That's it for Q&A Friday! See you on Monday. Until then, take a look at a few of my advertisers....maybe just click on 3? How about it? It would really help me out...

Dreamhost Web Hosting (This Is My Web Host)
Peter C Glover's Wires From The Bunker
The Iraqi Truth Project
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
The Nose On Your Face
Place A Bet On Iraq
The Politics Of Faith
Realm Dekor Decorations
Rightalk Online Radio
Right-Wing Stuff
Studentcon
They Just Don't Get It. How Washington Is Still Compromising Your Safety—and What You Can Do About It By Colonel David Hunt
VitaminUSA
Young Nationalist

PS: It has been a long while since I pointed out that I do have a wish list down in the support section. The #1 most wanted item? Seasons 1-7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I've become a HUGE FAN of the show and I'd really love to watch the whole thing from start to finish.

Question: "Now for the really important question of the day...do you think Michael is innocent or guilty?" -- karensp9

Answer: Is Michael Jackson a child molester? Yes, I think he's a classic pedophile.

For example, just look at this profile of a pedophile by Tammy L. Ruggles, BSW, MA and compare Jackson to the list (my comments in bold):

* Popular with both children and adults. (Yes. He's a pop star who still has legions of fans)

* Appears to be trustworthy and respectable. Has good standing in the community. (This was true until the first pedophilia charges came out)

* Prefers the company of children. Feels more comfortable with children than adults. Is mainly attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. Can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. (Yes, he obviously prefers the company of children)

* "Grooms" children with quality time, video games, parties, candy, toys, gifts, money. (Bingo!)

* Singles out children who seem troubled and in need of attention or affection. (The kid in the center of the trial now is a perfect example)

* Often dates or marries women with children that are the age of his preferred victims. (Although Jackson has been married twice, neither woman had boys in that 8-12 age range at the time they were with Jackson)

* Rarely forces or coerces a child into sexual contact. Usually through trust and friendship. Physical contact is gradual, from touching, to picking up, to holding on lap, to kissing, etc. (Notice Michael builds long-term relationships with some of these kids? Just like the one at the center of the current trial?)

* Derives gratification in a number of ways. For some, looking is enough. For others, taking pictures or watching children undress is enough. Still others require more contact. (There are allegations, but of course, there's no way to know for sure what Jackson really enjoys doing most with little boys)

* Finds different ways and places to be alone with children. (Perfect description again).

* Are primarily (but not always) male, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children. (Michael certainly isn't masculine, well educated, or more religious than average. But charges were first leveled when Michael was in his thirties and his "job" provides plenty of access to kids).

* Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile's true preferences and practices. (Michael is widely believed to have participated in two sham marriages. Neither marriage lasted all that long or was particularly happy judging by public comments made by both of Michael's former wives)

* Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse. (To the best of my knowledge, it has never been revealed that Michael was sexually abused. But, we really don't know one way or the other for sure)

* Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly, with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swing sets, skateboards, rec room, pool, snacks - things to attract children to his home and keep them coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims. A female pedophile usually abuses a child when partnered with an adult male pedophile, and is often herself a victim of chronic sexual abuse. (The man has an amusement park in his back yard. This describes him perfectly)

* A pedophile can act independently, or be involved in an organized ring, including the Internet, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), and other pro-pedophilia groups. Some pedophiles recognize that their behavior is criminal, immoral, and unacceptable by society, and operate in secrecy. Some are quite open and militant about their practices and advocate the normalization of pedophilia under the guise of freedom of speech and press, and uses innocuous language like "intergenerational intimacy." (Michael is a rich and famous celebrity with an enormous staff. He doesn't need help from other pedophiles).

So Jackson fits the profile really well. Plus, he admits to sleeping with children. There have been multiple kids who've alleged Michael molested them. There have been multiple members of Jackson's staff who've claimed that they've seen him act inappropriately with kids. It doesn't take a genius to read the handwriting on the wall here.

In my opinion, Jackson is a pedophile. But, he's a rich pedophile who can afford the best lawyers money can buy. So my guess is that he'll probably avoid prison...this time at least.

