Indians in the dark as power grid fails

Half of India without power after grids fail

India's energy crisis cascaded over half the country Tuesday when three of its regional grids collapsed, leaving 620 million people without government-supplied electricity for several hours in, by far, the world's biggest-ever blackout.

We can only wonder why  this happened.


Michael "Soda Pop" Bloomberg - America's newest "boob" job?

Michael "Soda Pop" Bloomberg, not satisfied with his attempt to have the government regulate soda pop intake, is now attacking ... baby formula:

NYC Mayor wants hospitals to lock up baby formula

Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

And if you have a new mother who just won't listen to reason, and insists on formula-feeding ... well ... in those participating hospitals, she'll get the formula - but every time she does, she'll also get a lecture.

With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

Who knew that New Yorkers were such nanny-ized wimps?

Meanwhile ... Bloomberg, the 'health' Nazi, the fellow who wants to ban Big Gulps, and now baby formula, actually presided over one of the most egregious examples of gluttony this country has ever produced (outside of a church pot-luck, that is) - the Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest.

Bloomberg pigs out at Nathan's glutton-fest

The men's all 'round champ woofed down 68 dogs, complete with buns. You'd think that would make even a dyspeptic Poland China puke, but nope, not those New Yorkers! Sonya "The Black Widow" Thomas took the wimmin's title with 45 dogs. A strong sense of social propriety prevents me from making 'Linda Lovelace' comments regarding Thomas' grand 'achievement', though this being the New Millennium and all, we could probably make similar observations regarding Joey Chestnut, the men's champion weenie gobbler.

 Just sayin'.

New York ... New York ... you gotta New York!


Coast Guard seizes 8,500 pounds of pot in waters off Los Angeles

From the LA Times:

July 26, 2012 |  9:41 pm
 increase text sizedecrease text size

Crew members on a U.S. Coast Guard cutter on Wednesday seized 8,500 pounds of marijuana worth an estimated $7.7 million. (Los Angeles Times)

The pot was confiscated from a Mexican "panga" boat about 160 miles west of Los Angeles by crew members of the San Francisco-based cutter Aspen, the Coast Guard said. The drug was packaged in more than 340 bales.
"Law enforcement authorities have seen an increase in waterborne smuggling of illicit drugs, as well as illegal immigrants, from the U.S.-Mexico border as far north as Santa Barbara County," Capt. James Jenkins, commander of the Coast Guard’s Los Angeles/Long Beach sector, said in a statement.
The marijuana was taken to Terminal Island, where the bales were loaded Wednesday evening onto trucks.
 Captain Jenkins may not know it, but he just killed his career. His statement is in direct contradiction to what Obama has been spouting to We the People since he sashayed into the Oval Office. Contradicting the president is not conducive to 'career progression' for professional officers.
For more on Obama and immigration, see this less-than-flattering opinion piece:

An interesting footnote: USCGC Aspen is one of the new Juniper-class buoy tender cutters:


Juniper-class cutters

and ...

Panga boat


Chick-Fil-A and the Constitutional Scholars of the Democratic Party

By now most everyone who has been reasonably conscious the last few days is aware of the dustup over Dan Cathy's remarks about gay marriage.

Cathy is the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. He is unabashedly pro-family and holds a traditional view of what marriage is ... and what it isn't.

He had the unmitigated gall to express those views.

This has led a number of our elected 'leaders' of the Democratic Party to go completely alpha sierra. Of these, the most prominent is Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel, currently mayor of Chicago, and formerly Obama's chief henchman in the White House.

They are actually threatening to bar Chick-Fil-A's in their jurisdictions. Yes. They are.

Cathy expressed his views, and the Democrats didn't like those views, so they are threatening to punish the company.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said in a statement to Fox News, saying the comments “disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

Alderman Joe Moreno said unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, he would not allow Chick-fil-A to open its first free-standing restaurant in the city.

Chicago 'values', apparently, do not fit in with the Constitution. The "Dead Fish" shows enormous contempt for the rest of us as he disrespects our Constitution. As for Moreno, that fellow really needs to get a grip on his ego. Does he really think he has the juice to unilaterally bar a business like this?

These people are elected officials. Government officials. They cannot, despite their posturing and pandering to their constituents, use their color of governmental authority to ban Chick-Fil-A based on Cathy's freely expressed viewpoint. 

