Dog Prays Before He Eats:
The most elaborate automated performance of Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring”:
On Air April Fools i-Pad Joke:
We Came-Saw-Kicked Some Ass!
For All You Tool Junkies Out There:
Road Debris:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
When Sarah Bit Harry (When Harry Met Sally II):
Where Is OSHA When You Really Need Them? (Cleaning the Cobra Pit):
Diesel Drifting:
Mike Adams can now write on this win in his counter liberal articles:
Attorneys for a Christian professor in North Carolina are celebrating a decision handed down by an appellate court, calling it a victory for academic freedom.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys argued that criminology professor Mike Adams was unconstitutionally denied a promotion at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington because school officials were hostile to the political views he delivered in his columns and speeches.
A lower court had ruled against Dr. Adams, saying his comments on matters of public concern constituted “official” speech as part of his job duties as a criminology professor at UNC-Wilmington — and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. But now the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Adams’ writings and speeches are protected by the First Amendment, and that if Adams winds up winning his case against the university, school officials could be held personally liable for damages.
“No individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment,” wrote the court. “Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern.”
ADF senior counsel David French argued before the court on Adams’ behalf. “Christian professors should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs,” French states, “and this decision thoroughly upholds that principle.”
French calls the circuit court’s decision “a ringing vindication” of the academic freedom of public university professors. “Disagreeing with an accomplished professor’s religious and political views is no grounds for refusing him promotion,” he adds.
“It vindicates academic freedom not only for Dr. Adams but for all professors — and re-establishes the principle that the university is a marketplace of ideas. It’s a tremendous outcome, but it’s just one additional step in a long road towards justice for Dr. Adams.” The case now goes back to district court.
One News Now has this posted news report about the numbers of gay people in the United States. Gary Gates biography can be found here:
SAN FRANCISCO – A California demographer has released a best guess of how many homosexual adults are in the U.S.
Gary Gates puts the figure at 4 million adults, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population. That’s much lower than the 3 to 5 percent that has been the conventional wisdom in the last two decades, based on other isolated studies. It’s also a fraction of the figure put out by Alfred Kinsey, who said in the 1940s that 10 percent of the men he surveyed were “predominantly homosexual.”
Gates has advised the Census Bureau. He’s a demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
He derived his results from five studies that asked subjects about their sexual orientations.
Take note some studies are also mentioned HERE
Here is another example of the left in California, which is effectively in control of the body-politic. Older battles include SB777 and the like. Fox News reports on this newer challenge:
The California Legislature could soon pass a bill that would require school textbooks and teachers to incorporate information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans into their curriculum.
The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Education Act, or SB48, which mimics a bill previously vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, made it one step closer to becoming law Tuesday after being approved by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill, introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, could have a nationwide impact if passed because California is such a big buyer of textbooks that publishers often incorporate the state’s standards into books distributed to other states.
Supporters say that’s a good thing because it will help prevent gay students from being harassed or bullied by their classmates.
But critics say SB48 is just an attempt to brainwash students into becoming pro-gay political activists and ensure that government, not parents, has the final word on teaching kids about moral values.
[….]
Critics object to the bill on several accounts, saying it undermines parental authority, promotes gender confusion and experimentation, inappropriately classifies LGBT as a cultural ethnic group, and aims to brainwash children into adopting the LGBT community’s political agenda.
“This is teaching children from kindergarten on up that the homosexual, bisexual, transsexual lifestyle is something to admire and consider for themselves,” Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a group advocating against the bill, told FoxNews.com.
Thomasson said teachers should teach about homosexuals’ historical accomplishments but should not be forced to mention their sexual orientation.
“Teach them about the good behavior, the noble things that people have done, but you don’t have to go into what they do sexually… True history focuses on the accomplishments of people; it doesn’t talk about what they did in the bedroom.”
[….]
Leno said the SB48 “will get to the floor of the Senate by late May; we hope that it will make its way to the assembly for similar review and to the governor’s desk by late summer.”
The Pacific Justice Institute adds some clarifying thoughts to the goal of the bill:
A bill recently introduced in the California senate seeks to mandate that all public schools in California teach history and social studies with a deliberate slant toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons (LGBT).