Question: "I was talking with one of my intellectual left-wing friends and he responded to my elaborate arguments on foreign policy with "CHIMPY McBUSHITLER NAZI JINGOIST FASCIST!"

How should I respond to these profound left-wing mainstays of political debate?" -- Virtus

Answer: Ya know, my philosophy is that life's too short to go round and round with idiots unless traffic or money is involved. So personally, I don't waste time trying to talk politics with frothing at the mouth lefties. On the other hand, if you're the sort of a masochist who enjoys crafting a coherent, rational, argument and getting a totally irrational response that's only marginally related to what you said, have at it!

Put another way, you're probably better off steering the conversation away from politics if your friend is just regurgitating loopy liberal talking points.

Question: "What's the deal with liberals and their fascination with code words? How come they don't actually focus on what is said but rather look for specific words? Is that why when Gore says he took the initiative to create the Internet, conservatives called Gore a liar but the libs actually decipher what he said differently?" -- hwapper

Answer: There is a huge gulf between what liberals believe and reality. Code words are one of the ways they use to try to bridge the gap.

Put another way, if you believe conservatives are evil, fascist, racist, theocrats, there's precious little objective reality to support your claim. You can listen to talk radio all day, read popular conservative blogs and magazines, and watch cable news shows for the next year and you're not going to hear any prominent conservatives advocating fascism, saying they hate blacks, or that they think the US should be run as a theocracy. In fact, conservatives all publicly say they oppose those things.

So, one of the things liberals do to try to reconcile their wacko beliefs about conservatives with reality is claim that conservatives are using code words to speak to each other. So, no matter what conservatives say or do, liberals can always assert that we mean something entirely different because we're supposedly using code words to talk to each other.

That's what it's all about.

Today is Q&A Friday #16 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

*** Update #1 *** I'll be back around 9:00 PM EST to answer a few more questions.

Question: "What beef do libertarians have with religion?" -- covok48

"I like covak48's question, "What beef do libertarians have with religion?" That is a very interesting question." -- dshompe

Answer: Truthfully, I don't think most libertarians have a problem with religion. What ya gotta understand is that libertarians have a political philosophy that in essence almost boils down to "Anything goes" when it comes to social issues.

When you're talking about a group of people who -- generally -- favor legalizing crack, are pro-prostitution, and who think abortion is just nifty, they're obviously going to have some very deep philosophical disagreements with those of us who are more comfortable making value judgments. By the way, let me emphasize that I'm not, in any way, shape, or form, trying to say that libertarians are amoral. They just tend to have an extremely limited view of what powers the government should be allowed to have.

So libertarians do tend to constantly disagree with religious people on political issues, but again, that doesn't indicate hostility.

Of course, there are a VERY small number of people on the right whom I would categorize as overtly hostile to religion. But, the only two who really stand out in my mind are Andrew Sullivan (whom I don't consider to be conservative anymore) and John Cole of Balloon Juice who gets linked fawningly by the likes of the Daily Kos.

Aside from a very few exceptions of that sort, almost all of the people who look down their nose at religious folk and ramble on about "Jesusland" and "theocracy" are liberals.

Question: "I have wondered about this one for a while: John, what's your banning policy? Anybody who reads the comments can see you're pretty lenient, but it's happened before. What does a person have to say/do before you consider him for banning?" -- Raposa

Answer: Here's the official policy from the FAQ:

Yes, please don't flame excessively, use an exceptional amount of vulgar language, call anyone a "towelhead" or "raghead", continually post off topic material, spam, use racial slurs, libel anyone, troll, or make threats.

In short, don't be a jerk.

If that won't work for you, I'll delete your posts and ban your IP. If you are banned and genuinely don't know why, email me. If you know you were doing something mentioned above and you are banned, please don't try to get around the ban. Do everybody involved a favor and find somewhere else to post where they appreciate what you have to say.

Unofficially, I generally don't ban all that many people. Probably 1 or 2 a month average, although sometimes it's more than that. That's not bad considering that RWN has roughly 6300 registered users. The split is probably, oh, 70% (liberals) who get banned to 30% (conservatives). The majority of people who get banned, get the ax either for their insufferably obnoxious trolling or continually posting off-topic material.