That their threats are an insult to the Constitution is a little factoid that doesn't faze the Dems in the least.

As we might expect, while these politicians are posturing and pandering, there's a fair measure of hypocrisy in the mix:

Nation of Islam can open a restaurant in Chicago, but not Chick-Fil-A?

Update 08.01.2012: New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has joined the "Dead Fish" and other constitutional geniuses of the Democratic Party. She is trying to have Chick-Fil-A thrown off the New York University campus. You can read about it here:

 NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn asks NYU to evict Chick-fil-A

 Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for all his other faults, apparently sees that this is really not a very smart thing to do.

Bloomberg said it was “inappropriate” for any government to decide if a business can or cannot operate in a city because of someone's political views.

It didn't take long for the "Christian" Right to go alpha sierra, either. There's a lot of foaming at the mouth, and nigh on incoherent babbling in the comments over on Starnes' rantfests. Go here to see an entire series of right wing "Christian" hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, cooler and more sensible heads are at last speaking up:

Legal eagles cry fowl over politicians' plans to block Chick-Fil-A

You see, it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to see that Rahm's threats, and the threats of his fellow Democrats, are really just so much hot air. There's no need for Starnes and his ideological lemmings to 'go all Christian' and threaten boycotts and the rest of the sorts of things 'Christians' do to get even. 

I can only wonder if Rahm received his education on the Constitution of the United States from his bestest bud and constitutional law 'professor', Barack H. Obama.


Someone else made that happen?

Obama is defending his ' If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' stupidity. Yes ... stupidity. There's no other word for that comment of his, unless perhaps it is ignorance.

Come to think on it, 'ignorance' is a better word. Obama is arguably not stupid, but just as arguably, he is ignorant.

He is taking shots (can I say that without triggering an FBI/CIA/DHS 'tactical' response?) at Romney now, for 'twisting' his words.

No one is 'twisting' his words. And no one is 'taking them out of context.' He said what he said. He was on a roll in front of his fawning, freebie-seeking admirers, and he was playing to his crowd.

He really aggravated a lot of small business owners. Here's one story:

Business owners know hard work, long hours lead to success -- and an early grave

and there are thousands upon thousands more out there.

“That is ridiculous. My husband had $6 in his pocket when he started.” Vento said to FoxNews.com about Joey Vento, who opened Geno’s Steaks in 1966 in the neighborhood of South Philly.“He worked hard his whole life to build the place up. We made a lot of money. Unfortunately he didn’t get to enjoy it.”

The Ventos made a lot of money? According to Obama the Ventos fall into that group of capitalist bloodsuckers who need to 'pay their fair share.' Never mind they worked their asses off since 1966 to earn that money. The government needs to take it away from them and give it away to someone else. Like, you know, to projects like the Kit Carson.That's a project that failed because the government just didn't shell out enough of someone else's money. Now that's an Obama project for you.

'Twisted' Obama's words?

The only thing that is 'twisted' here is Obama's view of how this country works.


Making it happen

The fallacy of "Native American" sensitivity

We've all heard or seen examples of 'Native Americans' going on about how they have been downtrodden, mistreated, stereotyped, crapped upon, and otherwise treated like Untermenschen by the Evil White Man.

Most of it, unfortunately, is true. Even the cracks about casinos, much less Wounded Knee and Sand Creek.

Then why would the Comanche Nation 'adopt' Johnny Depp, citing his role as Tonto in the upcoming re-do of "The Lone Ranger"?

Here is a very interesting bit of background on Depp and his role as Tonto:

Johnny Depp’s Tonto is Based on a White Man’s Painting of an Imaginary Native American

Here is an excerpt:

Depp has explained that the reason he wanted to portray Tonto was to counteract stereotypical images of Native Americans that have pervaded history.
"The whole reason I wanted to play Tonto is to try to [mess] around with the stereotype of the American Indian that has been laid out through history or the history of cinema at the very least."
One could argue that it is counter-productive to combat whitewashed stereotypes of Native Americans by dressing a white man up as another white man's fictional representation of a Native American ...

You see, Depp's portrayal of a "Comanche" warrior is based on Kirby Sattler's painting, "I am Crow."

And what does Sattler himself have to say about his "art"?

