You can take the girl out of the trailer park ...

But you can't take the trailer park out of the girl ... or girls. Jamie Lynn Spears, yes from "that" Spears family, is pregnant.

Not only is she pregnant, she is 16 years old. Perhaps not surprisingly, she is also from Louisiana, a state noted for some interesting notions of personal responsibility. However, in Louisiana the age of consent is ... 17. In California, it is 18, with none of the usual caveats of 16 if the adult is less than 24, etc. So, it appears that a crime may have been committed? In more ways than one?

JL Spears is the star of Nickelodeon's Zoey 101, a television show for kids, young teenagers. So it begs the question, what is this saying to the loyal fans that will be following the real life exploits of their hero? Rather than terminating the pregnancy in a discreet manner, JL has decided to "have the baby." And voila, another teen mother who, if her sister is anything to go by, is singularly unsuited for the role of care-giver, advisor, mentor ... and mother. No doubt JL has strong religious beliefs which prohibit her from abortion, but it does pose the question: "isn't sex out of wedlock a sin?" Apparently, she met her 19 year old boyfriend ... in church. Oh, and her name? Her mother is Lynne Spears and her father is ... Jamie Spears. Figures.

Mike Huckabee (his family Christmas card shown here) would no doubt approve. Somewhere in the Kremlin, there is some FSB drone who is desperately trying to figure out ways to provide campaign financing to Mike Huckabee: "Vladimir, we have got to get this guy elected ... more fun, even, than Jimmy Carter!!!"

Why the media is liberal

I have previously given this a lot of thought and offer you some ideas.

The root of this, I believe, stems from the very nature of the "profession" itself: you have to want to disseminate your ideas to others and convince them of the truth of what you are saying (or believe). Fundamentally, conservatives are too busy getting on with life to be concerned with what others think, except in the commercial sense of what it takes to sell goods and services. Liberals, by contrast, are not interested in goods and services, but political thought ... a large part of which is emotionally based and cannot stand up to the rigors imposed by the real world. That is, the typical person interested in journalism is not on this planet to provide goods and services, and nor is he/she really interested in the necessity of society being able to pay for said goods and services. The journalist is only concerned in convincing the public at large of the political "truths" they represent, irrespective of their viability given the reality of human nature.

Given this as the primary concern of the profession of journalism, and the fact that only the most strident and driven in any endeavor actually succeed, it is only natural that those most committed to their (leftist and idealistic) cause should rise to control the profession and its schools. The people less committed have long since moved on to more profitable pursuits seeking financial gain and comfort. Those who are committed actually gain their comfort and succor through spreading their social beliefs and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. In a disturbing replay of historical precedents, certain politicians today are using their own "useful idiots" to achieve power, primary among them, Hil-liar Clinton -- a committed Leninist.

You can't easily fight this. It is a rare person indeed who possess sufficient intellectual powers to debunk that socialist drivel that passes for political beliefs on the left and also the commitment to expose the simple lies and untruths used as "facts" by the profession of journalism. In fact, to be such a person is almost irrational: unless one already has sufficient financial means (commonly called "fuck you money" on Wall Street) that one can afford to launch the crusade, one has to choose between financial and creature comfort, and "the cause of truth" with corresponding relative poverty. Clearly, based on all economic theory, the rational person would choose comfort, i.e. "you're not crazy." So unless sufficient financial reward can be reasonably derived from the pursuit of truth, one would be, in fact, crazy to engage in it. Of course, this sets up the corollary: based on the above reasoning and rational economic behavior ... liberals must be crazy.

But there you have it: leftists gravitate to journalism as a means of venting their emotion-based "outrage" to the largest audience possible. Those with the most internal pressure to vent, seek the grandest stage on which to vent it. Those seeking to perpetuate the poison in their hearts (and brains), find ready and willing customers for their "Kool-Aid" at journalism school. You may discount the notion of an earnest seeker of truth graduating some liberal arts college, then attending Columbia to refine their skills: to follow the path from there to the mass print media, you must take the irrational path, thereby proving your unfitness for the position sought -- a reporter of fact, untainted by political slant or beliefs. Otherwise the graduate would take the path of a close friend -- from CSJ to the Institutional Investor, or Forbes, etc.

Then there are those interested solely in television "journalism." Maybe these are the worst of the lot: they are narcissists, seeking personal fame, financial windfall and yet try to justify their "profession" in the same terms as the newsprint/written media. Largely they lack even the feeble intellect required for that task, and to that hypothesis I submit: Katie Couric. My fingers thus sullied having typed the name, I remain your humble and loyal servant.

Intelligence?

As usual, the Democrats prove the amazing feat of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" is well within their repertoire.

You see, today they are loudly proclaiming that Boosh should have known about Iran's peaceful intent with regards to nuclear power -- after all, the NIE reports that Iran may have ceased meaningful progress with their nuclear weapons program since 2005.

Here's the irony: the same Democrats rend their shirts at Boosh's stupidity in reliance on the ... NIE's ... determination of the presence of WMDs in Iraq. So Boosh was stupid then to rely on the NIE and stupid now not to rely on the NIE. Right. Nancy Pelosi, vampire of common sense, writ large.

How stupid do the Democrats have to get? Boosh IS stupid ... we all know that. Pretty much irrefutable. Ok, so what? Does this mean that we have to suspend common sense and believe one of the most inept intelligence communities ever to have misled a powerful nation? Friends, we are talking about the CIA, DIA, NSA and a host of other acronyms which all stand for CYA ... "cover your ass." When have they ever known anything useful in a timely manner ... at least that we are aware of?