If you'd like to get more detail on how I run the comment section, you can find it here.

Question: "I think the biggest part of the illegal alien problem is the "illegal" part. What can be done by states and/or the federal government to legitimize an "acceptable" amount of immigration?" -- OC_Chuck

Answer: When you cut through all rhetoric, the biggest obstacle to dealing with the illegal immigration is that there are large groups of politicians in both parties who really and truly don't want to solve the problem.

There are a lot of Democrats who LOVE illegal aliens because they see them as potential voters. Hispanics, who make up a large portion of illegals, trend Democratic roughly 60/40 and my guess is that if we're talking about somebody from a socialistic, third world country, who has a minimal education and who broke the law to get here, they probably trend Democratic by a much higher percentage. So if we were to legalize the 10 million (estimates vary) illegals who are already here, that could mean an extra 2-4 million potential votes for Democrats nationwide.

On the other hand, there's a certain crowd in the GOP that doesn't really want to stop illegal immigration either because they get campaign contributions from business owners who rely on illegals for cheap labor. If they shut off the supply of illegal aliens, then those business owners are unhappy, and they stop cutting checks. Plus, a lot of the spineless wimps in Washington are afraid to be demagogued on the issue and would rather let illegals pour into the US than get called a racist by liberals for trying to enforce the law.

The truth is, despite all the moaning about how impossible it is to get rid of illegals, if the majority of both parties really wanted to secure the border and get rid of illegals it wouldn't be all that hard to do.

All it would take is:

1) Locking down our border using more man power, radar stations, predators, fences, guard towers, etc. The idea that this is so tough to do is a big joke. We are the richest, most powerful, most advanced nation in the world. If we want to keep illegals, drug runners, and terrorists from walking across our border, then absolutely, without question, it can be done.

2) You crack down on businesses that hire illegals. Fine the heck out of 'em. Even throw some of the flagrant violators in jail. Then, after the businesses stop hiring illegal aliens, the overwhelming majority of illegals would self-deport.

3) Undoubtedly, a lot of illegals are crossing into the US in hopes of being made US citizens. So, we should make it clear that any illegal caught in the US will be fingerprinted and forever barred from becoming a citizen.

4) If we wanted to set up some sort of guest worker program, that would be fine, as long as no illegal aliens were allowed to participate. Preventing illegals from being able to get a job and yet allowing workers who followed the rules to come here would again provide another pair of strong incentives to obey the law.

So you cut off the easy access to the US and take away the motivation for illegals to come here. If we actually did this, in 5 years or less, our illegal alien problem would essentially solve itself without our trying to individually track down millions of illegals.

Again, the problem isn't all that difficult to solve -- if the politicians want to solve it.

Question: "What do you think of the Laura Bush flap?" -- HerrKant

Answer: Personally, I didn't have any problem with her stand-up routine. While I can understand some people thinking that a few of the jokes were beneath the dignity of the first lady, the whole performance, even the "milking the male horse gag" which some people are complaining about, was pretty tame:

"I saw my in-laws down at the ranch over Easter. We like it down there. George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place. Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program. But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse."

In any case, this is just a tempest in a teapot. No big deal either way...

The goof who disrupted Ann Coulter's college lecture, Ahai Raj, wrote an email that has been posted in one of the Daily Kos Diaries.

So, as a service to the community, I decided to post a few select excerpts from this dashing young hero of the left along with some of the praise he received from the kossacks. Granted, not all of them talked him up, but I think it's good for people to see just what sort of degenerate behavior large portions of the left have come to admire.

From Raj:

"Open Letter to Anyone Who Gives a Sh*t About Justice

...I'm writing this at 7:15 A.M. Wednesday, having recouped over a few cigarettes and some coffee after being released from jail around 3 A.M. I had a party waiting for me- twenty or so friends and supporters, who showered me with gifts such as a card, sodas, cigarettes, food, and a Blondie CD (go figure). Several civil rights-interested associations approached me, offering pro bono legal representation and showing their support."

