I dare suggest....

....that the evident and obvious failure of the mainstream media to follow up on apparently obvious signs of John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter ought to blow a permanent hole in any pretense that the mainstream media are not materially changing their reporting to support their bias. One would think that basic sympathy with Mrs. Edwards would have compelled them to blow the story open and torpedo any chances Edwards had of remaining in politics, but evidently liberal politics overcomes principles of basic decency--at least at the AP, CBS, NBC, and elsewhere.

Plan accordingly, and (I shudder to type this) thank you, National Enquirer, for keeping this man accountable when "real journalists" would not.

This might explain....

IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri's outburst against global warming deniers; evidently he's finagled a way to get petroleum and natural gas companies to bankroll a bodice ripper he's written. Now apart from the hilarity of a trained engineer/(posing as an) economist/(posing as a) climatologist apparently thinking he's Danielle Steele, he's also expecting us, apparently, to believe that there is no conflict of interest when the head of the IPCC is taking money from the companies he proposes to regulate.

Well, as honest men everywhere know, when men spend too much time thinking of (or writing about) feminine charms, the quality of their thinking tends to go down, and his recent outbursts are an excellent example of this principle. So are, for that matter, the last few IPCC reports.

Every Godly wife is buxom

No matter what the numbers assigned by Playtex, Bali, and Hanes may try to say about the matter. How so?

Look it up in Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, where the word is defined as "obedient." Further support is given in the etamology, where the word is derived from the Anglo-Saxon "bog" and "bugan" meaning "bow", as well as "sum," or some.

In other words, a "buxom" woman is one who bows to rightful authority--and we might describe a man as the same when he also bows to God-given authority.

Absent-mindedly conceding the point...

...of climate change critics is United Nations IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri. How so?

Easy. Instead of responding to legitimate criticism about the tendency of IPCC contributors to indimidate the process of peer review, fudge data, and use poor statistical methods, he resorts to personal attacks and reference to a nonexistent conspiracy to silence the IPCC.

In other words, the economist (not trained as one, but rather as an engineer) who heads the IPCC reveals that he is not only incompetent in the area of climatology, but also in basic informal logic. If only logic were taught at the schools he attended, he might not have made himself look incredibly stupid in the eyes of all those who understand it.

And, of course, the world wouldn't be looking down the two barrels of trillion-dollar carbon taxes the IPCC has been pushing for a decade. This would indicate that he may be competent in hockey, however.

Yes, hockey. A huge carbon tax and global governance demonstrates also his ignorance of sound economics, which combined with his incompetence in logic and climatology amounts to a hat trick!

Hat trick of incompetence, at least.

The sad results of government education

Apparently, Carly Fiorina, who went to the government schools in Durham, North Carolina, has produced a campaign commercial which mutiliates both Aesop's fable of the wolf in sheep's clothing, as well as Matthew 7:15-20. If only she'd had the opportunity to actually read Aesop and the Scriptures in school, she might not have humiliated herself before the whole nation like this. Sadly, she went to a sub-par school for college as well and was not able to improve her literary and cultural knowledge.

Carly, if you or one of your campaign staffers are reading, here's a little help from Veritas Press. You can find Matthew 7:15-20 in the Bible in your hotel room, if they still do that in California.

More on "Already Gone"

A while back, I posted on the book "Already Gone" by Ken Ham and Britt Beamer, which claimed that one big reason children leave the church is that they are not taught the Bible from its first verse. Agreed that this is prominent on the Pareto, if you will, but something else occurred to me.

We shuffle children off to their own Sunday School classes, children's church, teen events, youth events......anything but letting them settle into a pew with their parents. In effect, we are teaching them that....

....their place in church is anywhere but in one of the pews, and then we wonder why they take the hint when they're adults--never, ever settling into a pew. Did He not tell us to let the little children come to Him? If we effectively lock children out of adult worship, we should not be surprised when they don't show up when they grow up. Maybe it's time we put fidget dolls back in the pews and remind the adults that if they want young ones to come to and stay with Him, they'll do well to tolerate a little bit more noise from the shorter members of the congregation.

Memo to the National Association of Gals

If you want to be taken seriously, maybe it's best not to make personal attacks on young men who have become famous in part for treating young women with respect. It's especially telling--and hilarious--how Mr. Tebow seems to be a lot more comfortable with his "lack of experience" than most reporters, and especially the NOW crowd, are.

