Weather

Europe swelters. England uses a snorkel. There IS something happening with our weather. Is it CO2? Notwithstanding Al Gore and the crazies on the left, I doubt it. Is it the sun acting variably? Maybe. Little green men on the moon twisting some knobs to see how we cope? Why not?

Or is it some more complex phenomenon related to ocean temperatures, anti-currents, deep currents, Amazon deforestation, Chinese pollution ... and more in the cocktail. Sounds good.

But these weather oddities are still not totally out of the ordinary. England has enjoyed 20 years of so of unusually brilliant summer weather (not 1998 where it rained all summer, just not in large amounts), and now it is cold dark and wet again. I spent 7 years in an English boarding school -- and it rained ALL the time. It was cold, dark and wet. Always. So I cannot be so shocked when I read of the rain there. It is only the quantity that is really out of the ordinary. But the average Brit has forgotten that. Even so, I remember our games field being flooded on a regular basis by the pathetic river that flowed through our school grounds. Not just flooded, mind you, but 10 feet deep. Every year. Now everyone is shocked.

In the Med, not 5 summers ago people were dying like flies because of the heat. It was 105F in Menorca, and didn't cool down the whole two weeks I was there. Hundreds of people perished in France because of heat stroke and dehydration. And yet -- here's news -- it is happening again. I will say, however, that 115F in Athens is hotter than it should be. But not totally exceptional: just to the North of Greece in Macedonia, there is a desert. A real, bona-fide desert with cactus, scorpions, rocks and dust. Not much in the way of plant life. Google Earth some of the Islands near Turkey (try Levos) -- those are baked. It so happens that the Germans didn't know that in WW2 -- they sent some SS battalions to march and secure some of these areas -- without sufficient water. And they died without ever firing a shot. The locals who were watching them the whole time, but were not caught (this being their home turf) laughed their asses off, then sent their women down to loot the dead Nazis ... and some other less pleasant things.

Net? Things are weird -- something is happening, but mostly what you expect to happen.

So it is not news...

LiLo (Lohan) is an idiot. Two weeks out of "rehab" she gets nailed for DUI. And this time she has a bag of blow with her. If ever there was a case of denial, this is it.

Throw her in the slammer for a while. Say 90 days ought to do the trick -- but as a misdemeanor. I know that nobody does misdemeanor time, only felony time. But here is also an example of a lesson that matters might also do the trick. She can afford a driver -- why the hell does she not hire one? She can afford a minder -- to hold her blow for her -- so stupid to hold your own drugs: the rapper crews know better.

But really, she needs to feel some consequences for her actions. Same as we would be feeling for our third (or more) offense. Cocaine is illegal. You are a sick person to be doing it. Jail time for small quantities is stupid. DUI is illegal -- but you can easily kill other people as a result. That is something that jail might address.

Obummer

Latest polls out show that Borok Obummer is falling behind the great unindicted, Hillary. Should be interesting tonight during the debate as John Edwards attempts to show that he is more of a man than Hills. John, ... sorry to inform you but your wife is right: Hills has a bigger pair than yours. And those are not boobs.

Interesting thought posited to me last night by the proprietor/purveyor of "Lou's House of Pain": if Borok is defeated by Hills, will there be some racial tension? Let's think about this: the Dems are the party of the blacks, hispanics, and various other assorted minorities, or at least that is what they are telling those groups. Women cannot be regarded as a minority group -- but perhaps a "protected class" in Constitutional terms. So is the Democratic party the party of protected classes, or a part of diversity? 'Cause, if Barak Hussein fails to get the nomination, it sort of shows that "we just want your votes, not to actually have blacks participate in the highest level of government."

Is it the "trust us with your votes, but don't apply for the position" party? Is it the "blacks, hispanics and women, they are all the same ... so vote for Hillary" party? It it the "by the way, ignore the fact that she is a Washington insider, and for all intents and purposes is just another white, male politico" party?

The thought of Bill walking into the White House, jumping up on the bed, kicking off his shoes, proclaiming, "it's good to be home" make me positively retch in alarm and disgust. Perhaps Bill and Hillary will bring back all the stuff they purloined from the 'House in 2000 when they left. Or is it another trip to the furniture store for the Clintons?