Now here are some of the reactions from readers at the Daily Kos which is not a mainstream Democratic blog, but the biggest left-wing blog on the internet. Enjoy this little glimpse in what so many liberals are like when don't think anyone is watching:

--

Black Max: "This is prime. I have a new hero, at least for the rest of the day."

The Gnostic: "Rabid Coulter..should have been frog marched out of several news programs for her lewd Clinton-c*mming-in-the-sink comments. God knows how many times that f*cking @ss-bite would have and should have been arrested for her nasty rhetoric. Queen of the Fascists is her well-earned title.

Those f*cking pig cops are going to regret that. There are pig cops and there are Democrat cops, just like there are pig repubs and just regular everyday folks, the Democrats. Their audacity amazes me everyday. At least Dems are out there swinging these days."

Deep Dark: "No Flame. the issue is not his constitutionally protected speech, there is none of that anywhere in America any more. The point is that Raj has the balls to take back his freedom from the noise machine.

I assume he thought he was protected, but that is a mistake for everyone in America today. Only Coulter and her hate mongers are protected, everyone else is a zero and all the zeros in the world still add up to nothing in their eyes.

This guy deserves a medal."

AnonymousArmy: "...Anyway...

This guy rocks.

It's not often you can make a mockery of someone's political hypocrisy while talking about anal sex and pretending to masturbate.

The comment was not only lewd but very insightful."

lyvwyr101: "I agree 100%. Every time one of these right-wing-nut bags opens their collective yowls in public; these are the questions they should be dealing with. Kid's a hero, in my book. Anyone who thinks of his question as being in bad taste, what do you call deathtreats? Coulter's in bad taste, not this kid. Kid's an actual hero. Good for him, good for us. About time."

baxxor: "You Rock! We need ten million more liberals like you. I'm getting sick of the timid, cowardly liberals going around with a stick up their @ss."

Fides: "Hero Ajai Raj: Amazing, good stuff. We are too timid. We are afraid of looking like hippies, we are trained to see things from others perspectives, we try and understand that people who disagree with us politically may well be good people.

But, at some point, that makes us lambs to the slaughter.

So, cheers to Ajai Raj, for standing up, and calling bullshit in a crass, vulgar, but necessary way. It also points out, to me, that what people like Ann Coulter represent is obsenity of a far deeper nature, ultimately corrupting what is truly great about our nation. The police who back her up by inimidating the opposition need to be checked, as well, or the pretense of freedom will be stripped away.

Personally, I know I need to be less timid in my opposition, and Ajai is a great example of it."

P A Roberson: "Your actions during this event remind me of...ACT UP. The time to be polite has passed. Attack on all fronts. Take the high road with them and debate them the entire way, but get in the gutter with them too don't give them any ground.

This is our country and way of life we are talking about, don't give up without a fight.

Thank-you AJAI RAJ for your courage."

fblau: "I am GREEN with envy.
I'm sorry, we aren't going to engage ann (or her subs) in anything resembling "civil dialog".

Pies and disrruption.

Bring It On."

threecents: "You ROCK. I am very very hard man to impress, but you sir have balls of steel, and have indeed impressed me. Keep up the good fight. We need many, many more like you."

x: "This should be the Battle Cry. Everytime one of them shows up spewing their bile, get in line & ask the Ajai Rai Battlecry!

Hell it's a verbal Pie In The Face! Nay, perhaps it's the proverbial Side Of Beef In The Face!

You Go!

Thank you, Ajai. I'm so proud of you."

Patrioticliberal: "I loved it. The f*cking up the @ss question. It was great. Thanks! :)"

I shudder to think what the "moderates" will make of this:

A federal judge on Thursday blocked Montgomery County public schools from instituting a new health curriculum that includes discussions of homosexuality and a videotaped demonstration of how to use a condom.

U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the system from using a pilot program in six schools. The pilot was set to begin Friday.

Evidence of creeping Christianity in the classroom? Not quite.

