Best Quote of the Year

Cheney: I told Leahy to ‘f*ck’ himself because ‘I thought he merited it.’
God, I'm gonna miss him.

The $800 million Pony

Obama has already proposed putting all those laid-off sales clerks, data entry people, lawyers and waitresses back to work building bridges and changing lightbulbs--two things we're not sure the unemployed are either qualified for or willing to do. I suppose to the Obama administration, a job's a job and with the news that we could lose 3.5 million jobs next year, he might have to demand that people accept whatever job is out there, a shockingly conservative viewpoint and one likely to have him castigated by the left.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think taking any job is better than sitting around collecting unemployment. But that doesn't mean I think an attorney recently cut from the firm is qualified to go repair bridges. Or that a paralegal is going to want to change lightbulbs for $9 an hour. We are, indeed, a spoiled lot, where we want jobs that dovetail with our experience and education, rather than just putting bread on the table.

If Democrats have their way, the $800 million now being proposed for "middle-class tax cuts, aid to strapped state governments and investments in domestic priorities such as infrastructure, health-care technology and education" is sure to persuade more than a few laid-off call center workers to pursue new careers as elementary school teachers. But don't for a minute assume there won't be a few goodies (read: pork) for the constituents back home, even though Democrats claim to be banning the practice.

According to congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet final, the money is expected to be split into three pots, with at least $100 billion going to the states, primarily to cover the rising cost of health care for the poor.

Roughly $350 billion would be invested to rebuild roads and bridges, modernize schools and help hospitals and doctors switch to computerized patient records. That category also would include projects aimed at improving energy efficiency, such as weatherizing buildings, as well as aid to the poor through expanded unemployment and food-stamp benefits.

Obama's team has also laid out a substantial tax-cutting agenda that will include a $1,000 tax credit for working families, Obama advisers said, a provision that congressional sources said is estimated to cost about $140 billion over two years. Other tax provisions could include tax breaks for businesses, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit for the poor and new credits for tuition and alternative energy, congressional aides said.

Yes, I can see all those journalists and bankers now weatherizing buildings. And I can't wait to see who qualifies as a "working family." Where's my pony? I was promised a pony!

Corruption

Democrats are three times more corrupt than Republicans.

Argument by Exception

In a more expansive post, Robert Stacy McCain points out how argument by exception has become the strongest tool in the liberal arsenal.

Furthermore, academia seems to be teaching young people to argue by exceptions, to naysay any general observation by responding, "Yeah, but what if . . .?" The "what if" is always some hypothetical case intended to disprove the general observation. You see this all the time in the abortion debate.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are merely retroactive contraception to terminate an adult woman's inconvenient pregnancy. Yet pro-choicers are always conjuring up the specter of the 14-year-old incest victim, or the woman whose pregnancy presents potentially fatal medical complications. One might allow for every such exceptional case and still prohibit 97 percent of abortions -- reducing the annual number of U.S. abortions from more than a million to less than 50,000 -- but in the mind of pro-choicers the existence of a relatively few exceptional cases justifies unlimited abortion.

Often, in my debates with pro-choicers, I am accused of being anti-contraception, anti-woman (indeed, frequently assumed to not be a woman), heartless, stupid and against any possible exceptions for abortion. This isn't the case; I think contraception is a good thing if you don't want children, and even though I personally wouldn't have an abortion for rape or incest (perhaps not even the life-threatening pregnancy), I could allow those exceptions if it meant barring the 97% of abortions done for other reasons.

But this never seems to be enough for the hardliners. Because if you point out where you might agree with them--on contraception, for instance--they will simply keep moving the goalposts. What about the morning after pill? What about babies born to abused women? What about all those babies already born but living in orphanages?

This linguistic trap is often used when discussing crisis pregnancy centers. As I pointed out in a previous post, for the radicals, it isn't enough that an organization offer ultrasound, pregnancy information, baby supplies and even names, addresses, and phone numbers of churches and people willing to help pregnant women. If the organization isn't discussing abortion and birth control, it's only purpose is to "trick" women into having their babies.

Such arguments are only persuasive to the naive and those already prone to believe them. Fortunately, there aren't too many of those around.

Pandagon Watch: Radical Secularists and Christianity

Friend and frequent commenter Chuck sent me an e-mail regarding a current Pandagon post by Amanda Marcotte titled "Hard times for you, happy times for Bible thumpers." His comment was,

Amanda really seems delusional when it comes to religious faith. Do you think that she actually believes what she has written in the attached blog?

