Now, this ad isn’t going to make me want to buy a Toyota truck, but it’s probably the best car commercial ever.
If you missed the whole big to do over the kid who was tasered during a question and answer session with John Kerry, take some time to catch up.
Here’s how it started:
Here’s a general overview:
A quick rundown:
Ok, caught up now?
Let me explain a few things to you people out there who think this has anything to do with freedom of speech or America turning into a police state (read some of the comments on YouTube to get the general idea).
This had nothing to do with “asking John Kerry a weird question” and then getting tasered.
The kid was being an idiot. You’re supposed to go up to the mic, ask your question, get an answer, and that’s that. He fired off all these questions at Kerry, not waiting for a response, and he was taking up time that other students could have used to ask their own questions.
He was, in fact, disrupting the event.
Also, according to the police report, it seems as if this kid set up the entire thing for shock value.
“You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours,” Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident.
He then turned to a woman and said “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?” the report said.
Clarissa Jessup, who contributed I-Report video of the incident to CNN, said Meyer gave her his camera and asked her to shoot video of him posing his questions to Kerry.
And further,
Police noted that his demeanor “completely changed once the cameras were not in sight” and described him as laughing and being lighthearted as he was being driven to the Alachua County Detention Center.
“I am not mad at you guys, you didn’t do anything wrong. You were just trying to do your job,” Meyer said, according to the police report.
At one point, he asked whether there were going to be cameras at the jail, according to the report.
He was most likely just causing a scene to get attention and make some kind of douchebag point.
This idiot wasn’t arrested for asking a question. People may think this, but they’re just jumping to rash conclusions and not actually thinking.
The cops were just trying to get the kid to go back to his seat, because he was taking too much time at the mic. The kid was the one who said “why are you arresting me?” They weren’t arresting him at first, they were just trying to make sure the event moved along smoothly.
It was his own actions, the flailing about and causing a scene, that caused the cops to become more physical with him. He was pushing the cops around, resisting arrest, trying to get away from them, etc, that caused them to put him to the ground, taser him, and arrest him.
It doesn’t matter what you’re doing, you can’t just go around assaulting police officers (even if it wasn’t his intent to hurt them, they still have the right to arrest him for resisting arrest and assault if need be). Maybe they didn’t need to go so far as to use the taser on him, but again, they were correct in arresting him after he resisted.
So, that’s pretty much all I have to say about that. I wanted to get it off my chest. If you disagree, or agree, or think America is turning into a police state, feel free to chime in.
Those of you who don’t live in Massachusetts might not be familiar with the “Cadillac of Governors,” Deval Patrick, but he said something on the anniversary of 9/11 that is much bigger than our quaint little Blue state.
Governor Patrick claimed the attacks were “a failure of human understanding” and that they were “mean and nasty attacks” caused by “a failure of human beings to understand each other and to love each other.”
Now, I expect any rational person to see how ridiculous his statements are; and he is drawing a lot of ire from media and the general populous across the Bay State.
One such criticism, which doesn’t focus so much on Deval Patrick’s statement, comes from the man himself, Mike Murray. His article takes a look at the absurdity of Patrick’s comments, and is also a call for us to open our eyes and see just what kind of dangerous “misunderstanding” we actually have here.
The attacks on September 11th were not “mean and nasty” annoyances, our attackers were not motivated by our lack of “love” for them, and their attacks were not a mutual “failure to understand.” There was some (and is still some) element of misunderstanding: we misunderstand the threat posed by radical Islamic jihadofascists, but the reason we misunderstand is because we try to humanize and legitimize their mentality. We explain away their actions and make excuses for them, and take responsibility for their murderous rage. Radical Islamists are acting like barbarians and subhumans, and we continue to treat their murderous, disgusting, and genocidal acts as “failures to understand” and failures of us to love them.
Go read the whole piece and then come back here and let us know what you think.
It’s official, Fred Thompson is in the running for President of the United States. The announcement is somewhat anticlimactic, because everyone knew he was going to join the race at some point. His supporters are just glad that it’s now official.
Some people claim that he made a mistake by going on the Tonight Show and announcing his candidacy in such an unofficial way. They also say he made a mistake by skipping out on the Republican debate in New Hampshire to do so. I say bollocks.
In response to the first criticism, I’m glad he has the guts to do something different. Everyone keeps saying we need something fresh, not the same old tradition and routines, well here’s something different. He is something different (although, refreshingly familiar for all of you Reaganites out there), and he’s playing to his Hollywood background. He’s following in the steps of another movie-star turned politician, The Governator, and I think it’ll turn out well for him. Besides, with media and Hollywood infested with the left such as they are, it’s probably a good thing to have a conservative who can reach out to them and play in their arena.
In response to the second criticism, it might not have been that big of a mistake. What is all the buzz about today? Is it about the latest soundbyte from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani? Nope. It’s about Fred Thompson. The Republican debate was for the most part (except for the candidates themselves talking about Thompson) the same old song and dance we’ve seen plenty of times. That’s all these debates are. Like Fred said on Leno, You can’t get a real feel for a candidate just by watching him debate and rehash everything he’s said before.
Are debates a necessary part of the presidential race? Sure. Do I want to see Thompson participate in a debate in the future? Yeah. Does it matter that he didn’t participate in last night’s? No. Is it too late for him to “jump into the race?” No.
Why do I support Fred Thompson? Well besides his smokin hot wife, I’ve already gone over that in a previous post. But the most important answer would be that he is a strong supporter of state’s rights.
The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.
This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.
The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.
The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.
That’s a politics that I can get behind.