...the curriculum's frank discussion of homosexuality amounted to preference of one religion over the other, taking the viewpoint held by some faiths that gay and lesbian lifestyles are acceptable. That would discriminate against members of religions that are opposed to homosexuality, argued Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, the two groups that filed the suit Wednesday. Williams noted that the program depicts some Christian sects, notably Baptists, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided.

So who is the party on offense in this situation, and who is the party on defense? True enough, the judge is ruling in a lawsuit filed by groups opposed to the curriculum. But if the curriculum hadn't been implemented in the first place, there would have been no lawsuit. And as the judge notes, the curriculum dove headlong into religious sectarianism. Separation of church and state, anyone? The schools also blocked parental involvement--it was written into the curriculum that parents were not welcome in the classroom when these lessons were underway.

The judge didn't rule on that, or even on the frankness of the lessons themselves. He ruled on the sectarianism contained in the lessons (and why the authors felt the need to slap that stuff in there is curious, to say the least). Which means, naturally, that once the Montgomery County schools take the anti-Baptist rhetoric out, the frank promotion of all things sexual can go right back into the classroom. These days schools consistently fail to teach reading, science or math--but they've got the frank discussions of sex down pat.

For what it's worth, Montogomery County is the most leftwing county in Maryland, itself a state of the deepest blue hue. Every year around Christmastime, local agitators hire attorneys to sue just about anyone who can work up the nerve to utter a "Merry Christmas." Every. Year.

This content was used with the permission of Bryan Preston from JunkYardBlog.

Usually I only get to complain about the reporting of the deficit in mainstream outlets. However, this story in the Washington Post (which James noted below) is a pleasant surprise.

For that fiscal year, the government recorded a $412 billion deficit, the largest ever in nominal dollar terms, although not as large as some of the deficits of the 1980s when measured against the size of the economy. The 2004 mark was up from 2003's $378 billion deficit, which topped 2002's $158 billion deficit.

Nominal dollars, referencing the deficits of 1980s and talking about the debt as a share of the economy! My God what is the world coming too? Will cats be living with dogs next? Usually most reports tend to focus only on the deficit being the largest ever with no mention of adjusting for inflation let alone as a percentage of GDP. Is this change due to the influence of blogs? I dunno and frankly I don't care. I'm just happy with the improvement in disseminating information.

As for the improvement in the budget situation it is indeed temporary as the article notes. For example at the top of the second page is this little skunk,

Also, by next year, costs from the new prescription drug benefit should start rolling in.

My guess is this program is going to be far more costly than even the most pessimistic forecasts we have today. These programs always cost much, much more than initially believed. Medicare is a great example of a program that is projected to cost $X and in reality costs something closer to $10X.

This content was used with the permission of Outside The Beltway.

If you're a left-of-center-columnist, today is when you find out how good you really are. That's because Right Wing News has polled the left-of-center members of the blogosphere on who their favorite columnists are and today, everyone learns the results.

You can find out who the left side of the blogosphere believes are the best columnists in the business by clicking here.

*** Update #1 ***: Just for comparison's sake, you can read the right-of-center blogger list here.

FT HOOD, TX (IFOC) - A military judge has rejected Abu Ghraib torture suspect Pvt Lynndie England's guilty plea today.

"I've been watching the Robert Blake and Michael Jackson trials, and I was hoping for my own media circus," said presiding judge Col. James Pohl. "Maybe even a shot at Jay Leno doing a 'Dancing Pohls' comedy bit, and I'm an excellent dancer."

Pohl also pointed out a legal basis for rejecting the plea due to Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. being charged with a conspiracy to torture prisoners with England even though her own plea drops that charge.

"But forget that legal mumbo-jumbo," said Pohl. "Just one appearance on Larry King. Or the O'Reilly Factor. I'd even do a stint on that Commie radio show on Air America if it can get me a book deal."

Satire used with the permission of Laurence Simon of The IFOC News. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Well, it seems we live in a police state, folks, and perhaps not surprisingly, Ann Coulter is somehow responsible. It seems she was giving a speech last night and....well, I don't want to explain it just yet...not without acquainting you with the HORRIBLE OPPRESSION described by someone who says he was there.