Again, one would think that NOW would overcome differences over the issue of prenatal infanticide at least enough to commend a young man who has overcome the temptations of division 1 football stardom to treat women with respect and spend his off the field time helping others. I had thought that such issues were central to feminism.

Maybe not, eh? What is certain, however, is that these fish are intent on telling the world that they do, in fact, need a bicycle--apparently a steady stream of them, judging from their endorsement of prenatal infanticide. Hopefully some of them will listen to Florida's best quarterback on the best way to ride.

More proof from Scott Brown that..

.....we are not going to win the culture wars through partisan politics. How so? Well, the new Senator gave the world an "eww" moment when he commented that he wouldn't mind if his daughters chose to pose au naturel for a skin magazine as he did as a young man, even saying that "who he is" was inextricably linked with that pictorial.

There simply isn't enough space in a typical encyclopaedia, let alone this humble blog, to discuss what's wrong with this. Suffice it to say that this humble blogger is cringing mightily at the reality that a father of daughters does not desire to protect them from this kind of thing, and apparently also has the idea that handsome, intelligent young men have no other way of making a life than to pose in Cosmo.

How not to show love to your children

Announce on national media that their doctor thinks they're putting on a few too many extra pounds. Tip of the scale to Michelle Malkin.

A great line from Jeff Jacoby

If corporate advertising was irresistible, after all, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

Think about it. It's not Skinnerian psychology, nor is it "he who has the gold makes the rules." Every once in a while, poor people wearing black pajamas overcome the patience of the world's greatest superpower. Every once in a while, the people reject the anointed follower of the Kennedy clan.

And even more inspiring, every once in a while, the people realize that a 100 year old recipe is around for a reason, and the opinion of a few focus groups doesn't change that. Life is good; God created us as sentient beings.

Attaboy, almost

This weekend, Mrs. Bubba (who is not Pentamom, a mother of five from Pennsylvania) regaled me with this story from my two year old son.

Son: I go hunting with Daddy.

attaboy

I bring my gun, and he'll bring his.

alright

And he'll carry me.

that'll be fun when we bag a big buck!

Missing the real significance

WorldNetDaily has a few pieces on how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has evidently been running up a pretty hefty tab for food and liquor on her trans-continental flights that she apparently takes about weekly. It's interesting to me that JudicialWatch is apparently not clueing in on the real significance; $100,000 for food and drink, or even a few million for these flights, is chump change in terms of the federal treasury, and do we really worry about costs like this for keeping our elected officials safe? I don't, even as much as I disagree with Pelosi's stands on most issues.

However, $100,000 over the past two years for food and drink for these flights (and other amenities, whatever they may be) is far more than the Speaker and her staffers can reasonably consume--it's about $500 per five hour flight at a minimum, and the supplies are evidently being purchased in ordinary retail stores. We are not talking about carry-out from restaurants charging $100/plate.

The inescapable conclusion, in my opinion, is that Speaker Pelosi is inviting more than a few friends to ride with her, and hence I must wonder whether these friends are repaying the government for the flight and what access these friends are getting to Speaker Pelosi. Therein could lie a very real scandal. Is she trading access to this 757 for political donations or favorable coverage in the media, perchance?

I don't get it

Watching the sad spectacle of Toyota stopping production and sales of 8 popular models due to problems with the gas pedal and floor mats, I have to wonder how they managed to screw them up. After all, people have been putting floor mats in vehicles with gas pedals for over a century now, and Toyota has "only" 60 years worth of experience with these particular components--30 years with gas pedals for fuel injected engines as well. One would think that the difficulties inherent in making this particular component would be ironed out by now.

I don't know exactly what happened, but the engineer in me suspects it might have had something to do with product managers who would sell their own mothers on EBay for a nickel reduction in the bill of materials cost.

Not thinking through the consequences...

I've seen some things on President Obama's plan to nationalize student loans, and it really makes me thankful that he doesn't often flesh out his proposals. In a nutshell, he proposes to:

1. Eliminate bankers from the student loan process--likely consequences here.

2. Limit repayment to 10% of income, discouraging graduates from entering fields with good pay.

3. Forgive loans after a period of time, no matter what the balance, discouraging graduates from seeking good-paying jobs in order to get out of debt.

4. Forgive loans for anyone working for the government, discouraging graduates from producing useful goods and services in the private sector.

As if we need more human leeches with graduate degrees in gender and ethnic studies working for the EEOC. Yeesh.

Review of TOTUS' SOTU speech

Of course, I didn't actually listen to it, as I'm not enough of a masochist to subject myself to Dear Leader's rantings, but I think this is about right.