Important Action Alert!

I am very pleased to announce that I have accepted a position as co-blogger over at doubleplusubdead's place. Seeing as how about 95% of the traffic I get* comes from him anyway, I figure it couldn't hurt. Some of the stuff I write will still be cross-posted here, and Lexington-centric posts will remain here exclusively. Becuase, let's face it, daddy need his Google Ads check.

So hop on over to DPUD's site and take a look around.

*Thanks to this post, the other 5% are comprised of people googling "vintage torture porn". Let's hear it for the Internet.


Look's like Obama's found himself a new preacher!

Headline: Bishop says climate-change deniers are as bad as sex dungeon father Josef Fritzl.

Time to write off Virginia's lone GOP Senate seat

Former Gov. Jim Gilmore narrowly (66 votes narrowly) won the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate at the VAGOP convention this weekend, and he's got a special message for pro-life conservatives (emphasis mine):
By less than 70 votes, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate yesterday.

Gilmore squeaked past Del. Bob Marshall at the Republican convention held here, winning 50.3 percent of the vote, or 5,222 votes to Marshall's 5,156. He will face Democrat Mark Warner, also a former governor, in the November election.


Speaking to reporters afterward, Gilmore conceded that the narrowness of his victory "was a surprise."

"We did not put resources into the convention that maybe we should have to get a larger margin," Gilmore said.

He said he has focused his campaign on Warner, and believes the issues important to general voters are different from the social issues driving Marshall's supporters.

Republican activist and Marshall supporter Shaun Kenney, a former spokesman for the party, said Gilmore "needs to reassure values voters that he's with them."

But the nominee said he's not going to change his principles to win political support. While he's anti-abortion and opposes late-term abortions, Gilmore said, "I've never believed we should impose a strict law on women that don't agree with us."

He also said Marshall's supporters aren't likely to back Warner.

"We believe they're going to be supportive of us," Gilmore said. "The things they believe in are things Mark Warner never supported."
Ah. There's a time-tested GOP strategy: "Vote for Me! Because, seriously, who else ya gonna vote for?"

(h/t The Corner)


'twas Evil Capitalist Pigs that killed the beast...

The Lieberman-Warner "Let's Kill Capitalism Once and for All Act of 2008" will be debated soon in the Senate. Some background can be found here. However, it looks like the bill may meet the fate of last year's immigration bill. But, thank goodness, this year the media can ignore the grassroots effort to kill the cap-in-trade bill. Why? This year we have a convenient scapegoat...the Fortune 500 company:
An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.


Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill - already a long shot at best - becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.

Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline. In fact, a key purpose of the bill is to put a price on the emissions of greenhouse gases, as a way to speed the transition to a clean-energy economy and slow down global warming.
See, the People want carbon taxes. It's those corporations that are impeding progress. Who is John Galt?

But don't worry, there is plenty of time to pass the legislation next year. In fact, the environmental lobby didn't even bring their A-game this time around (emphasis mine):
[E]ven supporters concede that the debate will set the scene for action in 2009.

"This will put us in a position to have action next year," says David Doniger, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of the bill. "We expect in the Senate that the 60-vote rule will be applied. That's a hard one to get over."

As currently written, Lieberman-Warner might fall short of a 50-vote majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes required to close debate, insiders say. Presidential candidates (and Senators) Clinton, McCain and Obama all support climate-change legislation.
Thanks, New Hampshire!

UPDATE:Heh. Looks like one of the environmental groups pushing Lieberman-Warner is violating McCain-Feingold. I wonder if Sen. McCain will go after them the way he went after Wisconsin Right to Life.

Hate-monger Pfleger: If only they'd murdered another one of my foster children

Okay, not really. But close. Take a look at Hate-monger Pfleger's latest non-apology apology for his ridiculous, hate-filled rhetoric. A snippet (emphasis mine):
Last Sunday, I was invited by Trinity United Church of Christ to come and preach on the topic of race.

I agreed to do so because of my love for Trinity, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Otis Moss, III and because all my life I have sought to deal with the reality of racism. As I said, Last Sunday, I have committed myself to tear down the walls that divide us wherever they stand.

In 1966, as a junior in high school, amidst all the hate and meanness that surrounded me in Marquette Park, I heard more than the voice of Dr. king calling for community over chaos. I heard that small voice from within, that said, I am showing you this now, because you must spend your life trying to eradicate this.

The last few days have been the most painful days of my life, even more so than the murder of Jarvis, my foster son.
The whole apology is at the link, in case you think that this "snippet" is taking Hate-monger Pfleger out of context. Not being a baptized believer in the Cult of the Obamessiah, I am speaking with a cynical tongue, but I actually believe Hate-monger Pfleger when he says that this is more painful than the murder of his foster son. Why? Because as with all attention-hungry showmen (secular or religious), it's all about him.

Of course this is more painful, because there is negative attention focused on him, rather than the positive attention of sympathy released by the community after the death of a loved one.

It is more painful, because it might hurt his standing in the community. His life may continue without a foster son. After all, they're replaceable. But what politician will ever let him head a Catholic coalition group again?

That quote only makes sense if your highest priority is yourself. And, if your highest priority is yourself, what kind of spiritual leader will you make? I think we see the answer to that in Hate-mongers Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright.