To Blair, With Love

A more deserved standing ovation, I've rarely seen. I only wish I could have been there to join in personally. Alas, I must make do with the written word and my own personal tribute to Prime Minister Blair.

While I likely would disagree with PM Blair on a whole host of issues, primarily big government type schemes, he has always seemed to me to be more of a Nanny 911 kind of Labour Party. A bit tougher with some common sense not above knocking some sense into his wayward charges. I won't presume to opine on his domestic policies, however, as I am not a British citizen and, thus, it isn't my place nor my business. I will say, on a personal note, that his eulogy at Princess Diana's funeral did make me cry. I know it isn't "cool" to admit to liking Diana, but I did. Likely because I grew up with her; My Mom is originally from Scotland and she summoned me out of bed in the early hours near dawn to watch the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. She had me at her flub of his name during the vows.

I will speak to, however, Prime Minister Blair's foregin policy. He was there for us, and the entire World, when push came to shove. A rarity in politics these days. I'm certain his alliance with the USA and, in particular, our President, didn't bode well for his tenure as Prime Minister. But he didn't balk. Ever. And still isn't.

He stood his ground always, even during his resignation speech. Then, he said

“I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That’s your call. But believe one thing: I did what I thought was right for our country.”

And last year, at his last speech to his Party's Conference, he declared:

"And of course, the new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit. This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: We will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.

This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life. It's global. It has an ideology. It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of. It has been decades growing.

Its victims are in Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey. Over 30 nations in the world. It preys on every conflict. It exploits every grievance. And its victims are mainly Muslim. This is not our war against Islam.

This is a war fought by extremists who pervert the true faith of Islam. And all of us, Western and Arab, Christian or Muslim, who put the value of tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence above those of sectarian hatred, should join together to defeat them. It is not British soldiers who are sending car bombs into Baghdad or Kabul to slaughter the innocent.

They are there along with troops of 30 other nations with, in each case, a full UN mandate at the specific request of the first ever democratically elected Governments of those countries in order to protect them against the very ideology also seeking the deaths of British people in planes across the Atlantic."

OH, would that we had such an eloquent Leader. Prime Minister Tony Blair is one of the best orators of my time, right up there, I must say, with our own great Ronald Reagan. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to decide who was the better speaker. And that is high-praise coming from an American, believe me. Wait...who am I kidding. I'm a girl and the accent would put him over the top. We can't help it. The accent gets us every time. Just ask Kevin Godlington.

But, seriously and most importantly, he acted solely on his convictions regarding what was best for his Country and not what was politically expedient. In fact, he hurt himself politically, for the sake of his Country and, truly, for all of us. A better ally the United States couldn't have.

For that, he will always have my utmost respect and all the best wishes in the World. I also can't think of a better suited man for the job as Chief Envoy to the Quartet of Mideast peace mediators. I wish you well, Sir. With Love, most deeply heartfelt gratitude and Sincerity.

Great, Now I Do Have to Get a Damn Prius Hybrid

From the cacophonous sound of Al Gore's hugely inflated ego (and head) plunging into the depths below, it appears as if the Global Warming swindle has just had what could be the final nail hammered into its waiting coffin.

"Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today, and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry, and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.”

"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.”

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” the article avers. "In fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had.”

Do y'all know what this means? I'll explain my theory if I can type while gasping in evil, cackling fits of laughter. OK - - We've been told ad nauseum for YEARS that carbon emissions and greenhouse gases cause horrific, apocalyptic warming. And if cooling, not warming, is now on the way, we will need to increase the heat, no? So, carbon emissions must be GOOD now, right?

Thus, I assume that the Goreacle and his disciples will now wish to burn trees, not plant them. Sheryl Crow will have to retract her one square of toilet paper proposal and will now lecture us on the proper wiping procedure being a full roll each time. Laurie David will slink away from her eco-bus tour with Sheryl and will go crawling back to Larry with her tail between her legs. SUV drivers in Hollywood, along with all the poseurs who followed suit, will now be able to come out of the closet with no guilt and no more " but....but.......I bought some carbon offsets" indulgences.

Which means that I, as I must be contradictory and do whatever Environmentalists tell me NOT to do, will be forced to drive a pissant Prius like that loser wannabe Leonardo DiCaprio. I'll have to take my next vacation at his awful "eco-hotel" as well so I can continue my trend of being "part of the problem and not the solution". Damn, I'll also have to learn to garden so I can plant some trees and contribute as best I can (why do something half-assed?) to this ominous global cooling problem.

Or not. Maybe I'll just continue doing as I please and further ignore the bilge spewing from the mouths of the Hollywood elites. On the plus side, perhaps our genius Congress will now toss out the horrendous Energy Bill they just passed and we won't all be forced into wimpy ass, corn-powered cars. Or whatever the hell ethanol is made from.