The description you are about to read comes from krikkit4, who has a Daily Kos diary:

"Others asked how the police officers were able to sleep at night.

They are agents of power."

So what happened here? What did the police, otherwise known as "Miniscule goons that are lacking moral compasses" to liberals like krikkit4, do wrong?

Well, Coulter was in town to do a speech at the University of Texas at Austin. Most of the people who were there were undoubtedly fans of Ann Coulter and wanted to hear what she had to say.

But of course, there were liberals involved who don't think Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak on a college campus. So, they tried to disrupt the event. Here's krikkit4's description of what they were doing:

"We shook our heads, sighed, and externalized our consternation through various hand gestures and motions. We sarcastically laughed and gasped at every attempt she made to distort the question asked into something that painted the questioner as an incomprehensible, inaccurate idiot-there were three. We shouted back in anger at every question shrugged away with mere character asssassination-there were too many to count.

My blood boiled a bit. Less masochistic progressives had enough and stormed out at various times. Coulter herself threatened to leave on two occasions for all the heckling."

So they're shouting, making noise, getting up and walking out, throwing up "hand gestures" (the bird?) and doing everything else possible to interrupt Ann Coulter and ruin the whole event for everybody else. It's like the sort of cretin who sits in a movie theater having a loud conversation to the 5th power on his cell phone.

Quite frankly, they all should have been kicked out for being disruptive long before Ajai Raj got arrested.... and, yes, he's the one who caused krikkit4 to blather on about what a police state we live in.

What did he do you ask? According to the police report, provided helpfully by the The Smoking Gun, Raj was arrested for disorderly conduct after he:

"(A)pproached the microphone and stated "so....what do you think about conservative men that all they do with there wives is f*ck them in the @ss." Raj then ran 30 yards from the microphone back up the aisle to his seat making a repeated motion with his right arm and hand, which was cupped in a circular shape, towards his crotch area simulating masturbation. The statement and the following act, intentionally committed by Raj at a public venue, incited an immediate breach of peace within the crowd."

Oh, how this liberal poster boy Ajai Raj was oppressed. Here he is in public, dropping "f-bombs" and pretending to masturbate in front of the audience -- that included children under 10 according to the police affidavit -- and they arrest him.

Don't those "faceless, inhumane, automata" understand that it's OK for liberals to be as obnoxious as they want in public because they're liberals? Who wants to live in a world where liberals can't shout through a lecture, run around pretending to masturbate, and generally ruin events for everybody else without suffering any consequences?

You would think that liberals in this country would have enough common decency and respect for the opinions of other people to condemn, not celebrate or wink at, this sort of behavior. Unfortunately, for the most part, that's sadly not the case.

*** Update #1 ***: Here are some more details about what happened from a liberal who attended the event and was disgusted with the behavior of the protestors. From the Daily Texan:

"It baffles me that the protest crowd has not realized how absurd they look when they do things like this. Questions last night were particularly wacky. The first guy decided to ask her a question loaded with rhetoric, and as she responded, blew a noise maker at her, walked away making farting noises and giving her the finger.

I had the pleasure of sitting across the aisle from a family and watched a mother putting her hands over her young daughter's ears."

Nice, real nice...

Companies that are unionized are too inefficient to compete with companies that aren't and liberals are generally hostile to successful businesses. Therefore, it's no surprise that both unions & liberals detest Wal-Mart.

It's tempting to simply ignore the kvetching about Wal-Mart because in the long run, consumers don't care all that much about the whining. It doesn't matter how many billboards or radio spots the unions run, American shoppers are interested in getting the most bang for their buck and if that's at Wal-Mart, that's where they'll go.

But the unspoken goal here isn't to influence consumers, it's to influence government to step in and punish Wal-Mart for being successful. That would make unions happy, because Wal-Mart would be made less competitive and there are few things class warfare loving liberals love better than sticking it to successful businesses.