In a word, yes.

I don't say that just to bash Amanda, although that can be fun, too. But Amanda is representative of the radical secularists which inhabit so much of the moonbatosphere. These people are completely irrational when it comes to religion and religious expression, particularly of the Christian variety. Go to the most popular lefty blogs (and Andrew Sullivan's blog, as well), and you will invariably find plenty of posts and comments which completely and harshly distort the views and behaviors of most Christians.

For example, this rather positive story discussing how more people go to church during bad times became a chance to rant about how "Bible thumpers" exploit the poor and needy.

In general, this story demonstrates why, even if Obama reaching out to Rick Warren is merely a symbolic gesture, it’s silly to try to reach out (except maybe to discredit Rick Warren, which this probably won’t do). I know the Democrats are chomping at the bit to chip off evangelical voters, and maybe they did that to a degree because of the severity of hard times, but in the end this story demonstrates that the evangelical churches will never, ever side with Democrats. It’s not in the pastors’ self-interest to do anything but shill for the Republican party, and it’s not just because the Republicans are warmer to hating on women and gays. It’s because Republican rule means more desperation, and more desperation means more people who turn to the Sky Fairy for hope, and the more that happens, the more money and power these pastors amass. And no amount of inaugural prayer will change that.

See, ministers don't support Republican candidates because those candidates more closely reflect Christian views on family, life, and other social issues. It's actually just an evil plot to ensure more people are poor and desperate. And, of course, Republicans always cause economic turmoil and hurt more people, thus providing more needy for the churches to exploit. See? And fire doesn't melt steel.

I have to admit that I'm no longer surprised at the hateful, angry, nasty attitude on display by many liberals on the web. After all, anonymity allows them the freedom to take off the mask they have to wear by day and display their blood-dripping fangs instead. But it's always off-putting to notice how utterly and completely void of logic these people are.

The New York Times article, for example, doesn't paint churches and ministers as opportunistic jerks capitalizing on the misfortune of others.

At the Shelter Rock Church, many newcomers have been invited by members who knew they had recently lost jobs. On a recent Sunday, new faces included a hedge fund manager and an investment banker, both laid off, who were friends of Steve Leondis, a cheerful business executive who has been a church member for four years. The two newcomers, both Catholics, declined to be interviewed, but Mr. Leondis said they agreed to attend Shelter Rock to hear Mr. Tomlinson’s sermon series, “Faith in Unstable Times.”

“They wanted something that pertained to them,” he said, “some comfort that pertained to their situations.”

Mr. Tomlinson and his staff in Manhasset and at a satellite church in nearby Syosset have recently discussed hiring an executive pastor to take over administrative work, so they can spend more time pastoring.

“There are a lot of walking wounded in this town,” he said.

This isn't the section of the article emphasized by secularist jerks, but it explains more about how churches approach bad times. Christians believe in ministering to the needy in a variety of ways, including taking care of bodily needs and spiritual ones, and government handouts aren't going to help those issues.

Many times, the secularists scream and harangue that Christians aren't taking care of the poor when they get involved in politics and policy-making, particularly in the area of abortion. Yet when churches, as demonstrated in this story, are working to help physical needs and spiritual ones, then they are simply exploiting the needy. Secularist jerks reveal their actual beliefs in times like this: they would rather religious people not participate in civic life at all.

It's Supposed to be 72 Here Today

And my sister-in-law in Michigan just sent pictures of snow-covered cars and the information that the high there, where we will be next week, is 27.

The World Will Hate Us Even With Obama

One of the more annoying arguments for voting for Barack Obama was that the rest of the world would like us better. This was always a lot of hooey, because no matter who has been president, the world despises us. Regardless of our foreign policy, the rest of the world dislikes us because of our power and influence, two things Americans shouldn't be so willing to give up easily. But don't believe me, read this.

One hates to spoil a good party, but here's a bet that's far safer these days than a U.S. Treasury bill: Even with Obama at the White House, they won't really like us any more than before.

It's not because America's not a special country, a City upon a Hill, from the Pilgrims to Obama, the Blagojevich couple and other American horrors notwithstanding. It's because it is. And as ever, our earnest assertion of our superior ontological uniqueness--not to mention its reality in and of itself--is exactly what always grated on the unfriendlies grouped together under the banner of anti-Americanism.