In related news, I was looking at Fred Thompson’s profile on Facebook today, and I noticed that he has about 12,700 supporters. I thought this a bit low, so I checked other candidates, and found out that in the Republicans he is second behind Romney who has 17,200. But when you look at the Democrats, you see Hillary who blows them away with 40,500, but pales in comparison to Obama who has 141,000 supporters.
Is this surprising? Not at all, given that colleges are breeding grounds for leftist nonsense. But, unnerving? A little.
“Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?”
I propose: no, they aren’t.
I personally believe,
That ‘U.S. Americans’ are unable to do so,
Because uh, some… people out there in our nation
Don’t have maps
(and uh)
I believe that our ed-education (like such as in) South Africa and uh,
‘The Iraq,’ (everywhere like, such as) and;
I believe that they should (uh)
Our education over here– in the U.S.– should help the U.S.
Or (or) should help South Africa,
And should help ‘the Iraq’ and the Asian countries.
So we will be able to build up our future.
(for it)
Maybe Miss Teen South Carolina should just like, uh.. go back to.. like.. get some of that ed-education.. and.. because.. stop worrying so much.. like about the Iraq and.. maybe.. the Africa.
It’s as if before she went on she studied a paper with a list of “hot topics” on it and when she got on stage she just tried to regurgitate as many of them as she could in the amount of time she had, not caring the slightest whether or not it made any kind of sense whatsoever.
At first I didn’t know what was more disturbing, that 1/5 of ”U.S. Americans” can’t find the United States on a map, or this dumb girl’s answer. It’s still pretty much a toss up.
Your thoughts?
I was recently added (yesterday) as an Alumni Blogger for my alma mater, Assumption College. This is pretty cool, because I still love Assumption, and I feel that I have a lot to offer the studentry and perhaps even the faculty/staff.
So now that makes four blogs I post on: here, The Capoeira Blog, and Assumption College Blog, as well as the Assumption Capoeira Club site, which isn’t really a blog.
Anyone else out there need a guest blogger? =)
Ask any random person on the street what they think about global warming, and they’ll probably tell you that man (perhaps the man) is behind it and that there needs to be something done to stop it lest we face armageddon.
The reason you may receive this answer is because of politicians. Politicians and policy makers have shangheid this global warming theory and have begun a crusade to spread misinformation and downright lies in order to pull on the emotions and irrationality of the general populus. They do this for no other reason than to push their own cockamamy agendas.
Luckily, there are some of us left in the world who don’t buy into their garbage. And it seems that the story they keep telling us, that the world’s scientists have come to a “consensus” about global warming, might not be so true after all.
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
Now, for those of you saying, “But what about that IPCC study released a few months ago? What about all those scientists?”
Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
Yeah, that’s good science, and trustworthy. Let’s go base all sorts of government programs and policies on some junk “consensus” science. That’s smart.
Are you an average American reader? I hope not.
One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn’t read any, the usual number read was seven.
I love to read. I understand that some people don’t, but I don’t understand why. I wish I could quit my job and read all day. Then maybe I could get through as many books as this woman,
“I go into another world when I read,” said Charlotte Fuller, 64, a retired nurse from Seminole, Florida, who said she read 70 books in the last year. “I read so many sometimes I get the stories mixed up.”
That’s what I’m talking about. Stephen King (and I’m sure many other authors) also get through tons of books a year, I don’t know how they do it, but I want to steal their power.
More women than men read every major category of books except for history and biography. Industry experts said that confirms their observation that men tend to prefer nonfiction.
“Fiction just doesn’t interest me,” said Bob Ryan, 41, who works for a construction company in Guntersville, Alabama. “If I’m going to get a story, I’ll get a movie.”
I guess I’m abnormal. Because I’m a guy, and I love fiction. I’m not a big fan of biographies at all, and I could stand to read some more historical works.
I don’t agree with Bob, though. I love movies, but they’re not a replacement for books.
If you aren’t a frequent reader, take some time this upcoming holiday weekend and sit down with a good book. I doubt you’ll regret it.
Yeah, once again, I’ve gone with a total design change.
For some reason, I’ve become enamored with a “minimalist” feel. I was also partly inspired by some stuff I’ve read in ProBlogger’s 31 Days To Building A Better Blog series. But the main reason for the change was because the last theme I had really screwed up posts with quotes in them; it would lump paragraphs all together and such. That got on my nerves, so I needed something new. And this is what I found.
This layout isn’t the most awe inspiring, or the most innovative, but I think it gets the job done. There’s not much room for creativity and changing up the themes with your basic WordPress account, so I just gotta deal with what I have. I decluttered the sidebar as well as moved some things around. You still have my pretty mug to associate with the content even though there may not be anything “unique” about the way things look.
Oh, also, I’ve added a Subscription page. If you’re into that sort of thing.
If you have any input about the new look, let me know.
It’s widely touted by some politicians that poverty in America is an epidemic; an overwhelming problem that, obviously, must be fixed by the government. Take John Edwards for example,
In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”
He’d just like you to ignore his blatant hypocrisy, though.
I came across this article by Robert Rector, and I thought I’d share some interesting facts with you.
However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends. If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:
- 46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
- 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
- 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
- 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Now, does that paint a picture of poor people living in their own waste amongst squalid, horrific living conditions? Not really. Sorry, John.
-
-
Recent Comments
Josh on The Terminator Bans “Mom… Glub on Dennis Quaid is a Poor Man… 
Sean on 7 Ways To Manage Your Video Ga… 
faisca on Ann Coulter Is Not Even Remote… Tina Kubala on Ann Coulter Is Not Even Remote… -
