Bickering

Cindy Sheehan has recently declared that she is going to run against Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 elections.
The suprise in this is that Pelosi was Sheehans wingwomen leading up to last elections, in which Pelosi became Speaker of the House with the Dems gaining control.

It's obvious Sheehan, like every liberal, has a grudge with the President, but she's a one-trick pony. The Democrats only dealt with her for the publicity they received, and she was niave enough to believe they were serious. They used her and now that they got what they wanted they let her Ass hung out in the wind. Problem is when your Ass is hung out for that long it gets chapped.

Sheehan wants out of Iraq, not to mention everywhere else, and the Democrats are falling way short on campaign promises and it's because they would rather politicize everything and maintain a longer career and not compromise themselves than actually get down to the nitty-gritty(This practice is as old as politics itself because that is politics).

Now to qoute some history "I fear we have only awakened a sleeping giant". That's what the liberals are saying, or should be saying anyway, about this.
The problem isn't that Sheehan can defeat Pelosi in the election, like I said she's a one trick pony. Though it would be nice to have someone in office who won't deal with the usual crap that goes on in Washington just to avoid making people mad, we need a breath of fresh air, even if it is a far-left nutbar.
Anyway back to my point, Sheehan doesn't have much hope of beating the all and powerful OZ, I mean Pelosi. What she will do is detract power from the Democrats, even if she is a bit of a nutbar she is still a part of the Dems playbook. The Dems will lose face if they are seen running against, or running from, what was their bread and butter play last time out.
Mention the 2004 Presidential election to a liberal they'll claim Ralph Nader lost it for them by taking votes from John Kerry. They have a legit point, and the same thing could happen again in 2008. Sheehan isn't running for President so she won't directly lose voters for the Dems candidate but in a sort of roundabout way it will hurt them to have a "friendly" voice smacktalking their currently most powerful person.

She doesn't seem like the the type of person who gives a damn about constituents, which is what I like about her, it also means she probably won't give in to the Democrats attempts/pleas to stop her from running. Their best hope is to end the war as soon as possible, which is what they want to do anyway so Hillary won't have to deal with it(damn those campaign issues!). But if they can't get her to stop they'll have to come up with something good, because I really don't think she cares about the betterment of the party and its image as long as troops are deployed anywhere.

More Irony from Live Earth

Now we find out Madonna, who sang at the London Live Earth, is being criticized for owning stocks in companies which are labeled as unfriendly to the enviroment.
The companies included Alcoa, Ford Motor Company, Weyerhaeuser and Northrup-Grumman.

Why should anyone be suprised. It's the same with every liberal celebrity, "do as I say not as I do". They don't understand why average people don't like having their taxes raised to pay for another government program. They don't understand because they are too shut out from the real world, they make millions of dollars and rarely have to worry about paying bills, only when they spend their money like total morons(Mike Tyson) does that became an issue.

Celebrities figure it's probably better to have millions of people stop commuting than have themselves live slightly more modestly. To them the day-to-day real world is Global Warming(or whatever the current "Hot" issue is) and paychecks. They don't realize that the majority of people don't concern themselves daily with global warming, but are more concerned about providing for their families and surviving. If global warming could be 100% proven real i'm sure everyone would be concerned and want to correct the problem, however the problem couldn't be fixed if the entire planet were starving from lack of production. What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations if they led meek abysmal lives. I doubt Madonna or anyone, no matter how rich or how poor wants their children and grandchildren living in huts and forraging for food.

Have you ever seen a celebrity not willing to support/promote something that seems like a good cause? Even if something is completely disproven celebs will attach their names to it if it gives them an oppurtunity to sell something.

As for Madonna and her investing, I actually don't care. I don't care whose stock she owns, it's her money she can do with it as she pleases. The hypocrisy is what annoys me. If you really beleived in something you wouldn't tarnish it by being hypocritical would you? The fact that you're going to perform at a concert for global warming and still invest in companies that people see as obstacles to the cause is plain ignorance.(For another excellent example go read about Michael Moore).

However in defense of these types people, I must admit that I think things should be done for foster children and inner city kids and a million other causes. And if I were wealthy I probably wouldn't want to part with all my money either, that is unless I felt I had enough saved that my family would still be well taken care of long after i'm gone, so maybe somewhere north of $50 Million. Problem is most of these celebrities have way more money than they'll ever need and continue to make more and more and still think it's easier for 10,000 people to give $100 than for themselves to give $1 million

Oh the irony.

Although I don't believe in the global warming hysteria that Al Gore has so annoyingly brought into the spotlight, I still can't figure out how a concert is supposed to help anything. Don't get me wrong I love music, but how is a concert supposed to raise awareness for global warming?
Here is a tasty quote from the Washington Post "We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic." That was John Buckley of Carbon Footprint. I must say WOW! that really is brilliance at its finest. Come on, even if you live in a cave you've heard about global warming, it's simply everywhere. You can't outrun it, you can't hide, you just cannot escape global warming, it has perverted itslef into everyones life everywhere on earth.
Find me someone who hasn't heard about global warming and I've got some property on Jupiter you might be interested in.
It's like an intellectual...no wait I'll do one better, it's a common sense epidemic. I really don't think the ends justify the means. Hitler thought the world would be a better place when he was done too. I know it's a different example but it proves the point, killing for peace makes no sense, and neither does polluting for enviromentalism.