The past few years for sure were especially happy ones for the flag burners, intellectual bomb throwers and suicide attackers. George W. Bush gave this crowd a great excuse to hate America--and the Democrats a highly effective partisan political weapon against the ruling party.

At home, Bush played well into the favored narrative of an America Lost. Namely, that this administration squandered all that good will overseas we earned after 9/11. But remember how the good will was earned, and from whom. Everyone loves to cite Le Monde's opening editorial line that day, "Today we're all Americans!" I was in Paris that day. Here's what I read: "Today, when that arrogant colossus across the sea lies prostrate and bloodied and humbled, we're all Americans, but let them stay down or ..."

They like us when we are weak, not strong.

The Flap Over Rick Warren

Ok, the seething Left needs to get a grip about Rick Warren.

There is no three dimensional chess here or political calculation that makes sense on this point. If the argument is that sacrificing the rights of another group on the altar of political power is a reasonable choice, then you should remember that a society that callously denies one group their humanity can just as easily deny you yours.

First, there are no rights being sacrificed on any altar here. Gay marriage has never been a part of marriage in any society before ours. Never. Not once. And gay men, have always enjoyed the rights and privileges associated with their status as males. This is something that no woman, straight or gay, had in virtually every society before about the 20th century. This is where the "we have been persecuted just like women!" pisses me off.

Gay men have never been told that they lacked the capacity to sue, own property, or act in their own names. Women, specifically married women, have in every society. They've been subjected to the sorts of gender science that have said things like women are too stupid to go to college or hold certain jobs or whatnot because we have two X chromosomes instead of one X and one Y.

And so now, just because homosexuals aren't being allowed to marry--in the same way they haven't ever been allowed to marry in this country--that's denying one's humanity?

Rick Warren's opposition to gay marriage represents the majority opinions of Americans in this country. It also represents the opinions expressed in the Bible and held by most Christians. That doesn't mean those attitudes won't change or that homosexuals, still smarting from the Prop 8 loss, don't have a right to be disappointed. But this is, in no way, comparable to the struggles women have faced over the generations just to be treated the way men are.

On a related note, Amanda Marcotte is displaying her endless cache of stupidity regarding Warren, abortion, women's rights, and hyperbole.

I actually agree with the part of her post that suggests comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust are insulting and insipid. But, frankly, I find any comparisons with the Holocaust to be a form of demogoguery designed to cheapen what exactly occured during the Holocaust.

The insipid part of Amanda's post comes, as usual, with her insistence that people who oppose abortion and support babies do so because they hate women. Given that more abortions across the world are done on female babies as opposed to male ones, it's a bit difficult to follow the logic here. I suppose her idea of "hating women" means thinking life is valuable, regardless of its convenience. Oddly, the founders of feminism didn't think that women's equality was to be gained by killing the inconvenient.

This carping that a Southern Baptist minister espouses Southern Baptist theology is annoying. If Billy Graham were to give the invocation, would these same people be screaming that it was "denying their humanity"? Graham has met with every sitting president since Harry Truman, and gave the benediction at George H.W. Bush's inauguration. No one complained that it was a slap in anyone's face that this happened. It's time for the luny left to act a little more maturely.

Bush Bails Out Auto Industry

In yet another move to piss off Republicans, President Bush has decided to give the Big 3 a $17 billion Christmas gift. At least these are loans, as opposed to just giving 'em the money. But who really believes this will work better than a bankruptcy would?

Misinformer of the Year? That's Media Matters

Media Matters, the George Soros-backed liberal echo chamber, has named Sean Hannity as its "Misinformer of the Year." Here are examples of "misinformation," according to Media Matters:

1. Hannity said Obama made a "rookie mistake" by saying he would invade an ally. But Obama's own speech shows that Hannity's characterization is accurate.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

How else do you describe Obama's point but that we would invade an ally? This is no "misinformation." It's accurate.

2. Air-raiding villages. Obama said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Media Matters goes to great lengths to try to explain this statement as not being an indictment of our troops. But as Don Surber states, air-raiding means that we're targeting the people in the villages, namely civilians. And that is something we didn't do.

3. Most liberal senator. Media Matters takes umbrage that Sean Hannity quoted the National Journal, which stated that Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the U.S. MM argues that a different survey finds Obama to be only the tenth most liberal senator. Oh, that's so much better. That really refutes the point, which is that Obama is a classic liberal. Oddly, MM doesn't bother coming up with competing evidence when they attack Republicans as too conservative.