On his website, Sattler states "I am not a historian, nor an ethnologist," and notes that he hopes his paintings "satisfy my audience's sensibilities of the subject without the constraints of having to adhere to historical accuracy."

Apparently the genuine '... inseparable relationship between the Native American and their spiritual and natural world ...' isn't good enough for Sattler to display.

Yep. Depp is portraying a Comanche, based on a totally inaccurate figment of White Man Sattler's imagination, and no one, including the Comanche tribe, gives a rat's patootie. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The Comanche nation  --'The Lords of the Southern Plains' -- heirs to the legacy of the likes of Quanah Parker, Ten Bears, Buffalo Hump, Charles Chibitty  -- rather than start beating on the usual drums of outrage ... have endorsed it wholeheartedly by 'adopting' Depp. HispanicBusiness.com as well as a number of other 'news' outlets carried the story.

Kind of reduces all that formerly expressed righteous indignation to the level of so much meaningless and self-serving drivel, doesn't it.

And Sattler's explanation? So much pseudo-intellectual hogwash.

I wonder how much of a cut of the flick's profits them Injuns is a-gittin'?

I'm not worried about them taking umbrage over 'Injuns'. Maybe they'll adopt me and give me a cut of the casino profits?


Capitalist oppressors of the masses

North Las Vegas declares 'fiscal emergency'

Union boss Len Cardinale shows a typical unionized entitlement mindset:

"They don't believe in supporting unions. They support downsizing, outsourcing, privatization, combining of services. That is a typical right-wing philosophy. And what I see is, for whatever reason, the mayor and city council have adopted a right wing philosophy," said North Las Vegas Police Supervisors Association President Len Cardinale.

Cardinale, like most unionistas, apparently has no concept of where the money comes from, that pays his union members' salaries. It comes from tax revenues, and of late, North Las Vegas has a 14% unemployment rate, down from 17%. With that going on, where does Cardinale expect to find the money? You'd think Cardinale and his constituents would simply be glad enough to still have jobs, rather than whining about not getting their hog trough overtime pay and pay raises. I mean, like really ... who gets pay raises these days, except union bosses, CongressCritters, and Wall Street executives?

Rather than a vast right-wing conspiracy to crush the poor working man, it may simply have to do with making a budget work, and doing away with all that unionized candy-store mindset.

[Buck] says her governance is fully separate from the sharp divisiveness that's readily found in national and state politics. Simply put, she argues, the actions they've taken are what's in the best interests of the city. She highlighted the firefighter who worked enough overtime to double his salary and the parks department staffer who made $62 an hour cleaning toilets. "If the residents had their way they would have us fire all of those public servants and hire someone else at a lower pay."

$62 an hour cleaning toilets? And Cardinale doesn't see anything wrong with that? I wonder how much that bloodsucker is siphoning off from the union treasury. Doubling a salary via overtime? Who's minding the salary candy store?


"You didn't build that ..."

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

That's our president's view on small business owners.

His statement, as reported on FoxNews:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Is that just a case of political hoof-in-mouth disease running completely out of control, or does the man really believe that?

And the Internet thing ... was there an American business enterprise before the Internet? What does that mean, tied in like that?

Somebody invested ... he says.

Yes. That would be people like me. My retirement 'opportunity' rests on investments. But the investments are made with and in people who build business, and who make it work. People who put in those 16 hour days seven days a week to build a business, to create jobs, to take risks, to collectively create an economy that works.

The 'government' doesn't do that. From where does Obama think the government gets its money to do all these wonderful things?

I don't need a president who doesn't understand that, who, by his statements like that, demonstrates that he clearly is out of touch with reality.

It's equally really clear that it's time for a change.

"Christian" evangelists

A few days back, we put up a post about 'the new Glen Beck', one Todd Starnes. Starnes appears to the be the darling of frustrated Beckians who have been suffering ever since Brother Glen got the heave-ho from FoxNews. Starnes claims to be one of those 'evangelical "Christians"'.

I'm not entirely sure what an 'evangelical "Christian"' is these days, though it seems to be one who rants and raves primarily about Obama being a Muslim; how the country is going to hell in a handbasket because of all the liberals taking "God" out of wherever "God" is or is supposed to be;  how Muslims in general and their otherwise Godless liberal apologists are destroying our "Christian" nation; etc etc etc. Anything involving the US flag is guaranteed to get these "Christians" on a foaming-at-the-mouth rampage.