So let's take a look at a few select excerpts from this piece in the New York Times:

"With most of Wal-Mart's workers earning less than $19,000 a year, a number of community groups and lawmakers have recently teamed up with labor unions in mounting an intensive campaign aimed at prodding Wal-Mart into paying its 1.3 million employees higher wages.

..."Wal-Mart should pay people at a minimum enough to go above the U.S. poverty line," said Andrew Grossman, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, the coalition of community, environmental and labor groups running the series of ads criticizing Wal-Mart. "A company this big and this wealthy has the ability to pay higher wages."

Excuse me, but in America, who the hell is Andrew Grossman, the New York Times, or anybody else to arbitrarily demand that Wal-Mart pay their employees enough money? They have no more business telling Wal-Mart what to pay their workers than you, me, or anyone else has telling the New York Times what they have to pay their reporters.

This isn't a Communist country where the wages are set by some bureaucrat or where people have to work where they're told. If you work for Wal-Mart & there's somewhere else out there where you can make more money, you're absolutely 100% free to try to get hired elsewhere. Nobody gets forced to work at Wal-Mart and no one is forced to stay there.

Which leads to an obvious question: if Wal-Mart employees are really so underpaid, how do they manage to attract and keep a staff? Moreover, explain this quote from the article:

"He said that if Wal-Mart were as greedy as its detractors say, it would never have attracted 8,000 job applicants for 525 places at a new store in Glendale, Ariz., or 3,000 applicants for 300 jobs in outlying Los Angeles."

Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who are interested in working at Wal-Mart, even at what they pay right now. So why in the world should they raise their salaries?

Here is what it really gets down to:

"Many of those assailing Wal-Mart argue that the company can, and should, pay its workers at least $2 more an hour and add $1 or $2 an hour beyond that to improve its health benefits. A Harvard Business School study found that Wal-Mart paid $3,500 a year for each employee for health care, while the typical American corporation paid $5,600.

But company executives dismiss such proposals, saying they would largely wipe out Wal-Mart's profit or its price advantage over competitors. Wal-Mart had a profit margin on sales last year around 3.5 percent. If "we raised prices substantially to fund above-market wages, as some critics urge," the company argued in a recent two-page ad in The New York Review of Books, "we'd betray our commitment to tens of millions of customers, many of whom struggle to make ends meet."

As someone who regularly shops at Wal-Mart, let me make something perfectly clear: Wal-mart is not a jobs program, it's a business -- a business that serves people just like me. While I certainly do not begrudge the people who work at Wal-Mart whatever salary they can get (As a matter of fact, my first position out of college in a soft job market was as a Wal-Mart portrait studio photographer), I'm not interested in paying extra money just to pad their pockets, to make liberals happy, or to make life easier for unions. Judging by the success of Wal-Mart as compared to some of their higher priced competitors, I'd say that most Americans agree with me.

Wal-Mart Stores today surrendered to pressure from labor unions to increase hourly pay for its workers, and began a new corporate campaign to emulate the historical success of the U.S. auto industry.

"Our union critics were right," said H. Lee Scott Jr., Wal-Mart's chief executive, "We have an obligation to behave like General Motors did in the 1960s. And we've come to believe that the discount retail industry is primed for a chain that pays high wages to create the perception of high value through high-priced products. In addition, our focus groups indicate that Wal-Mart customers yearn for the emotional payoff that comes from providing bigger paychecks to the folks in the blue vests."

As part of the reengineering of the company, Wal-Mart will change its slogan from 'Always Low Prices' to 'Always Union Wages'. Prices will be marked up throughout the store, and many products will receive stickers indicating their higher perceived value with words like 'deluxe,' 'grand' and 'limited edition'.

In the short-term, analysts said that investors can expect to see their $48/share Wal-Mart stock (WMT) "level out" around $3 and then begin its upward climb as the store reestablishes its brand identity as the place where Americans shop to provide higher-wage jobs for less fortunate Americans.

"The unions have helped us to understand that we've been looking at the retailing business backward for 50 years," the CEO said. "We mistakenly thought it was all about providing a good selection at the lowest prices so people would shop with us. But what customers really want is the good feeling they get by providing a higher living standard for cashiers, shelf stockers and people greeters. Clearly, our primary responsibility is to pay higher wages so that our workers can afford our subsequently higher prices, or at least be able to buy from other retailers that pay their employees less."