There are multiple other examples of supposed "misinformation," mostly the sort of nit-picking that Media Matters has become famous for, including that when Sean Hannity noted Franklin Raines's role as economic advisor for Obama, it was supposedly inaccurate because the WaPo Fact Checker said it was "exaggerated."

The list is ridiculous and simply disingenuous. I've posted before (see here, here and here) about the lying and obfuscation of Media Matters, so this latest stunt is not surprising. Like most liberal outlets, Media Matters attacks Hannity (and other conservatives) not because they're wrong, but because they're effective.

Redefining Away a Negative Trend

The New York Times had a story yesterday on the positive trend of fewer black single-parent homes.

The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data.

Demographers said such a trend might be partly attributable to the growing proportion of immigrants in the nation’s black population. It may have been driven, too, by the values of an emerging black middle class, a trend that could be jeopardized by the current economic meltdown.

This was encouraging news! And as the black middle class expands, this trend should continue, right?

Except that the trend is a lie. Black single-parent homes haven't declined. The Census Bureau just changed the definition of family.

The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents.

You get that? Parents can be two strangers living in the same household. Or a father and his daughter who are raising her children. Or a sister and brother, raising their kids. Or stepparents raising a spouse's children.

Now, I'm all for recognizing the role of stepparents in the family equation. My husband raised my daughter for 10 of the first 12 years of her life before she decided to live with her father. Yet the system didn't even recognize him as any sort of parental figure, even a quasi-parental one. Family law isn't designed to handle the complexities of 21st century parents. In our hearts, though, we always knew my husband was my daughter's other father (my daughter, now 17, acknowledges this, as well).

But having said that, redefining a family isn't going to change the fact that more children are being raised by only one of their parents, and that there are real consequences to that.

James Taranto has a good column on that subject today.

Why not redefine together to mean "on the same planet"? So long as at least one man and one woman live on Earth, whether or not they are married or the child's biological parents, every child is being raised by two (or more) parents, and this will remain true at least until we begin colonizing space. Hey, it takes a village!

Next up, redefining rich, poverty, middle class, and race.

I Didn't Tell You?

Holder omitted Blagojevich link from questionnaire.

Six degrees of separation.

"He was very lucky that it was Mr. Bush...and not Saddam Hussein"

So says the Iraqi ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie to Code Pink nutjobs who applauded insulting their president.

Mr. Muntader al-Zaidi is very lucky that it was Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki and not Saddam Hussein. Because, had it been Mr. Saddam Hussein he'd be (inaudible). Number 2, in our country, I know that people have told you that showing shoes at someone is an insult. But, it is a bigger insult to the host; in our culture anyone who insults a guest is insulting the host. So in our culture we believe that what Mr al-Zeidi did was reprehensible.

Via Gateway Pundit.

The worst part is that these jerks don't realize the insult is to them, as well.

Obama Chooses Rick Warren for Invocation

So far, Barack Obama hasn't done a lot to hack me off. I'm not in the Obamabot camp, and I don't believe for a moment that he's going to become a conservative, but his choices for cabinet posts have been tolerable.

Today's announcement was golden.

President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony will feature big names like minister Rick Warren and legendary singer Aretha Franklin, the Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced Wednesday.

Warren, the prominent evangelical and founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, will deliver the ceremony's invocation. The minister hosted a presidential forum at his church last summer that challenged both Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain on a host of faith-related issues. Warren did not endorse either presidential candidate.

His public support for California's Proposition 8 — the measure that successfully passed and called for outlawing gay marriage in the state — sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents, who seized on a comment in an October newsletter to his congregation: "This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

The reason Obama is interested in Warren is clear from the next paragraph.

But Warren has long sought to broaden the focus of the evangelical agenda to include issues like the reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses, and the AIDS epidemic.

Obama's economic justice philosophy dovetails nicely with issues like global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic, which probably has a lot to do with why Obama wants to be publicly aligned with the Saddleback Church crowd. Not to mention the sort of religious left crowd Warren represents.

But picking Warren has the moonbats screaming and frothing in such a delightful manner.

I understand that Warren isn't going to be driving policy, that he's only leading a prayer at the inauguration (and why there is a prayer at the presidential inauguration is a whole other post), but I also know that there are, literally, thousands of other religious leaders from multiple religions and Christian denominations, who aren't anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-science, whose presence at the inauguration wouldn't be a sharp stick in the eye to progressive women and GBTQ men, and all their allies, so it would have been really f*cking nice if any one of them could have been selected for this prominent opportunity instead of Rick bloody Warren.