Starnes' column(s) are a good example of all that, so I guess he is a genuine modern-day 'evangelical "Christian"'.

A few days ago he threw up a post about "War veterans told to remove US flags". The gist of Starnes' latest bit of effort in getting his fellow 'evangelicals' to come out of the woodwork is:

"... the Palmer Lake VFW Post in Brooklyn Park, Minn. has flown Old Glory to show their support for American troops. The flags were posted on five area bridges. But now, the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation has ordered the veterans to remove the flags...".

Now, there isn't much deep thinking going on over among Starnes' readership. For example, I posted this comment:

What? Another plot on the part of the commie pinko Islamo-sympathizing Godless baby-murdering liberals to ban the flag? Oh... America, where art thou?

and though it would seem to be the blatant troll that it is,  it has nonetheless so far received 45 'likes' - most of them within a few hours of it being posted - as well as the usual assortment of name-calling comments one might expect in such a venue.

Starnes himself has 'liked' this comment. Now, this sort of emotional pukery is not limited to the likes of Starnes and his followers. You can go over to most any left-oriented forum and find similar stuff, just on that side of the spectrum. But they don't claim to be "Christians". Starnes and his pals do. If that's the evangelical Christian viewpoint - and it is; Starnes is nothing at all new - I'll pass on it, thanks just the same.

There is a fair amount of data out there about why people leave the Christian church. Most of it seems centered on young people, as we see in this article:

The Barna Group - Six reasons young Christians leave the church

The same sorts of things apply to older people as well, though the interest in older folks doesn't seem to be there. Perhaps it's because older folks aren't going to be around as long as the younger ones, so the church doesn't stand to lose as much funding from tithes. One can only wonder ...

In any case, Starnes and his followers offer no reasons why one should embrace Christianity, and every reason why one should flee from it as quickly, and as far, as possible.

Hatred and contempt are two of the things that prevail among Starnes' followers, and Starnes loses no opportunity to fan the flames of both. There is nothing "Christian" about any of this. Nor is there anything 'American' about it.

Sadly, Starnes is not only not unique; he seems fairly typical of evangelicals these days.


Obama plays filthy pool

OK, we're in the Final Four months before the election. The mud-slinging has turned into turd slinging. Neither side has clean hands. It seems, as usual, that they can't come up with any brilliant examples of their own plans for a national fix, so it's sling the sewage.

But The Big O and his crew are taking a cue from Todd Starnes and not allowing themselves to confused by fact. They persist in trying to link Romney to Bain, especially with the latest pile by Obama operative Stephanie Cutter. Cutter is pretty high up the Obamanian campaign's food chain as a 'deputy campaign manager':

"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," Stephanie Cutter, deputy Obama campaign manager, said on a campaign conference call.

Implying that Romney is a felon is a pretty serious matter, I think. It's not a stretch to see it as being on a par with calling Obama a murderer because of 'collateral damage' associated with drone attacks over in Pakistan that he has approved.

Here is a pretty good article from CNN that debunks the charges levied by the Obamanians:

John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012?

You should read the whole thing, of course, but here are a couple of choice excerpts:

But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?
No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.
All four told me Romney is telling the truth.
Two highly reputable arbiters of political debate -- The Washington Post's fact-checking arm and FactCheck.org -- also on Thursday stood by their earlier findings that Romney stepped away from any active role at Bain when he accepted the Olympics post. And Fortune reported that it obtained private Bain documents that support the Romney account.

But here is a pretty good tidbit that says a lot about the Obamanians:

Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.

So ... 'the others', in speaking the truth about Romney and Bain, will anger their friends in the Obama campaign? What does that say about Obama and his minions?

The CNN/King article also debunks the Obmanian claims regarding Romney and Stericycle and Fund VII.

It's time for the Obamanians to find new straws to clutch; it's time for them to MoveOn. This one ain't workin' for them.

As for Cutter? She should be ashamed of herself. That 'felon' thing was really low rent, even for a political whore from either party.


Todd Starnes - the 'new' Glen Beck?