You know, I have heard that Hillary is incredibly hard working, an adept political animal who knows how to work the seams to get things done. That she is capable, earnest and tough. For those who have told me this ... so the f@@k what? I am meant to feel warm and fuzzy that she will work hard and diligently to pick my pockets clean? That she will get things done in Congress -- the bulk of which will only serve to make my lot worse with no measurable benefit to the people this pillaging is being done in the name of?

Does she have the testicular fortitude to send in the bombers and troops? Whoa, isn't that a Democrat problem with Boosh -- the AWOL chap who never fought himself? And what exactly has Hillary done to justify her authority to preside over the most powerful military on Earth? Does she have any idea as to the meaning of "projection of power" ... in the military sense? Or is her skill in padding the billable hour at the Rose Law Firm ad qualification? Or her undoubted prowess is trading futures by reading the WSJ? This starts to sound like Kim Jong-il's list of accomplishments. Sure she was elected Senator for ... NEW YORK, probably the only place outside of Massachusetts that such a carpet bagger could get elected. Now we just forget that inconvenient fact and focus on her "admirable" Senate record?

Is she smart? Yes. Is she capable? Yes. Is she very scary to anyone who can think beyond their emotional instincts? Very. Hillary talks about the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy ... funny, that. All I can see is a Great Left Wing Smoke and Mirrors Show. It is Hillary that is behind the curtain, folks. Remember that. Remember what she has stood for in the past. Remember.

CNN - A Cerulean (democratic) News Network

Ok so its a stretch, you'd have to be an artist to know that Cerulean is a type of Blue. I didn't want to use "cobalt" because people would think of a dirty bomb -- which may be appropriate for the type of news "reporting" they engage in.

So why am I p-o'd with them today? It is a failure to report news, and in particular, political news. You see, Valerie Plame the"outed"spy had her suit thrown out of Federal Court yesterday. And as may be guessed at, CNN focuses on the wrongs done to her, and the "unsavory" behavior of the defendants -- Cheney, et al. Look, it is really simple: Judge Bates pointed out in a 40 page decision that since Plame works for the executive branch, things done to her by superiors in the executive branch do not rise to the level of crime/tort. Cheney has the right to do what he did in the execution of his duties. No whether "outing" her was in the course of his duties....

Which brings us to what CNN did not go into: was she "outed" at all. That is, can you be outed with the attendant inconveniences when you are not working under cover in the first place? If you are working in the big square building at Langley, are you protected? The answer is simple: no. The legislation was put into place to protect undercover operatives, to prevent them from being arrested as spies in foreign climes where such disclosure might have a distinct negative impact on their health. It is not a crime to be an American spy, working for the Company in the US of A. So what harm was done to Plame? Well, the intended harm was to discredit and hurt her lefty husband Wilson. Job done. Sleazy of the Cheney group? Without doubt. But harm to Plame? It only prevents her from working undercover abroad -- in hostile foreign climes -- where she would not be going anyway due to her marriage and life with Wilson. It does not stop her from being a useful member of the CIA. Of course, suing Cheney and making a big political brou-haha will negatively impact her future career -- the Company does not really like people who have an interest in public life. So in making her a Democrat poster-child for the continuing assault on the Booshies has done the real harm to her. Not that CNN will ever report that.

Al Qaeda OP Caught

So Khalid al-Mashadani, an Iraqi also known as Abu Shahed, was seized on July 4 in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and is in coalition custody. Styled as the highest Iraqi in AQ currently operating in that country, he is allegedly the conduit between OBL / Zawahri and Al Masri, the AQ chief in Iraq.

Great. If you have been paying attention, you will note that Democrat surrender-monkeys and their counterparts in the UK, are against all forms of coercive interrogation. That means, we are meant to interrogate him nicely. You know, pepper him with questions over a period of months or years. In the meanwhile, AQ will have the opportunity to determine what Abu Shithead knows and sever whatever links and spring whatever sleepers he may be able to finger. And we can be certain that Abu Pooper will not talk readily, given velvet glove interrogation.

So I propose that we shoot him full of scopolamine and or any other cocktail of drugs and torture the crap out of him. If he dies, then we will not be worse off than before, if he coughs up useless information, we will know on short order. If he can be induced to spit out the goods -- good. You see, he would not have a qualm about sawing off your head with a pocket knife and broadcasting the video on the internet. Your life -- my life -- means nothing to him. We would not be "stooping" to any base level from which we could expect "bad treatment" from the hands of his allies: we already get that ... remember the Pearl beheading? Or the National Guard gents eviscerated floating down the Tigris?

