GREEN Between The Sheets?

If the headline didn't make you spew on your keyboard, the story might.

From MotherNatureNetwork comes the review of a book I'll never read. Why? Because using the words "green" and "sex" in the same sentence is just gross.

You drive a hybrid, eat organic, and are passionate about recycling. But how green is your love life?

If you're like me and never once stopped to consider whether your "love life" is environmentally friendly, you can soon learn more about eco-sex. (I won't, but you can if you like.) Stefanie Iris Weiss has helpfully penned "Eco-Sex", to help us all "Go GREEN Between The Sheets and Make Your Love Life SUSTAINABLE", and it will be available March 31.

The book covers hand-crank sex toys, eco-friendly underpants, and more. Ms. Weiss says:

"...some people are going to make fun of the notion of eco-sex. I expect that."

(Heh. Maybe she's read my blog.)

Her top advice for wanna-be eco-sexuals?

"The No. 1 thing people can do to be an eco-sexual is to have fewer kids, or have none at all," said Weiss, who is childless.

More population control ideology from environmental activists. Great.

But maybe I'm being unfair. Surely, she's a sincere person who cares deeply and is only trying to help save the environment and the world. Right? After all, she plainly states:

"I am a very committed greenie, and I have been a vegetarian for 20 years."

I mean... she advocates a bike ride as an eco-date, biodegradable condoms, and growing your own flowers so as to avoid the environmental costs of florist-shop flowers and their deliveries... And she just looks like a nice lady, doesn't she?

(Photo of Ms. Weiss courtesy of MNN)

What the... Wait just an eco-friendly minute here! That jacket looks suspiciously like dead animal, don't it? And even if it's a very good faux dead animal, it would be made with (gasp!) petro-chemicals... Right?

Bamboo underpants and a leather coat. Eco-hypocrisy. Pfffft.

Preview Of ObamaCare

(In fairness, this happened before the ObamaCare vote... but if you think it isn't a glimpse of what's to come, including the whining union apologists, you're deluded.)

On February 7, a Pittsburgh man died at home after ten calls to 911 failed to bring the EMS services he needed. According to the AP story, Curtis Mitchell and his common-law wife Sharon Edge made their first calls for help in the early hours of February 6. Help never came.

"I'm very angry, because I feel they didn't do their job like they supposed to," said Edge, 51. "My man would still be living if they'da did they job like they was supposed to ... They took somebody that I love away."

This was in the middle of "Snowmageddon", which dropped over 20 inches of snow in Pittsburgh. But according to the city's public safety director Michael Huss, it's no excuse.

"... You get out of that damn truck and you walk to the residence," Huss said. "That's what needed to happen. We could have carried him out."

But it's not what happened. Instead, Mitchell died on his couch. And now the EMS crews involved are facing punishment after an investigation into their dereliction of duty.

According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette story, at 5:50 am, an ambulance was four blocks from Mitchell's house... waiting for him to walk to them. By 6:09, crew chief Josie Dimon was tired of waiting.

"He ain't (expletive) comin' down, and I ain't waitin' all day for him," she told a colleague, crew chief Kim Long, at the dispatch center. "I mean, what the (expletive), this ain't no cab service."

And the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that Ms. Long, who had spoken several times with Edge, not only failed to relay to the EMS crew that Mitchell was too sick to walk, she failed to request a four-wheel-drive vehicle to reach the scene. She did at some point advise Mitchell to take a bus. At another point during the storm she advised the mother of a two-year-old to walk for help as well.

The morning of February 8, Edge made her last 911 call. To let them know Mitchell had died. While the firefighters dispatched to the house managed to arrive in only two minutes, the body of Curtis Mitchell lay for five hours on the couch before personnel from the medical examiner's office arrived to transport him.

Now, three of the EMS workers involved will be punished, with Josie Dimon - who doesn't work for a (expletive) cab service - facing termination. And their union president, Anthony Weinmann is squealing about it.

"We believe this (punishment) is completely unfounded and inherently wrong," said Weinmann, president of the Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics, Local 1. "It is quite obvious that the city was ill-prepared for the snow disaster. The administration in charge of public safety did not put the employees of the City of Pittsburgh in a position to carry out their responsibility."

sigh...

First, let me just say: Snow disaster my ass. That's a lame excuse, don't buy it. I live right outside of Pittsburgh. It's not like that 20 inches of snow fell in one great plop. And I saw emergency vehicles in my own area, which is more rural than downtown Pittsburgh by far. Also, the fact that the shiftless heartless Ms. Long wanted Mitchell to take a city bus strongly suggests that at least some traffic was moving in town. This is further proven by the fact that firefighters were able to reach the Mitchell home in two minutes. Why the hell didn't the EMS workers call the fire department for help? Or - as their own public safety director mentioned - get off their asses and go to Mitchell?