I wish we had the list of approved ministers!

More harrumphing here and here, including the first official call for Obama's impeachment.

Cleavage in the Workplace

Some days, you need a good laugh, and The Other McCain has a post up about how sexist dress codes prevent women from showing as much cleavage as possible.

The original post at Cassy Fiano is hilarious, as well as pointed. In a nutshell, a woman wore a blouse to work which exposed too much of her breasts. A supervisor sent her an e-mail, informing her that the shirt was too low-cut and that, in the future, she should either wear something else under it or not wear that piece of clothing to work. Embarrassing? Sure, but not particularly political.

Unless you're a feminist.

If you're a feminist, asking a woman not to expose her chest to the world is sexism. Why? Because only women have boobs. Or, as one commenter at feministing put it,

Ok, looking at this from a feminist perspective, first off, enforcing a dress code is only OK if it is enforced uniformly for all employees of any gender. Whatever men can/can’t reveal, the standards for women must be the same, and they must be clearly defined, like for example, “no one should wear any garment that exposes more than 2 inches of skin below the bottom edge of the collar bone.” Otherwise, you get cases like this of random enforcement delivered in passive-aggressive emails that say “you’re showing a little too much cleavage.”

That implies that some amount of cleavage is OK, but that there is a limit. So what is the amount? How do you measure that amount? It’s been arbitrarily defined by a supervisor, yet that standard has not been shared in this offensive email.

So what has happened is that this woman has been singled out and told that she is being held to a certain nebulous standard, one of being able to show some cleavage, but not “too much” cleavage. Thus, the reality of living in a perpetual state catch-22 (one of the patriarchy’s strongest tools) which is inherent to having a vagina is perpetuated on an individual, personal and physical level.

And that is why this is bad.

I hate to point this out to these people, but there was a time, in the not too distant past, where women didn't try to show their cleavage at work. It was considered unprofessional to hang out of one's clothing, and was distracting to men as well as women. And it was embarrassing. There was no "right" to wear whatever the hell one wanted at work. You wore either a uniform or avoided wearing the clothing included in the dress code (no shorts or flip-flops, for example).

But given that we are in a day and age where people (ok, specifically women) wear clothing that reveals as much of their tops, middles and bottoms as possible without being arrested (regardless of whether they actually fit into the clothing), employers probably do need to be more specific about how much cleavage is permissible. Is it ok to show everything but the nipple? The cresting of the breast? We could, of course, have a field day with the creation of such a dress code.

Or we could stick to laughing at feminists who think popping out of one's clothing at work is a sign of professionalism. I prefer laughing, so here's another comment:

I hate things like this. A lot of bigger women, pregnant or no, don’t have a choice: plus size clothing seems to assume “if you have it, flaunt it”. Which I don’t personally mind some of the time, but many people are uncomfortable doing.

Additionally, in some situations wrap shirts and v-necks which reveal cleavage would be considered unprofessional, or even slutty: I’ve gotten overt whistles from random strangers and warning “that looks a bit sleazy” comments from my own parents.

Women shouldn’t have to be subjected to that kind of judgement. Body does not = sexuality does not = character. But it’s particularly irritating when they have little else in the way of clothing to choose from.

Where do these people shop that they can't find non-revealing clothing? I shop at every place from Wal-Mart to Dillard's and Macy's. There are plenty of blouses that even plus size women don't have to pop out of. And if the neckline is low, there are things called camisoles that any woman can wear under the top so that they aren't showing everything nature intended. And there are safety pins.

My favorite comment, though, was this one:

Personally, I would retort that, "These are a part of MY BODY. They should not be found offensive or out of place. They are attached to me, therefore, they have to be in the workplace too!"

Additionally, "I didn’t sexualize them, this society did, and apparently YOU buy into that."

So, if a man walked into work wearing a pair of shorts that were so short his testicles were showing, would he be allowed to exclaim, "These are a part of MY BODY. They should not be found offensive or out of place. They are attached to me, therefore, they have to be in the workplace, too!" ? And if not, why not?