So is a concert to raise awareness really necessary or even practical? I for one find it quite ironic that some of the most excessive consumers on the planet are the ones trying to tell us "common folk" that our lifestyles are harmful to the enviroment.
Call me crazy but i'm seriously having a difficult time understanding how my 1998 Chevy Cavalier is worse for the enivroment than the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Private Jets and whatever else is owned by Bon Jovi, The red hot chili peppers, Kanye West or whoever else performed.
And we can't forget about the cost(enviromentally) of this concert. The cost of organizing and setting it up certainly burned some fossil fuels. The artists getting to their venues, which we're undoubtedly stocked with bottled water and brown m&m's, and also the fact that the concert-goers had to arrive at the venues as well, which i'm guessing also burned more fossil fuels.

One last thing, the only reason I know this concert happened yesterday is because while I was watching the Tigers go to extra innings against the Red Sox, I changed the tv channel during a commercial and there I saw somebody prancing around on stage and became thoroughly confused for several seconds until I realized what was going on. It was at that point I switched back to the baseball game, and didn't care any more about global warming than I had before, which is not at all.
My point is it may have been a good idea to promote the concert a little. I never heard anything about when the concert was actually happening until I saw it last night. Even Eddie Money, who comes to Detroit every year promoted his show more than this concert, and this thing is supposed to save the earth? Either somebody is really lazy, dumb, both or just plain ran off with the advertsiing dollars.

I thought they were just kidding!

I didn't think the fairness doctrine was actually up for reconsideration, then I saw it was defeated 309-115. What I want to know now is who are the 115 airheads who actually voted for it?

Loony-Left

If you're looking for a good laugh check out thinkprogress.org. It's an interesting look at inner-workings of the nutty liberal mind.

I don't understand.

Call me old fashioned but I don't understand how the Senate has the ability to vote, sorry attempt to vote for "no-confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Eight attorneys were fired, legally. There is nothing to be found proving this was illegal. Was it political? Obviously, but that doesn't matter. No laws were broken so how can there be a problem with that. Why is it the Demoroncrats think that their $#!t don't stink? They do the same thing too when they're in power.
In essence they are doing it right now, trying to use party politics and the power they have to make their opponents lose face and power.
Honestly what's the difference? It's like fighting terrorists with terrorist tactics, it does more damage than it does good. People see right through the BS and are more upset with the schoolyard bully tactics that are being used in order to obtain revenge than with the original "offense"(for lack of a better word).
If you are going to go after a power position in the other party, fine, but don't use the same tactics you are accusing the other party of using.
It's not really a difficult concept to understand, but I guess the Democrats don't give a lot of thought to this sort of stuff, after all it wouldn't the first time.

More positioning by Iran.

While you may or may not think Israels war with Lebanon last year was justified, one thing is for certain, not much has changed.
Now let me explain why Iranian President Ahmadinejad is saying things like "With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine" and "By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

Simply put, he's saying these things because the support he gains for himself at home outwieghs the offense the free world will take to these remarks. By saying these things, as well as the idea that America is waiting for the right moment to strike Iran, he can make himself appear to be the great defender and hero of Islam. If Ahmadinejad claims the United States and Israel are planning to invade Iran, and they don't, it will appear as though he scared them off. If the United States and Israel do attack(although most likely to prevent nuclear arms proliferation), Ahmadinejad will be justified in his remarks, even if he overexagerates or provokes the attack himself.

It is almost a joke for Ahmadinejad to say "Leabanon and Palestine", as though they are the same people. The Lebanese aren't currently engaging the Palestinians in Tripoli right now for nothing. The Lebanese do not like the Palestinians any more than Iran or any other Middle-Eastern nation. If anybody in the mid-east truly liked the Palestinians they would take them into their own nation, instead of leaving them as displaced refugees living in scattered refugee camps. Problem is if they did that they would no longer have the convenience of the excuse that Israel is keeping the Palestinians from having someplace to call home. And this is all on top of the fact that Iran doesn't care for Lebanon either, see when Ahmadinejad refers to "Lebanon" he is not refering to the actual nation of Lebanon, no, he actually is talking about the Iranian backed terror group Hizbollah which is based in Lebanon.

At best Ahmadinejad is simply trying to deflect interest from the fighting in Tripoli and fool the poor citizens of his nation that "everything is fine, there's nothing to worry about, Israel and the United States are our enemies." As someone who wants to destroy Israel and lead his country into superpowerdom, he must maintain the apperance that everything is fine.
Contrary to popular belief not everyone in Iran is, well let's just say "bad". There are a lot of people who realize the government is full of B.S., unfortunately they are outnumbered by the government(40% percent of the population is government employed). The government also controls the money, and in a poor country that goes a long way. The clerics who run Iran think that the best to way to run a country, for their own self-interest, use corruption and coercion just as much as politicians here in the United States use special interests and speeches. Another unfortunate result is that the religion of Islam is degraded worldwide, because of the perception that if the leaders are this bad so must be the people who support them, whether they are legitimately supported or not.

The effect is that the average Iranian is forced to accept what happens, for fear of their lives and the lives of their families. However as 2000 years of history has regularly proven people who are routinely viciously abused in an illigitimate fashion will eventually rid themselves of their slavelike domination to achieve their freedom.