No, let's get what this cat knows and get it now. I have GOT to imagine that we have some less than friendly techniques that might loosen his mind and tongue. And if the weenies in this country cannot take the heat, too bad. The grandstanding about a timetable for withdrawal shows who is made of what and how much they "care" about humanity as opposed to their political lives. I urinate on them from a great height, unless they are actually on fire -- in which case I withhold such relief.

Not Earth Shattering, but.... High Court Idiots.

The UK High Court has once again showed that it is populated with persons that could not find their butt-holes in broad daylight with both hands....

So there is this 16 year old girl, see? She went to the US of A and came home with a ring, right? A silly little silver ring with the inscription: "Thes 4:3". Now, some of us that might have read the Bible might recognize this, but others may not. At any rate, this ring is called a "Purity Ring." It signifies the desire of the wearer to remain "pure" until marriage -- not have sex until then. Abstinence. In this age of nasty STDs, I'd have thought that this might be a laudable (however boring) goal. It is also emphatically a CHRISTIAN thing, hence the inscription.

The High Court has upheld the ban by the girl's school from allowing her to wear this ring. OK, if that was it, I'd say that your High Court has decided that religious expression was inappropriate in school. Fine. But that is NOT the case.

The High Court are being consistent with the hypocritical, cowering, Islamophilic, toadying leftist scum suckers that pass for left wing politicians throughout Europe. You see, "the school had allowed Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets."(London Times).

The High Court's rationale was that the ring was "not a proper religious symbol." Are they serious? 1 Thessalonians 4:3 reads, "[f]or this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality." The last part has alternatively been translated as "abstain from": (1) fornication; (2) lewdness; (3) desires of he flesh; and (4) whoredom. It is widely interpreted as a ban from sexual congress before marriage -- this is one of the key passages in the Bible supporting the Christian chastity.

So how does this differ as a religious expression from a Hijab, or Sikh turban? Or other relgious crap that is allowed? Clearly, the school is full of fucking idiots (appropriate, don't you think?) that they even banned the ring in the first place, but the High Court has exposed itself as a bunch of leftist, Islamo-apologist wankers. "Not a proper religious symbol" ... indeed. You morons wouldn't know a "proper religious symbol" even when the Muslim terrorist detonates their religious symbol under your miserable, hypocritical asses and blows you to wherever you reckon you may be headed for (if you are Church of England, Rat-man has told you where you are going).

Worse yet, is this: where is the outrage? Where is the common man or woman in the UK who would have not stood against this sort of idiocy in the past? Is this a sign of the moral decline, the base indifference that Britain has descended to? You may laugh at the US with all of the fundamental Christian loonies here, but that would not happen here. Don't you Brits realize that this is chipping away at your heritage? Your rights as John Bull? If you don't see this and act on this, then you are no better than the surrender monkeys across the Channel. Or should I say La Manche?

And what should we learn from this in the US? If Hillary gets into office, this sort of crap will become common place. The "secular-progressive" camp are exactly in this sort of game. Every possible weirdness from fringe groups will be allowed their expression (just so long as they are perceived as being potential Democrat voters) and Red State Christians? Well, expect the end of "In God We Trust."

That being said, you Christian loonies would do well from abstaining from the teaching of "Creation Science," etc. You are only inviting the wrath of anyone that might not be dentally challenged, under 200 lbs. and more than room temperature intelligence.

Ratatouille

If you cook or like to cook, you need to see this film. It is really not a kid's film, but has enough to keep them interested. See it.

Speaking of Rats -- the Catholic Church are to pay $660 million to 508 victims (or at least claimants) of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles area. And I am supposed to go to hell because I fail to recognize Mr. Ratzinger as my personal intermediary between God and me. And as pointed out to me by a loyal reader -- Mr. Ratz was a member of the Hitler Youth. Yeah, I know, everyone was a member of the Hitlerjuegend ... but Ratz was in a seminary, not just in school. And I am not convinced that the young future-Pope was against being a member of an anti-aircraft unit.

Since nobody reads these...

I figured that I would post a rant and see if anyone responded....