I Got A Crush On Gravel

The top-tier Presidential candidates are already boring me. As is the current news cycle; an endless loop of Paris "Ho" Hilton and the Immigration "if you aren't for this scam, you are a bigot" Shamnesty debacle. At last, I found something, rather someone, to cure my malaise.

I have a crush on Gravel. Senator Mike Gravel, who is a Democrat Presidential Candidate, much to even their chagrin. I like him! This could be because I see myself turning into him when I'm dreadfully old, horrendously crotchety and hating the entire World. Except without the penis. Oh yeah, and without the bat shit crazy part. *fingers crossed*

In any event, I am loving this guy and not just for the humour aspect of his absolutely brilliant, Andy Kaufman-esque campaign ad, featured in the YouTube clip above, alone. Which ad, by the way, Hottie Gravel did attempt to explain on some Sunday talk shows, muttering some inanity (or insanity. Either works for him) about metaphors and crap. Whatever. Just keep being completely bonkers and a curmudgeon. That's all I care about. I don't want explanations. You'll ruin the moment.

Ass kicking ads aside, he also does truly rock in the debates, uttering the best one-liners EVER and he appears to be constantly pissed off, which, again, is like looking in the mirror. I already declared him the winner, with Kucinich a close second, of the first Democrat Presidential Debate on MSNBC. Speaking of which, I've heard tell that Nader and Kucinich are raging that Gravel is so clearly upstaging them and stealing their whack job thunder. Another reason to love him.

I am now declaring him the winner as well for the second debate on CNN. Wolfie Blitzer asked for a show of hands in support of English as the official language. Obama objected "It's divisive!" Hillary shrieked something about "then we couldn't have translators in hospitals or ballots in Spanish" (????) and the always irrelevant Dodd mumbled something about diversity. Gravel was the lone hand raiser and you could almost hear him grumpily muttering to himself "If I have to speak that damn English bullshit than so does everyone else. Screw them!" Later, Blitzer asked about there being room for President Bill Clinton in any future administrations and Gravel growled out "I'll use him as a traveling goodwill ambassador. He can take his wife with him, she'll still be in the Senate." MEOW, Sir. Kudos!

Besides the humour, maybe we need a truly crazy bastard for a President. I, for one, think it is long over-due. He'd scare the bejeezus out of the little man from Iran (I can't ever remember how to spell his name and I'm too lazy to google it. Plus, I refuse to give him even that much power over me. Little man will suffice). He'd take one look at him and DRAG United Nation nuclear inspectors into Iran. No explanation besides "Allah, that Gravel is 3 tacos short of a combo" necessary. And, no, Senator Graham, a taco reference is not bigoted.

He also doesn't seem to be all into that Global Warming religious cult thing. In his second campaign ad, he shows us all how to start a large fire and release carbon greenhouse gases needlessly and with vigor! Refreshing! Also refreshing.......he campaigns in DORM ROOMS. You think I must be kidding, right? Guess again! It just goes to show how well he knows his target constituency and which side his bread is buttered. Crazy like a fox! Guaranteed he brought some "party favors" with him as well. What's not to love?

I'm off to dust off the video camera and film my own "I Got a Crush on Gravel" video. Later!

Happy Father's Day........NOT?

(the picture is my gift to all Dads on Father's Day. Two of your favorite things; beer and bare breasts. At least that is what Kevin Godlington tells me ;)

Happy Father's Day........NOT? Or so says the increasingly irrelevant and desperate for attention periodical, Time Magazine. In a heartwarming Father's Day article, two female scientists (hmm, do you think they may be of the dreaded Feminist persuasion?) claim Dads don't deserve a Father's Day.

The folks at Hallmark are going to have a very good day on June 17. That's when more than 100 million of the company's ubiquitous cards will be given to the 66 million dads across the U.S. in observation of Father's Day. Such a blizzard of paper may be short of the more than 150 million cards sold for Mother's Day, but it's still quite a tribute. What's less clear is whether dads--at least as a group--have done a good enough job to deserve the honor.

That's right, Dads. You suck. The Titi Monkey is better than you are, for goodness sake! They hold their babies for 90% of the time! Granted, they don't have things like jobs, mortgages to pay, food to buy or the ability to think and reason, but still. They HOLD the babies! Priorities, dudes.

Not only that, but the completely unbiased, non-agenda driven (cough cough) Childrens Defense Fund says you are all either total deadbeats or you spend more time in the bathroom than you do with your children. Funny, but I see Dads EVERYWHERE with their children. Even attending cheer leading class with their daughters which they can't possibly enjoy. Or at least can't admit to enjoying. Yet, they are there. Week after mind-numbing week. This, after working 40 plus hours, commuting to and from said work, taking care of the garbage and lawns and spider killing and gutters and all that other icky man stuff. It seems to me that most Dads these days are more involved with their children than ever before. Many even personally witness the actual birth, which has to be rather disconcerting to say the least.