The bill, SB 48, was introduced in the new legislative session by longtime LGBT activist Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who has also authored a number of bills in past sessions designed to attack traditional marriage. Among other things, SB 48 states, “Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”
Most California schools teach California history in the fourth grade. Current law points students to the contributions of “both men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, and Pacific Island people.” SB 48 adds LGBT and changes the names of most of the other ethnic groups to sound more politically correct, although it eliminates “Mexicans” entirely, without adding back in any other Latino designation.
Pacific Justice Institute will be officially opposing SB 48. PJI president Brad Dacus commented, “Increasingly, we are seeing bills like SB 48 disguised as anti-bullying measures, when in reality they do not even mention bullying. Instead, SB 48 mandates that history be sexualized for elementary-age children, to please a special interest group. At a time when our students are falling behind their peers from other countries, more political correctness is not the answer.”
And SaveCalifornia.com mentions these two quotes:
(Emphasis Added)
Hey, remember when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz decided she was going to play civility cop?: You probably don’t remember. It happened a long time ago, in a different political era. By which, of course, I mean “January.” That was when her friend Gabby Giffords got shot and she and the rest of the left decided, with not a shred of justification, to treat it as a Teachable Moment about Republican incivility. As I say, you probably don’t remember. But Laura Ingraham does, just like she remembers The One lecturing us about scaring the elderly before Pelosi started prattling on about the coming senior apocalypse. I know I said it once before today, but it bears repeating: Excellent job, Mr. President. Of all the shameless hacks in Washington whom you could have chosen for the DNC, you picked one whose shamelessness is truly exceptional. I can’t wait for the next lecture on how “we can agree without being disagreeable.” (HotAir)
NBC Doesn’t Object to Dem Calling GOP Budget a ‘Death Trap,’ But Was Outraged Over Death Panel Claims: On Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, a report on the Republican 2012 budget proposal included a sound bite from Democratic Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who decried the plan and ranted: “Medicare would become little more than a discount card. This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.” Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O’Donnell setup the outrageous quote by simply noting: “Democrats call the Republican plan too severe, saying it would hurt the most vulnerable.” After the clip of Schultz, O’Donnell went on to conclude her report without offering any rebuttal to the claim. Following O’Donnell’s report, Williams did a news brief on Schultz being named the new head of the Democratic National Committee: “One more note on politics. Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who we saw right toward the end of Kelly’s reporting there, was named the new head of the Democratic National Committee today. And she will keep her day job in Congress at the same time.” Again, no reaction to Schultz’s extreme rhetoric over the GOP budget plan. In contrast, on the September 9, 2009 Nightly News, Williams could barely conceal his outrage at conservative claims that ObamaCare would include government death panels: “[President Obama] has seen his message hijacked as town meetings have exploded with wild and false rumors of death panels deciding when a human life should end….no one believed we would be here at this point tonight, that they would get rolled over an issue – a false issue like death panels, that the resistance would be this high.” Back on January 12, appearing on the CBS Evening News, Schultz called for more civility in the wake of the Tucson shooting, while denouncing “violent” rhetoric: “Let’s remember that Gabby herself talked about, just a few weeks ago, the fact that individuals who shall remain nameless, used violent images and words in her campaign and she talked about how important it was that we dial it back….we all agree that the language and the tone and the tenor of our debate has gotten too intense and that we need to lead by example.” How quickly she forgot. (NewsBusters)
This story comes from the Orange County Register and documents yet another company leaving the sunshine state:
California has changed dramatically since 1941, when Carl and Margaret Karcher scraped together about 325 bucks to start a hot dog cart in Los Angeles – a precursor to a drive-through restaurant they opened in Anaheim and which grew into the Carl’s Jr. fast-food empire. The Karchers were household names in Southern California, not just for their restaurants but for their activism in conservative politics and Catholic charities.
Whatever you think of the Karchers’ politics, you’ve got to love the entrepreneurial story that surrounds their success and what it said about California in its heyday. The Karchers – he died in 2008 and she in 2006 – came to the Land of Opportunity from the staid backwater of Upper Sandusky, Ohio.
California has beckoned many Midwesterners – and people from every part of America and the globe – not just because of its pleasant weather, but because of a culture of openness that allowed creative people to go as far as their ideas would take them. Unfortunately, people with energy and creativity are now likely to go elsewhere, to places where the state government has different attitudes toward the private sector.
