(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will host a reenactment organized by the Supreme Court Historical Society of the 1908 case Muller v. Oregon, a landmark Progressive Era decision where the Court unanimously upheld Oregon’s law limiting female laundry employees from working more than 10 hours a day.

This “progressive” victory was made on the following basis:

The Brandeis Brief made much the same point, claiming that since women were responsible for bearing future generations, their bodies were in some sense collective property. “The overwork of future mothers,” Brandeis wrote, “directly attacks the welfare of the nation.”…

Writing for the majority in Muller, Justice David Brewer followed Brandeis’ lead. “As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring,” Brewer wrote, “the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.”

Although shocking this isn’t much different from other oppressive views imposed on us be government for our own good: smoking bans, fatty food bans, campaign finance reform, gun bans, etc. All are efforts, largely by “progressives”, to sacrifice our freedom for the good of the state.

Meet the new tyrant, same as the old tyrant.

The workers do deserve their money, but Republic has no money to distribute, so the workers are demanding that Bank of America “loan” Republic the money to pay them even though there is zero chance that they’ll get the money back. It is of course a stupid idea, but I don’t want to heap scorn on the workers (or even their union) because they’re just trying to get what they deserve. I do have nothing but scorn for the politicians that have rushed to embrace this cause — particularly Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D).

The governor rushed to embrace the cause and has even ordered all state agencies to stop doing business with BoA until they accede to the workers demands. Nice. This is exactly what got us in the financial crisis in the first place — government pressure on business to act in an irresponsible way to achieve a social end. The actions of this douche just piss me off.

But then I saw the news this morning: Governor Blagojevich was arrested for trying to sell an appointment for Obama’s senate seat.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry, I usually try not to enjoy the misfortune of others — but the his tears are so sweet. I love it when corrupt politicians get what is coming to them, and this douche just adds another layer of joy to his misfortune.

And of course most reports either fail to mention that Blagojevich is a Democrat or do so in later paragraphs…

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. (Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

it wasn’t too long ago that the courts had to intervene to allow interracial marriages. Kinda sad that just as we elect our first Black President, the African-Americans of California reject recognition of the relationships of another minority.

Although, in some tepid statements, Obama publicly stated that he was opposed to Prop 8, he also said that he opposes gay marriage. By straddling the fence and never investing any capital on the issue within the African-American community, it seems he doomed it to failure. I wonder if Ellen will be so friendly with him if he visits her show again…

Brown: So are you going to run for governor?

Barkley: I plan on it in 2014.

Brown: You are serious.

Barkley: I am, I can’t screw up Alabama.

Brown: There is no place to go but up in your view?

Barkley: We are number 48 in everything and Arkansas and Mississippi aren’t going anywhere.

HEH.

This is the way the European Union works. The Justice department for 450 million people is now to be run by a convicted criminal.

Watch the video it is quite funny.

According to the UN FAO there are 200 million underfed people in Africa, yet average tariffs on agricultural goods between Sub-Saharan African countries are 34%.

Nigeria has actually banned imports of various staples at different times, including wheat, rice, maize and vegetable oil.

Average fertilizer use in poorer countries is 107kg per hectare. In Africa it is only 8kg (yes, eight). Tariffs on fertilizer imports are a major reason for this low use-rate.

The removal of subsidies to biofuels (including requirements to include a proportion of such fuel in petrol and diesel – such as those being implemented in the EU) would also reduce food prices and must be a priority for rich countries.

Some countries have recently imposed tariffs and bans on exports of foods. While such trade restrictions temporarily reduce local prices, they increase prices in importing countries, result in reciprocal bans, and reduce the incentives to produce those foods in the next season – leading to reduced global supplies.

Just remember the hundreds of millions that have died in Communist Nations because of their agricultural/political policies.

But actually none of this really matters. As Justice STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ ” Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). “I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress-who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment-is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” Ante, at 11. It is Justice Stevens’ experience that reigns over all.

I take no position on the desirability of the death penalty, except to say that its value is eminently debatable and the subject of deeply, indeed passionately, held views-which means, to me, that it is preeminently not a matter to be resolved here. And especially not when it is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.

Oooohh Burn…

1) Slobodan Milosevic (1994), Carter inserted himself into the ongoing Bosnian war.

2) Kim Jong-il (1994): Carter brokered a deal over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions without the approval or support of the Clinton administration — a deal the North Korean’s shamelessly violated.

3) Hugo Chavez (2003): Carter (and his organization) gave his stamp of legitimacy on the recall election against Chavez — despite some extremely strong evidence of government interference and independent exit polls showing the opposition winning by 20 percent.

4) Omar al-Bashar (2007): While touring Sudan, Carter criticized the West for labeling the genocide in Darfur as a genocide, because it wasn’t helpful in reaching a peaceful settlement.

And now, Carter adds terrorists to the list of murderers that he’s willing to embrace and pay homage to. Today he embraced a leading Hamas figure and layed a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat. Nice.