Contrast that with Israel .... They just pulled off an amazing coup in detecting and terminating a joint Syrian / North Korean bomb making factory. Out in the middle of nowhere ... a place that the Syrians claim was an empty supply depot ... which they then covered in thousands of tons of dirt, a la Chernobyl. Why? Because they dislike untidy bombed out buildings in their deserts? Or because the weapons grade plutonium lying around oxidizing was making rather a mess of things? If you want to get nightmares, read a bit about oxidizing plutonium dust and its effect on the human body.

Israel says that the Iranians have started up again trying to make bombs. Who would you care to believe? Israel has actual "humint", that is real, live people who share information with them ... for money, of course, but why not? The US depends on electronic intercepts, satellite photos and other, uh ... reliable ... derivative information. Given that the Russians are helping the Iranians in their nuclear ambitions, don't you suppose that they might be able to give a few kind words of advice on how to make the US intelligence community look like buffoons? Iran admits that they have 3000 centrifuges in operation -- how efficiently we do not know. But given that you can buy your fuel from Russia or France, why do you need to enrich your fuel to ... weapons grade material? It doesn't make the reactor generating electricity any more efficient, and may make it much harder to control ... not that this is actually a Russian strong point.

Iran denies the holocaust. Iran provides the succor for the shiite insurgency. Iran supplies Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran supplies the Taliban (though this is more of a relationship of convenience to try and kill Americans, the Taliban being largely fundo-Sunni). Ahmadwhackojob is among the most untrustworthy heads of state seen since ... Pol Pot? Noriega? If he claims a stance on nuclear energy, it is a pretty good bet that he is lying. And Bella Pelosi wants to believe him. More irony in that Whackjob would cut her head of with a dinner knife given the opportunity, mainly because she is a woman without modesty.

Sometimes I despair at the abject stupidity displayed by members of Congress: what will they NOT do to further their immediate political aims? How short-sighted can they be? It is like going to a dinner party where the host has already served you poop on the plate ... are you going to drink the white wine? Iran means no good, notwithstanding any incompetence by the NIE and the gullibility of Congress.

Houston, we (may) have a problem here....

And his name is Mike Huckabee. A former governor of Arkansas (why does that miserable poop-hole of a state produce so much trouble for the rest of us???), and an ordained Baptist minister, he represents much of what troubles Blue State America ("BSA") about Red State America ("RSA"). "They don't think like us."

For the most part, I am glad that RSA does not think like BSA ... BSA is full of whining, leftists looking for the next government handout, bent on interfering with my rights to live my life as I please because I might offend someone by doing so. BUT (and that should be in 60 point caps), RSA is also the home of some real loonies of the religious persuasion. Note that Liberalism is in reality a form of religion too, but a religion based on social politics and lies promulgated by power hungry wannabe dictators and intellectuals writing books about ideals that totally misunderstand human nature. By contrast, Liberalism is NOT based not a different "book" dictated by fantasists almost 2000 years ago, based on the oral traditions of story telling and heavily edited by various power-crazed "theologians" over the next 20 centuries. For ease of distinction, we shall maintain the modern interpretation: both Liberalism and religious Conservatism rely on the unthinking belief in a set of rules, "facts" and dogma.

What scares me about Huckabee is that he is a classic RSA religious crazy. He sounds sooo reasonable, affable and caring. He probably is ... you just can't fake that sort of down-homsey friendliness. I'd probably like to watch a game with him, coach little league baseball, play golf ... most of your day-t0-day activities. I mean, would anyone (who is telling the truth, anyway) want to do any of the above with Hil-liar? If you would prefer Hil-liar, it tells volumes about your own character, or lack thereof. The trouble with Huckabee is that precisely what makes him decent and kind in the extraordinary way is also what make him singularly unsuited for President of the United States.

Huckabee believes in every word of the Bible as the absolute truth -- God's word. He believes in the creation as described therein ... in effect, we run the risk of electing a President who believes in Santa Claus. The man with the power to push the button ... the man who would be Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force on the Earth ... believes that the heavens and Earth were created in one week by the almighty.

Friends, that is a suspension of reason beyond any that is acceptable for someone occupying elected office. It is entirely similar to the putative beliefs of the Taliban and Iranian theocracy. If I were a European, I'd write off the United States as another country run by religious zealots. And no, it is not true that Huckabee's beliefs would be insulated from the rest of the country and we would have nothing to fear: the tone is set from the top down. Precisely why Hil-liar scares me so much: a congenital liar as President, a person so bent on achieving power that she will tell anyone any set of untruths, so long as she gets to hold the ring. Sauron in a dress. Huckabee would not represent that level -- or any level -- of cynicism, but might be just as scary, or even more so. Nose to nose, eye to eye, with Vlad the Impaler Putin ... who would you want? Hil-liar or Mike? No question there, none at all.

So you see, if Mike gets the nod from the GOP, even a staunchly Hil-liar loather as I am, I'd have to vote for her.

The support that Huckabee is getting in Iowa also shows how people think in the RSA ... they are voting on their gut, their sense of decency -- quite in distinction to BSA, who are voting to receive the most handouts they can, for social "justice" paid for out of my wallet. And you instinctively want to side with RSA -- and vote for the decent person. But can we "afford"" that? Is there a middle ground?