So... after two days, over a dozen calls back and forth between the home and the 911 call center, and several calls cancelled because a man sick enough for an ambulance was too sick to walk to that ambulance, a man dies. The woman who had to watch him die then had to sit for hours with his body before it was collected. And the union would have us believe the EMS staff are the victims of the story.

Get ready for it, folks. If we can't get ObamaCare repealed, this is just a preview of what's to come for all of us. Lack of services, and unions (now elevated to a higher class than the rest of us, under the SEIU administration) who defend the indefensible.

Thanks... I Needed That

I haven't blogged about the ObamaCare vote. I couldn't. I didn't even look much at the news and blogs until this evening. I'm heartsick. It seems... almost... not real.

I'm not alone. I see similar reactions from others. From Russ at That's Right:

I for one really haven't even absorbed the full implications of this usurpation, despite having been intimately involved with it for over a year now; I just never actually thought it could happen. Not here. Not this way.

I guess I kept thinking, right up until the voting, that nothing as wrong as this could happen here... that this abomination would not survive... that this morally deformed bastard child of a raped democracy would be stillborn rather than live to devour the liberty and lifeblood of America.


I was wrong. And, to be blunt, it sucks. What a sad day for our Country.

But I saw a couple of things out there in the blogosphere that made me feel a little... if not "better", then at least "more focused"... or maybe just "less shellshocked".


First, from HotAir, Doctor Zero has a piece reminding us "What Freedom Demands". Go read the whole thing, because it's fantastic. I loved this bit:

This radiant idea has burned through all the bloody clouds of the last three centuries: you are not clay to be sculpted by the will of another. You are not a racially inferior inconvenience, to be marched into a concentration camp. You aren’t a class enemy to be exiled by dictators. You are not a disposable cog in the machinery of collectivist economics, or a mouth to be starved by the failure of collective agriculture. You are an American, and through a dereliction of their duty as elected representatives, the Democrats have forced you to choose whether you will retain the full measure of the honor and dignity your Constitution asserts for you.

And from Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, a "Pep Talk" that gets right to the point:

But it's the morning after, and your mourning should be over.

--snip--

So shake off the gloom, get your asses in gear, get over it, and get to work continuing to fight the worst government policies "since the Great Depression."

We have no other choice.

Indeed.

Cave To The So-Cons? Get Riehl.

I generally enjoy Riehl World View. Dan can be brash, but that's what I like about him. Today, however, I read something there that I completely disagree with. More, I think he's advocating the opposite of what we should do:

But as so many libertarians and moderate Republicans have had their say about social cons over the years, you might want to consider that, they could be the only thing standing between you and Obama Care just now.

This is the exact opposite of the opinion I gave after asshat Ryan Sorba decided CPAC was a tent revival instead of a political strategy event:

You're going to have to reach deep inside you, and come up with some good old fashioned compassion and tolerance for your fellow man - and never mind if he's wearing mascara. If he's supporting the candidate that will defend the Constitution, he's one of you.

I'm not advocating purging anyone. It's not my Party to begin with... BUT, I can not accept that libertarian conservatives should be forced to accept candidates who pay lip service to smaller government principles, while fully backing the intrusion of the federal government into our private lives - which is the case with many social conservatives.

I want candidates who will serve their constituents while adhering to the Constitution. Period.

Altmire To Vote No On ObamaCare

Finally, my congressman announces his intentions.

From KDKA:

Altmire confirmed that he has decided to vote no in a telephone conversation with KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano.

In the final push for Obamacare passage, Jason Altmire (D-PA) has been besieged by his own colleagues in the House and in DC, activists from both sides of the argument, and his own constituents as we fought for his attention through emails, phone calls, and rallies. The WSJ reported:

A recent poll in his district asked the straightforward question, "Do you generally support or oppose the reform plan?" Precisely 29% support it. Conversely, 60% believe it will raise their health costs, 72% believe it will raise the deficit, and 68% believe it will cause their taxes to go up.

And Altmire himself acknowledged it is not what his voters want:

“I really am trying to be thoughtful,” said Altmire, D-4, McCandless Township. “The number one factor is where my district is (on health-care reform), and my district is overwhelmingly against it at this point.”

--snip--

“They have great concerns about this bill,” he said. “If I vote no, it’s going to be because a great majority of my district doesn’t support this bill.”