Yet, the Titi monkey is still better, according to the "scientists" who wrote the Time article:

Many of our primate kin are far better fathers than we are (investigators at the California primate center discovered that baby titi monkeys are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours); many are far worse. But all are at least consistent within their species. Why does paternal care in our species vary so much?

Girls, and I am calling you girls purposely to piss you off and offend you, I can answer that question and I'm not a brilliant anthropologist. Um, humans are capable of rational thought. And invention. Humans have a soul. And free will. Unlike animals, who go by instinct and basic survival and who will, in fact, eat their own crap. Also, men are not women.

Still, apparently not simple enough for the authors. They suggest you men suck so badly that more than one Dad is needed.

None of this gives modern fathers who neglect their kids an evolutionary pass. Indeed, some studies suggest that even having one full-time dad might not be enough. Among many traditional societies across South America, people subscribe to the folk wisdom that any man with whom a woman has had sex in the 10 months before giving birth makes some biological contribution to the fetus growing inside her. Even the woman's official husband accepts this, and any possible father is welcome to assist--discreetly--in providing care for the child. Research by anthropologist Steve Beckerman and his team suggests that the optimal number of fathers is two

No thank you! Please, pretending to discuss decisions regarding your child with ONE man is a hard enough pretense to keep up. Two would be a full-time job in itself. Which would mean two Mothers would be needed as well. Hey, are they suggesting polygamy perhaps? If that's the case, I could maybe get on board. That would be much less work, I suspect.

Until that happens, as a woman who LOVES men and who is an unabashed Daddy's Girl (I still miss my Daddy daily, even though he's been gone 10 years now. Even so, he's still the most important man in my life and the person who most shaped the woman that I am), I wish you all a heartfelt and sincere Happy Fathers Day. Thank you for all that you do. Sincerely and with Love. And breasts.

A Modest Proposal

Yes, I am ripping off the incomparable, genius, masterful Jonathan Swift. The man of my dreams, even though he's been dead for centuries. I thought it appropriate in response to Berkeley, California's latest set of bans.

Berkeley's City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to pass most of a sweeping plan to clear the streets of aggressive and disruptive behavior.

The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative passed 9-0 after months of debate among the council, homeless advocates, merchants and residents. The council instructed City Manager Phil Kamlarz to develop details of the implementation, which he will bring back to the council for further approval.

"This is a tolerant and caring community, but we do have our boundaries,'' said Mayor Tom Bates, the legislation's sponsor. "As a small city, we can never solve the drug and alcohol problems that play out on our streets, but this is one thing we can do."

The initiative cracks down on a wide range of behavior that some say make Berkeley's streets inhospitable to residents and visitors alike. Among the activities that will be banned are smoking near buildings in commercial areas, lying on the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, drinking in public, possessing a shopping cart and shouting in public.

Homeless advocates have fought passionately to stop the initiative, which they say victimizes the city's most vulnerable residents. The program's cost, about $2 million a year, would be better spent on housing, they argue.

In keeping with Jonathan Swift's plan to rid the UK of those pesky Irish tots, I have my own modest proposal for Berkeley, expanding on their fine start! (fingers crossed that y'all know Swift and will get it. A tad nervous, as I am sadly aware of the state of our educational system).

It is obvious their revitalization plan is a thinly disguised ruse to rid themselves of the homeless. Because, come on, the homeless LIVE in public and therefore are the only ones who must relieve themselves of extraneous bodily fluids in public. Excepting drunken revelers, of course. So I assume the ban will be lifted for parades, college protests and such.

They've also taken away their cars i.e. shopping carts. The City also must clearly know that they don't own the AIR around the city, so they must be relying on the fact that the homeless might not know any better and will trot right out of town if not allowed to smoke in their homes (again, their homes are outside in public). Unless Berkeley is like New Jersey, who apparently owns the ocean as they charge you a fee to swim in it.

But I digress. It seems that the epitome of a compassionate, tolerant, caring, loving, liberal city isn't without its problems. And if Berkeley is so hypocritical as to mandate things that fly in the face of their 'we love all, we are a sanctuary city" mantra, they may as well go balls to the wall. So I will help them out.

First choice, force all the homeless to provide services as stand-ins at any rallies that President Bush might attend. Filling out the crowd and whooping and cheering. So that he doesn't look so sad, pitiful and alone. Make it seem as if he has some supporters left. It may help our morale and may help with international negotiations.

Another way to go would be to make all the homeless indentured servants. You know those jobs "Americans won't do"? Well, there you go. Available bodies with nothing else to do. They'll fill those jobs. They wouldn't have much of a choice, would they? Kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

Hmm, the homeless really could come in handy with this immigration thing. Apparently, it is too hard to control our borders as we don't have enough man power. Use the free homeless manpower! As Berkeley has now announced to the World, people want to avoid the homeless at all costs and treat them like the plague. Therefore, anyone trying to sneak across the border and coming upon a homeless person instead, will clearly turn tail and flee right back to Mexico. What a wonderful deterrent!