The Pope is a cretin. An anachronism. And personally insulting to me. There. That should start things off. After decades of rapprochement, he feels the need to clear things up: there is only one true church and it is the Catholic Church. The rest of you heathen are going to hell (or, because it is a place name, Hell). And we -- the rest of us Christians are going to hell. What does he think of Jews and Muslims, then?

I mean, according to Rat-man, the rest of non-Catholic christendom are misguided as to the one true Church. But, outside of christendom "they" are not part of ANY "church" (small "C"). So are they totally f***ed? It would seem so.


It starts to explain Rat-man's bon-mots with regards to Muslims. But the Vatican-weenies backed off of calling Muslims nothing but a bunch of war-mongering hoods -- some kind of mistaken historical context, supposedly. But us Prods can go to Hell?

Supposedly, the Pope implied (actually, not directly from the Pope at all, but a Vatican paper with Papal authority -- and that means Ratzinger's personal fingerprints) that "our" problem, meaning Protestants, is that we do not recognize the "primacy" of the Pope. I.e., 'coz we don't hold you as closest to God and as the intermediary between God and ourselves, we are destined to Hell -- that is because we don't give you the "power" over our immortal souls -- we are on the downtown express. Mr. Ratzinger ... blow me. Now I am sure that Martin Luther (despite the fact he was a rat-bastard anti-semite) put that sentiment in more eloquent terms, with the requisite fanfare and preambles, etc., I just want to go on record as seconding Luther's sentiment. You ain't my Pope and you have never been and will never be. I have a different relationship to God and Jesus, thank you very much.

Virtually all the world's religions regard their brand as the one true brand leading to guaranteed salvation -- except maybe the Methodists who recognize that others may need to worship God in other ways (but our way IS best). That means that a whole bunch of us are in for a very miserable time in the afterlife, if one of the religions has it right. Either way, I cannot believe that an institution as corrupt, devious, power-hungry and untruthful as the Catholic Church has any corner on my spiritual life. I cannot believe that God would be so narrow as to support only this deeply flawed religion: which in the last 500 years has had "infallible" Popes (sometimes two at a time -- one in Avignon, one in Rome), mass murderers (anyone remember the Inquisition ... it still has an office in Rome), syphilis-ridden clergy, pederasts, child molesters, cult followings (Opus Dei for starters), smugglers, global political puppeteers (Jesuits), market manipulators, genocide specialists, Nazi collaborators and a host of other grievous offenses, all in His name. And a history of the papacy would would make Joseph Stalin look like a Boy Scout -- sordid reading indeed.

I mean, if we are to stare down the Taliban, radical Islam, Wahhabi conspiracies, terrorism by educated "sleepers" next door, Al Qaeda ... are we better off united as core of tolerant relgions, united against intolerance, medieval ignorance and insensate violence, or splintered for the sake of the personal glory of a German career theologian -- who aims to bring all Christians back to the "one true Church?"

He apparently thinks that if we all started going back to church, mumbling arcane rituals, throwing some incense around, giving his local hoods cash, banning abortions ... getting back to basics, then everything would be alright. Hmmm. I would think that any woman with pretensions of ANY kind of feminism would balk at the thought of return to Catholic basics. Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, anyone? Remember the "basic" beliefs of old? Women are "dirty"and the reason we got thrown out of Eden, etc.? The Bible is the literal truth? Does this start to sound like the Taliban? Heard of any woman Popes lately? OR for that matter, bishops, cardinals, curia ... priests...? Where do you women stand in this regard? I heard some women on the radio today who supported this move by the Vatican. And I also noted that in the Red Mosque in Pakistan 10 year old girls shouted that they preferred to die as martyrs than surrender, that they would lay down their lives for the Wahhabi fundamentalist teachings they have been brainwashed with.

I would have thought that in this day and age we could all band together to see that mutual cooperation is essential for the continued existence of the species, and yet this supposedly brilliant man is calling for a return to ... I am almost at a loss for words. Maybe he knows something I don't in terms of demographics and the need to rally around a flag -- any flag to combat the Islamic peril at our doorstep. And is trying to set himself up as the rallying point -- even selflessly. But I doubt it.

As a Prod, I respect someone else's right to believe what they want and do what they want -- just so long as it does not affect my right to do the same. And that is what Ratzinger is doing. And I object.