Today, he announces that he has listened to his voters. Thank goodness, because yours truly is one of many who have sent email after email while listening to the busy signal from his office phones. (Thank you, Organizing for America, for helping to make sure that when it mattered, I could not get through to my elected representative.)

From the statement on his website - emphasis mine:

"I ran for Congress in large part because I believe we need to find a way to bring down the cost of health care. I also ran for Congress with a simple promise: I would do my best to represent my district and to give western Pennsylvania a voice in Washington, not the other way around.

--snip--

It has become clear that the vast majority of my constituents want me to oppose this bill.

--snip--

The politically easy vote would have been to vote with my party. But I was notsent to Congress to take the easy way out or to vote the way they want me to vote in Washington. I was elected to represent my district and give western Pennsylvania a voice in Congress. I strongly believe that a vote in opposition to the health care bill is consistent with the views of the district I represent, and is the correct vote based on the impact of the bill on my constituents and the overall health care system."

This is exactly what I want in a person elected to represent me. When Altmire voted against the original House bill, there were insinuations that he was "allowed" to, because Nancy Pelosi already had the votes she needed. This can not have been an easy decision... but it was the right one.

Thank you, Jason Altmire... for doing your job. I'll keep it in mind when you come up for your next "performance evaluation" in November.

Conservative Blogger Debate - Is A Third Party Vote A Wasted Vote?

The next question in The Blog Debates is up at Motor City Times.

Is a third-party vote "wasted?" If so, how? If not, why?

Don is up first this time, and his answer is here. Go read the whole thing.

I had to laugh reading his answer. Why? Not at him personally... but because he is taking the "Yes" side of this question, and he starts off like this:

This question is trickier to answer than it appears. Because it assumes that any vote could be wasted. The simple answer to that question is, “No, a vote that is cast is never wasted.”

My own gut reaction to that question has always been a resounding "Yes! It's a waste! Worse, it's a vote for the opposition!"

But he went on to make a sound argument for why it is a wasted vote... and I'll now do my best to present why it is not a wasted vote. Since that answer is not the one I would have given if asked even a short time ago, I've had to do some soul searching (not to mention some Google searching) to come up with a response.

From Don:

The answer lies in what the electorate wishes to accomplish. Change of ‘regime,’ be it Democrat OR Republican; or more specifically, change of ideology in either party can only come about via infiltration and usurpation of said party.

This makes sense. In a sane world, it might work. But in what time frame? Realistically, we can only be thankful right now that the progressives haven't been able to force their agenda of change on the schedule they'd hoped to. A bottom-up infiltration of an unwilling and aware entity could take decades... if it succeeds at all. And if I may speak just for myself, I don't care if we ever change the ideology of the party. Party means little to me, personality and principle mean much more. Just bring me better candidates.

Some would point to the NY-23 debacle as an example of why you should not vote third party. From DefenseMechanism:

That said, the split in the Republican vote between the Conservative Party candidate and the turncoat RINO, who dropped out of the race and threw her support behind the Democrat, gave the left-wing party of big government and restricted individual freedom the win in the congressional election.

I think it proves instead the point I'm trying to make. The trouble with NY-23 wasn't knowledgeable voters resisting a RINO liberal and breaking for the third party candidate. The problem was an arrogant Republican Party that ignored those voters, then sent Newt Gingrich to tell the common folk what was best for them. Had the Republican establishment thrown their support behind the popular and desired conservative candidate, Hoffman and the GOP would have both won - as would the voters.

I guess if you want to believe in changing the Party, a third party vote may seem like a waste. But if you're like me and believe the Party can't - or rather won't - be changed, then a third party may be the only way to go. It's got to come down to what you want to stand for come election day...

I, for one, have grown weary of choosing the lesser evil. Or the evil lesser, whichever the case may be. And I'm coming to agree with an essay at NolanChart.com, the site where you can take the famous political quiz. From the piece:

Is voting for a third party candidate wasting your vote? I can't tell. If you cast your vote in hopes of turning a third party into a viable national party, yes, definitely. You are ignoring reality. If you cast your vote because no other candidates represent you then no, your vote isn't wasted.

That's what it's coming to for me. I'm going to vote for the person I think is best for the job, and never mind the Party choices. Will it reform the Republicans? I doubt it. But if they lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives like myself breaking for the third party, perhaps they'll start looking for more appropriate candidates. Sadly, I think losing more elections - or the threat of such - might be a more effective goad toward change than trying to work our way in and change them from the ground up.

In closing, I'd like to leave you with wise words from President John Quincy Adams:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Indeed.

When Militant Vegans Attack

My hatred of vegan activists border on obsession... I'm aware of this. Aware, but hardly apologetic.

