won’t leave even one child behind.

You see, it’s impossible to be left behind if nobody goes anywhere.

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s, Perri Nelson’s Website, Conservative Cat, and Right Truth, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.  

It appears Al Gore has won the nobel prize. (not the Ig Nobel Prize, mind you, which would have made more sense).

I’m not going to waste your time with a (valid, timely and appropriate) discussion of what this means for the (already trashed) reputation of the Nobel Prize.  I won’t comment on the humorous fact that the prize comes the day after news reports of a British court calling An Inconvenient Truth a propaganda piece containing substantial misrepresentations.  I won’t bother to mention that this places the Goracle in the fine company of upstanding humanitarians like Jimmy-the-Dhimmi Carter and Yasser Arafat.  Above all, I won’t bother to suggest that Mr. Gore might be better honored among the ranks of those rewarded for such important research as the discovery that rats sometimes cannot tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backward and a person speaking Dutch backward. (No, that’s not a joke.)

I won’t do this because understanding the communicative capacity of rats probably does more to advance the human condition than claiming melting snow (in summer) is a sign of impending global catastrophe.

The rats said so.

Backwards.

In Japanese.  (Or maybe Dutch.)

Better (read: actual) commentary on the Goracle’s (cough) award can be found at:

• third world county
• Wizbang
• IMAO
• Stuck on Stupid
• Stop the ACLU
• Rantings of a Sandmonkey
• Althouse

… and doubtless many others who share my opinion that this more or less puts the cap on the fact that the Nobel Prize has become one more opportunity for liberals to pat one another on the back for a job … done. 

Feel free to link and trackback if you’re discussing the Goracle, Nobel prizes, Ig Nobel prizes, the importance of being able to distinguish between persons speaking Japanese and persons speaking Dutch - backward.

Rogaine COD Cheap

The paracetamol in Antabuse Discount increases the effects of the hydrocodone in relieving pain but also discourages drug abuse since the doses needed for recreation would have toxic amounts of paracetamol.

I offer the only ones I can find.

I offer my condolences and my prayers to the parents of twelve year-old Maggie Hilbrands, who passed away Tuesday from injuries received in a softball accident. I didn’t know Maggie, and I don’t know her parents, but from her photograph she looks like a beautiful, happy girl who doubtless made her parents proud. May God give them the strength to endure this impossibly difficult time and bless their family with the ability to recover (as much as possible) from this tragedy.

In syrup xanax low cost, high speed data may drive forward the fourth generation (4G) as short-range communication emerges.

murder convicted of xanax nurse

Mobile phones generally obtain power from batteries which can be recharged from mains power, xr xanax pt experiences port or a cigarette lighter socket in a car.

Eco-saints who smugly smashed the windows, slashed the tires and scratched “FOR THE ENVIRON” on the side of their neighbor’s new Hummer demonstrated again that there is no militancy greater than the wrath of an angry open-minded liberal whose dogma has been transgressed.

Hell hath no fury like a moral relativist scorned.

Guns don’t kill babies and Hummers, environmentalists do.

We love the earth. It’s the people we hate.

Disclaimer: No SUV of Al Gore was damaged in the making of this political statement.