In the alternative, as the homeless are not wanted in California, but illegal immigrants are, the California homeless should all cross the border South and then sneak back in as illegals. Then, Berkeley could assuage their guilt, as they would be forced to once again welcome the newly illegal, oops..I mean undocumented, homeless with open arms. Advocacy groups (and most of the United States Congress) would be falling all over themselves trying to help them. Berkeley would be unable to hide behind the banner of "preserving our quality of life" and instead would have protesters descending upon the City with shouts of Fascists! Racists! Xenophobes! Which would selfishly serve the additional purpose of entertaining me, as I would find it immensely amusing.

Well, that's my plan so far. I'm open to suggestions before I send my proposal to Mayor Tom Bates. We're tight.

But Can You Still Smoke in the Brothels?

As you may have guessed by now, due to my incessant complaints, the Nanny State mentality is one of my biggest pet peeves. In fact, examples of that slippery slope getting more and more obtuse cause me to begin frothing at the mouth and muttering to myself. Well, frothing and muttering even more, to be accurate. The worst one of late? All the smoking crap. Now, even Amsterdam, home to the Red Light district with its legalized prostitution and home of pot bars and legal "magic" mushrooms is in on the freedom grabbing act.

A Dutch smoking ban will come into force in July next year for all restaurants and cafes -- including coffee shops where cannabis is the top attraction.

"Coffee shops will be treated in the same manner as other catering businesses. They will be smoke-free," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told NOS television.

"It would have been wrong to move towards a smoke-free catering industry and then make an exception for coffee shops. People would not have understood that."

Establishments will not in fact have to be completely smoke-free. Proprietors will be allowed to set up a separate room or glass partition behind which people can smoke, but customers will not be served there to protect staff.

"Employees should not have to work in an environment were they are constantly exposed to the harmful effects of smoking," Balkenende said after the cabinet's decision on Friday.

Amsterdam's renowned coffee shops, where marijuana can be smoked openly in a relaxed atmosphere, are one of the city's big draws for tourists."

First, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a pot bar? I'm no expert, but don't you need to SMOKE reefer? Second, did anyone ask the employees if they need protection? If I worked at a coffee bar, I'd be desperate for some second hand spliff smoke after dealing with pretentious asses all day long. Not to mention to escape the debilitating depression caused by working a dead-end minimum wage job.

Typical political correctness and nanny state mentality run amok. Apparently, there isn't one country left where you are treated like an adult able to make your own decisions without some "official" ass holding your hand and saving you from yourself. I just can't believe it is happening in Amsterdam now, of all places.

Amsterdam! Where it is OK to fornicate with prostitutes freely and openly (not that there's anything wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat), indulge in magic mushrooms when the mood strikes you or buy pot with your morning coffee, but for goodness sake don't you dare smoke it in a private SMOKING establishment. That's second hand smoke! It will kill us! Everyone says so! And if we repeat propaganda often enough, it makes it true, doesn't it? While we tax the life out of you while doing it, of course.

Speaking of the prostitution, does the smoking ban extend to the brothels? Those are also catering, service businesses, no? They do cater to all walks of life and they do provide services. What about the oft-needed (hopefully, at least) post-coital smoke? Do you now have to scurry outside?

Who would have thought that bars where you go to either abuse your liver and get falling down piss drunk or to pick up a sexually transmitted disease via a one night stand who appeared way hotter than they really were at the time, would become places of health consciousness? Please, stop killing my buzz. And now you've extended it to cannabis houses? Oh, the humanity.

Sadly, that isn't even the most inane ban of late. New Jersey, the State from which I recently escaped, is now set to ban smoking in your own private car if you have a passenger under 17 in the car. YOUR car. Fair warning; if one more person says "It's for the children", I may go off the deep end.

Even worse, in New York City they've run the gamut on second hand smoke bans and have now moved onto cigarette SMELL bans. Yes, just the mere lingering scent of a cigarette is now cause for panic. And fines. Seriously. If a customer smells, merely smells, some remnant of cigarette smoke they can complain to the Taxi and Limousine Commission and the offending cab driver will be fined.

Um, cigarette smoke is one of the better odors I've smelled in an NYC cab. In fact, I like it as it helps mask the other malodorous scents like stale vomit and foul body odor. But I guess you can't tax B.O. nor would it be politically correct to demonize people who stink. Or should I say people who are hygienically-challenged.

Anyhoo, so long Amsterdam of yore! Perhaps the genius elected officials will change their tune when the Tourist industry takes a hit. Or, rather, fewer hits. (groan)