Don't get me wrong. I couldn't care less if people want to lead a vegan lifestyle. Hey, more bacon for me. But the militant vegans who would force us all to give up animal protein bring out my inner predator. I've even blogged about them once... maybe twice... OK, a lot.

(Please check out my take on: their attempts to wreck Thanksgiving, the effort to influence the rest of us through celebrity, the bizarre idea that if I have a pet I should eat it, their strange need to replace what they despise with meat substitutes, and my sincere threats warnings about what will happen to them should their mission succeed.)

Well, it seems in addition to all that, the militant veggie-crunching whackjobs aren't above turning on their own. And apparently (big surprise) their fellow humans aren't as deserving of compassion as the animals they care about so deeply.

On Saturday, ex-vegan Lierre Keith got the ol' pie-in-the-face treatment by some anarchists as she discussed her book "The Vegetarian Myth". From the article:

Keith said her values are similar in most ways to those of her attackers. She believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change.

Which means she might deserve to be pied, right? I mean, even yours truly defended Peta (which hurt... seriously, it caused me physical and mental pain) against a charge of terrorist activity when they pied a Canadian official while protesting seal hunting. So why am I bothering to blog about this pie?

The Peta activists used a tofu pie. While that's clearly a crime against taste, it struck me as otherwise harmless. The anarchists, on the other hand, used a cream pie... laced with hot pepper. You know, the ingredient in pepper spray. That, in my humble opinion, elevates this to an act of assault.

But the anti-meat loonies activists from the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (heh. Their acronym contains Alpo.) are pleased. They feel Ms. Keith is an "animal holocaust denier"... and they're upset that she called the cops.

(I have to admit I'm curious how these assholes feel about actual holocaust deniers. You know, the kind of holocaust that ended with millions of murdered innocent humans. Somehow I doubt they would muster the same emotions. Anyway, back to the point.)

Somebody in the audience caught the pie attack on video:



Did you notice... the folks in the front row had no reaction at all. Their shoulders don't so much as twitch when it happens. Apathetic, involved -- or both?

These are the people who want to preach against cruelty? These are the folks who are so filled-to-overflowing with empathy that they can't bear the thought of an innocent creature suffering? These are the same high and mighty jerkoffs who have evolved such an intense level of enlightenment that they feel entitled to make choices for the rest of us?

Can I eat them yet?

And my dog asked me to save him the bones...

Bald Ballsy Eagle

The Daily Mail has some amazing high detail shots of an eagle chasing - and catching - a starling in mid air. This small copy doesn't begin to do it justice, so you should really go check out the full-size shots.



And it brought to mind another picture I'd seen of a hunting eagle. While the bald eagle in the above pictures was more successful in its hunt, it's got nothing on this golden eagle when it comes to sheer chutzpah...

That's right... this eagle tried to bring down a deer.

Again, the full-size shots from Chicago Wildlife News are more impressive than this tiny copy, so go check them out, too. But the best part of the golden eagle story is this quote:

"From our point of view it's real ballsy, but from the eagle's perspective, I believe he really thought he could do it."

Ballsy. Indeed.

"I’d Make Them Throw Me In Jail"

While I was not able to go to DC for the Code Red Rally (although I can promise, I was there in spirit and heart), I was happy to see that my fellow blogger and friend - Russ from That's Right - not only made the trip... he managed to get himself quoted by CNSNews!

Cote said if the bill passed with a mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance, he would not comply.

“If there’s a mandate, I can tell you this — my own form of political protest – I won’t do it and I’ll be a test case if I have to,” Cote said. “I wouldn’t pay the fine either. I’d make them throw me in jail.”

You won't be alone, pal. That was my first thought after hearing about the mandate. I have a feeling if they actually try to force the issue, they won't have enough room for all of us in the jails. We can use the Cloward-Piven systemic overload strategy on them!

Check out Russ's own blog (and The Resistance) for his post about it.

Is That A Horse... Or A Jackass?

Saw this at HuffPo, although it's everywhere...

John McCain's primary challenger was apparently channeling his inner-Santorum Sunday (Inner Santorum? Ew.) while discussing gay marriage:

"You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy,'" Hayworth said. "Now how dangerous is that?"

Dangerous? Seriously?

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it -- "

And then he goes on to be... well... absurd. Emphasis mine.

"I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support."

So. Another "conservative" who is perfectly content, nay neigh happy, to expand the federal government's overreach when it comes to personal morality. It shows that this statement on his website is a bald-faced lie:

J.D. believes the United States Constitution is a document of limited and enumerated powers, and that the rights not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the States and the people.

Hypocrite.