Todd Starnes is 'commentator' or somesuch over on FoxNews. Starnes appears to be a rising star among the intellectually deprived of the 'Christian' right. His stuff is so misleading he makes Glen Beck or Keith Olberman (yeah, I know Olberman's a far left foamer but he has much in common with Beck, just at the other end of the spectrum) look like paragons of truthful virtue. Or virtuous truthfulness? Something like that ...

For example, there's his piece on the poor downtrodden and 'prosecuted' pastor, who was jailed by Satan's minions in the Phoenix city government, simply for holding 'bible studies' in the privacy of his own home:

Homeowner jailed for hosting bible studies

It's not true, of course, as the most casual research on Google will show.

More recently, there is Starnes' 'Invasion USA' thing:

The Invasion of America

wherein Starnes really goes off the deep end in his distortion and obfuscation of facts ... neither of which is considered a hindrance of reasoning to his faithful readers.

In that article, Starnes opens with:


Starnes takes his ability to twist facts to new heights with this one. The Nueces Strip - which is what he is referring to as "American territory", was hardly US territory at the time of this 'invasion', the 'treaties' of Velasco not withstanding.

No less a personage than Congressman Abraham Lincoln disagrees with Starnes. In his letter to the Reverend  Peck, in May of 1848,  Mr. Lincoln takes Peck to task for a rabble-rousing speech earlier presented by Peck, and the lack of facts and the incorrect statements contained within. Here is an interesting excerpt from Lincoln's letter to Peck: "It is a fact, that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops." Lincoln goes on to list more facts ignored or obfuscated by Peck (sounds like Peck and Starnes are birds of a feather, hey wot?) that strongly support the position that the US was the aggressor and the invader in precipitating not only the Thornton Incident but also the war.

After calling to question the obfuscatory Reverend Peck's position and listing facts that show Peck to be either ignorant or deliberately misleading, Mr. Lincoln then challenges Peck: "If you admit that they are facts, then I shall be obliged for a reference to any law of language, law of states, law of nations, law of morals, law of religion - any law or (can't read Lincoln's handwriting for that word)- in which an authority can be found for saying those facts constitute "no aggressions."

I don't think Starnes expects his readers to do any research on his claims. Given the histrionics pitched by what appears to be a majority of his readers, I'd say his expectations are well-founded.

Talk about lemmings being led over the cliff ...


Biofuels welfare

Somewhat predictably, the Rocky Mountain Farmers' Union supports the use of biofuels by the Department of Defense:

RFMU supports biofuels for defense

some excerpts:

Unfortunately, Congress is moving to prevent the Department of Defense from purchasing biofuels.


America’s family farmers and ranchers are ready to increase biofuel production, to protect America’s military and energy security.

You betcher sweet bippy they are, are our patriotic Sons of the Soil:

Navy biofuel deal is 'cost prohibitive'

Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has supported biofuel projects in the past, but has problems with a program the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Navy announced earlier this month – one that would pay $26 per gallon for a special biofuel for Navy jets; $16 per gallon when mixed with regular jet fuel. 

Ain't it amazing how the smell of money can bring out the flag-wavers?

The Great Green Fleet

A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020. The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.

Nice play on Teddy Roosevelt's 'Great White Fleet', but c'mon ... this is just another form of farm and ranch welfare ... ooops ... subsidies.

The Obamanians are pushing hard on this one - just like they did with Solyndra and their other 'green' fiascoes.


Knapps is open

Photos over on the Pizer:

Knapps is open


The Kit Carson

Is finally on the verge of coming down.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the recent article on the removal of the signs:

When Babb first came to town, she asked the city for help in fixing the roof, which would have been considerably less expensive than the demolition which is taking place this week.

Babb received $75,000 from Urban Renewal back in 2006. The urban renewal board is appointed by city council.

Why is it that Babb continues on as though 'the city' has done nothing, when in fact 'the city' has shoveled a fair amount of free money into her pockets? What did Babb do with that money?

Wouldn't you like to have $75,000 in 'free' money? 

And though the statement gives the impression that it was merely a matter of fixing the roof, we find on Babb's Kit Carson Hotel website that the renovation was targeted at $5 million.


Yep. That's a lot of shekels. So if this renovation is such a solid money-making proposition, how come no investors of substance - other than free money from tax-generated or tax-related sources has been forthcoming?

And why is it all the fault of 'the city'?