Indeed, CKE Restaurants, parent of Carl’s Jr., is likely to move its headquarters from Carpinteria, near Ventura, to Texas and is undergoing a rapid expansion of restaurants in the Lone Star State. Right before the budget circus got going Wednesday, CKE CEO Andrew Puzder spoke at the California Chamber of Commerce, blocks from the Capitol dome. Like most of us, Puzder loves California and has no interest in leaving it, but he told harrowing tales about doing business in a state that has gone from an entrepreneurial heaven to a bureaucratic nightmare.
“It costs us $250,000 more to build one California restaurant than in Texas,” he said. “And once it is opened, we’re not allowed to run it.” This explains why Carl’s is opening 300 restaurants in Texas and only maintaining its presence in California. Texas has lower taxes than California, but the reason for the shift has more to do with regulation and with the attitude of the respective governments.
Puzder complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas. In California, restaurants have to provide new curb cuts, new traffic lights, you name it. The company must endure so many requirements and must submit to so many inspections that it becomes excessively costly – and the bureaucrats are in charge of the project.
Once the restaurant is open, Puzder said, the store’s general managers are not allowed to run the business as if they own it. That’s the key to the company’s customer service approach – allowing general managers to do whatever it takes to make customers happy. But California’s inflexible, union-designed work rules, for instance, classify general managers as regular employees. They must be paid overtime for any work beyond an eight-hour day. They must take mandated breaks at specified times.
The Carl’s Jr. CEO notes some of his reasoning in this decision that should alert Californian’s to the problems in creating a robust economy… or in killing it:
…“It costs us $250,000 more to build one California restaurant than in Texas,” he said. “And once it is opened, we’re not allowed to run it.” This explains why Carl’s is opening 300 restaurants in Texas and only maintaining its presence in California. Texas has lower taxes than California, but the reason for the shift has more to do with regulation and with the attitude of the respective governments.
Puzder complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas. In California, restaurants have to provide new curb cuts, new traffic lights, you name it. The company must endure so many requirements and must submit to so many inspections that it becomes excessively costly – and the bureaucrats are in charge of the project.
Once the restaurant is open, Puzder said, the store’s general managers are not allowed to run the business as if they own it. That’s the key to the company’s customer service approach – allowing general managers to do whatever it takes to make customers happy. But California’s inflexible, union-designed work rules, for instance, classify general managers as regular employees. They must be paid overtime for any work beyond an eight-hour day. They must take mandated breaks at specified times.
If a busload of customers comes to a store, these general managers must sit back and do nothing if they are on a break period. Most states have 40-hour workweek rules, meaning employees are paid overtime after exceeding 40 hours of work in a single week. In California it is based on the day, which limits the ability of managers to work, say, six hours one day and 10 hours the next day. Puzder complains about these industrial-era requirements that impede flexibility and harm customer service.
And California law encourages “private attorney general” lawsuits against private businesses over overtime and other regulatory rules, which has created a huge financial incentive for attorneys to file questionable legal actions against restaurants.
“It’s not like we have kids working in coal mines or women working in sweatshops,” Puzder said. It’s not as if his workers in other states, where these regulatory rules don’t exist, are oppressed, he added. “How does this help us instill entrepreneurial values?” He wonders how all these nonsensical rules teach people about being independent from the government rather than dependent on it….
Camera.org, a highly recommended site for bias against Israel in the media, reports on the retraction of the Goldstone Report that needs to be inculcated into the psyche of bloggers in preparation to answer the liberals who still cite this report which most rejected when it came out (save the liberal U.N. backers and anti-Semites around the world). As Camera comments on this about-face:
In examining the New York Times’ record on the Goldstone report, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the newspaper is more interested in promoting as credible an investigation that even its leader has repudiated than in objectively reporting on its shortcomings. Unfortunately, this is unsurprising coming from a media outlet that is increasingly moving from objective news reporting to advocacy journalism.
Richard Cohen weighs in on Goldstone’s retraction in the Washington Post after mentioning that Israel, in contradistinction to its cultural mores, was “accused of deliberately targeting civilians during its brutal 2008-09 war with Hamas.” He continues:
That accusation was contained in a report to the United Nations by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who had been used by the international community previously to investigate war crimes. That Goldstone was also a Jew and a Zionist made the charge all the more powerful.
Now, though, Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent — the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision. For Israel, it’s like the governor has called the warden — it’s been reprieved and taken off death row.