Nobody's telling women to leave their boobs at home. But you don't have to dress for work the same way you do when you go out with your friends. Most people figure this out by the time they're 21. Or as Cassy Fiano says,

This is yet another post that just goes to show the truth about what feminism really is. Feminists like to say they want equality and the same treatment for men, and they say they want to empower women, but at every turn, we see this kind of behavior. It’s a state of perpetual victimhood where anything that pisses her off makes the behavior SEXIST!!!, and therefore must be abolished. When you read feminist blogs long enough, you start to get the feeling that modern feminists are basically a bunch of spoiled brats. If everything is not exactly how they want it, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with equality between women and men, they throw a temper tantrum. It’s like feminism for five-year-olds.

But hey, at least I learned something new today. Requiring a women to cover up her cleavage at work? SEXIST!!!

Welcome to the club, Cassy.

Indiana Attorney General to Investigate Planned Parenthood

Frequent commenter Bismarck sent me a link to Jill Stanek's column, which discusses new developments in the Indiana Planned Parenthood case, the one which so enraged Amanda Marcotte:

The Indiana Attorney General says his office is also investigating Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

The development comes after a health center aide was caught on video telling a woman who claimed to be a pregnant teen to lie about the age of the father.

Planned Parenthood fired the aide, but it is still culpable for the actions of that person while in its employ. Shockingly, businesses--even Planned Parenthood--are expected to follow all the laws, including those with which they disagree in principle.

Amanda banned me for bringing up the case, claiming I was "threadjacking," even though the post was about Planned Parenthood. Of course the five other people participating in the discussion would also have been threadjacking, but since they agree with Amanda that no baby should be safe from abortion, they are acceptable.

But unfortunately for Amanda and the sycophants who agree with her, evidently another sex-abuse film is imminent.

According to undercover film maker Lila Rose in an email update yesterday, the release of a 2nd IN sex-abuse cover-up film is imminent.

It's harder and harder to argue that Planned Parenthood is just providing necessary "women's health options" when they seem to be caught so often breaking the law.

UPDATE: Here's the second video:

The GOP and Hispanics

There's so much food for thought in this post that I hardly know where to begin, but this is as good a place to start as any:

People like to pretend they’re only opposed to illegal immigration. But, when they start to list the reasons why, it usually boils down to the fear that American culture is changing for the worse. And, whether it’s about language or food or customs, it is not just illegal immigrants who bring those changes. It’s also legal residents and U.S.-born Hispanics.

So, not surprisingly, a large swath of the Hispanic community takes offense — and, in the case of an embattled political party, takes names.

Texas is a good example of this pull between old guard (largely white) and the newcomers (largely brown). And I've seen some of these same arguments used when discussing illegal immigration.

There's some evidence that supports the fear. When you observed hundreds of Mexican flags at the May Day protests for immigrants, it's easy to see why some would be concerned about reconquista.

But the fact is that most immigrants don't want to retake the southwest for Mexico; they want to be Americans like the rest of us, adding their culture to ours. That means eating at the taqueria one day and Whataburger the next. Or celebrating Cinco de Mayo and Independence Day.

Republicans need to tread carefully when it comes to immigration because the treatment of this issue is key to GOP survival. Legal immigrants don't like illegals anymore than any other Americans because illegals cause problems for them, as well. As long as immigration reform includes border enforcement and a path to legalization, Republicans should support it.

Pandagon Watch: Still No Blago

It's been almost a full week since corrupt Illinois Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich was frog-marched out of his house by the Feds. But those intellectual giants at Pandagon still have not mentioned a word about the scandal or the potential contacts from members of Barack Obama's potential administration. Instead, we've had stories on:

-- Tasers. What a cutting edge reveal! No one's talked about the potentially lethal problems with tasers.

-- Book reviews. Who knew they could read?

-- Training dogs. Now there's a timely story.

-- Republicans R racists. Can't have a day without it!

-- A pointless post about the auto bailout. Well, at least it's something from the news.

I'm glad to see those reasonable people at Pandagon are covering the burning questions of our day. Not like, oh, these guys.

What Kids Really Want for Christmas

Via Brothers Judd, here's what kids want most: A ban on divorce.

Asked what rules they would make if they were king or queen of the world, most children replied they would ban divorce – the first time it has come at the top of the list.

They know the effects better than anyone.

Throwing Shoes

President Bush ducks two shoes thrown by a hero of the Left because throwing shoes at someone is an insult like one would hurl at Saddam Hussein.

Except this guy wouldn't have been brave enough to do that to Saddam Hussein.

Funny how these people are so brave once they aren't in fear of the torture interrogation rooms.