Once again, rockets are being fired into southern Israel from Gaza, some of them going up the coast as far as Ashkelon, a major city and port. Before the last war, from April 2001 to the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar rounds were fired into Israel, killing 14 Israelis and wounding more than 400. The rockets have since been improved. Should more than the occasional rocket actually make it all the way to Ashkelon (one came close Monday) or should one of them come down on a school, another war with Hamas would start a moment or two later. Israel has already hit back, but not in force. In addition, a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.
This resending of the report has consequences reverberating towards the Obama Administration that should be highlighted in the 2012 Elctions. In fact, it has even caused the likes of Rabbi Schmuley Botech to comment on Samantha Powers (someone whom I just blogged on as well), he says the following:
On my recent lecture tour in South Africa the subject of Judge Richard Goldstone came up quite a lot. Whether it was the dinner in Johannesburg at the home of Chabad head Rabbi David Masinter where acquaintances of the judge were in attendance, or at Sea Point Synagogue, South Africa’s largest, where I lectured and whose Rabbi, Dovid Weinberg, had officiated at Goldstone’s grandson’s Bar Mitzvah in Johannesburg, or my speech for Chabad of Cape Town and later in Pretoria, the man whom the media describes as a ‘respected international jurist’ and who had falsely accused Israel of war crimes was never far from anyone’s lips.
South Africans are among the world’s proudest Jews and most ardent Zionists. So it was understandable that they would detest Goldstone, viewing him as a traitor to his people, a man who engaged in a blood libel against the Jewish state in order to enhance his standing at the United Nations.
I have personally never agreed with this assessment of Goldstone, seeing him instead as one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’ a man so full of his own pomposity and self-righteousness as to be utterly blind to simple notions of right and wrong. Like Jimmy Carter before him, Goldstone is one of those well-meaning ignoramuses whose view of morality is that whichever is the party without tanks and an air force must be the party who is just. This knee-jerk reaction to always champion the underdog, notwithstanding their evil actions explains the shockingly obvious statement in Goldstone’s recent Washington Post apology to Israel in which he wrote, “In the end, asking Hamas to investigate [its own crimes] may have been a mistaken enterprise.” It took a famous judge three years to come to the conclusion that asking a terrorist organization hell-bent on exterminating Israel to impartially report its own atrocities was not his brightest idea.
[….]
Much more troubling, however, are the comments attributed to Samantha Power, the rising star of the Obama Administration who is being discussed as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I am a huge fan of Power’s 2002 book A Problem from Hell, detailing how America refused to intervene to stop repeated genocides in the twentieth century. I have repeatedly extolled the Pulitzer-prize winning book in lectures and columns and believe it should be required reading by every American High School student. I was also not surprised to read that it was Power who was instrumental in persuading an always reluctant President Obama to intervene in Libya to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his people. It was therefore with considerable sadness that I learned of Power’s troubling statements on Israel, comments that require her immediate clarification lest she compromise her own moral credibility. American Thinker and other publications have reported that Power said that the United States should send in a massive military force to protect the Palestinians from Israel. And that she maligned the American pro-Israel lobby with her advocacy of “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [the pro-Israel lobby] and… sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” Is Power really arguing for greatly reducing or eliminating American military aid to Israel and channeling it instead to the Palestinians who have repeatedly used foreign aid to foster hatred of Jews in schools, line the pockets of corrupt officials, and promote terrorism?
There is more, with Power seemingly criticizing the New York Times in 2003 for being insufficiently critical of Israel after it attacked terrorist-saturated Jenin. Of Israel’s presence in Lebanon, Power wrote in her book, Chasing the Flame, that what sparked Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was “dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity,” where in truth Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the incessant stream of rocket attacks that terrorized its northern cities. The phrase ‘Israeli insecurity’ implies that Israel is paranoid rather than reflecting the reality of a Lebanon dominated by Hezbollah, whose genocidal aim is the destruction of Israel.
One should take note that while the New York Times is about as bad as they get, it is not taxpayer funded like NPR (National Public Radio)! Here is an example of the bias found at NPR on this matter, followed by a video of the European Union voting on March 10th of 2010, adopting the Goldstone Report:
NPR:
Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments:
You may contact this European Parliment member, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, via email to enquirer why she supported such bad reporting and took the positions she did in the above video – “knowing now what we did then [at least reasonable people].” – annemie.neyts-uyttebroeck@europarl.europa.eu