Mr. Scott painted a visionary picture of the new progressive Wal-Mart.

"When our typical shopper pushes her cart full of 'Deluxe Tide' and 'Limited Edition Pampers' out the door, she'll smile when she sees our Wal-Mart Associates' parking area filled with late-model GM trucks and SUVs. Ain't that America?"

Satire used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Orson Scott Card inexplicably disses Star Trek in the LA Times:

"The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few exceptions, bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be bad. Nimoy was the only charismatic actor in the cast and, ironically, he played the only character not allowed to register emotion.

Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by."

Star Trek? It was "primitive," it was "bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be bad." Which is why there were 5 Star Trek series, 9 movies, an animated series, countless books, and popular Star Trek conventions. If that's what failure looks like for a Sci-Fi TV show, then every Sci-Fi writer out there, Orson Scott Card included, probably go to bed every night and wake up every morning hoping to "fail" so completely.

Moreover, may I add that Card is waaayyyyy off base with his criticism of the characters being "exactly the same" over time. That's not a bug, it's a feature if you have good characters. In fact, most good Sci-Fi and Fantasy shows have non-changing characters and formulaic plots. Some of my faves have been:

Star Trek: The crew runs into danger of some sort, usually aliens. They defeat the danger, save the day and move on.

X-Files: Mulder & Scully run across some monster, alien, or weird conspiracy. They figure it out, but there's no proof they can show to the world.

Highlander: Duncan MacLeod is confronted by some highlander from his past. After a few flashbacks, Duncan cuts off his head.

Hercules and/or Xena Hercules and/or Xena run into some bad guys, Gods playing games with mortals, or monsters causing trouble. They whoop them and go on their merry way.

In fact, you want to know what killed most of those shows? X-Files, Xena, & Highlander at least? They broke the formula and tried to get more creative. Big mistake.

Also, you want to know why Star Trek: Enterprise never really took off? In my opinion, they weren't formulaic ENOUGH. The extensive, long running story line involving aliens who were attacking earth was a pain to keep up with if you didn't regularly watch the show. On the other hand, in the original Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, you could tune into an episode of Star Trek and be entertained and understand what was going on without having seen the previous five episodes. Star Trek: Enterprise really wasn't that kind of show and it suffered for it.

Last but not least, the whole idea that Sci-Fi & Fantasy has advanced past Star Trek is silly. Even if there is an admittedly fantastic show like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" out there where you have characters who grow and change over time, it doesn't mean that's the only thing that will work from this point on. Just take a look at the #1 show on television, CSI, where the characters don't grow or change anymore over time than James Kirk or Spock ever did. If it works for CSI, it'll work for Star Trek...if and when, they decide to do a 6th series.

"On lofty questions of policy, perhaps it isn't that the American people are for or against – but that they just don't care. Americans care more about Michael Jackson than judicial filibusters. They are more concerned with Paula Abdul than with the Pozen proposal for progressive indexing. And that is as it should be.

Currently, how it works is that if your side is losing 64% to 29% in a capriciously worded poll question, you're dead in the water. But what pollsters rarely ever ask is how much people care about the question they just answered. How relevant is it to their lives? Did they discuss something similar at the dinner table last night? When it comes to most policy issues, the organic level of interest outside the Beltway approaches zero. And guess what? An "overwhelming majority" of zero is still zero." -- Patrick Ruffini

A 13-year-old girl, who ran away from a government home and got pregnant, today received permission from the state of Florida to abort her 14-week-old child.

However, a spokesman for the state Department of Children and Families announced that because she broke the rules by running away, "this young lady is in big trouble and gets no TV for a whole week."

A Palm Beach County Circuit Court ruled that the teen was competent to make the decision to end the life of her child. But the judge refused to step in to lift the TV ban, dismissing her claims that the punishment could cause longterm emotional trauma.

"Running away from home is a serious infraction," the judge wrote. "Maybe if she misses a few of her favorite shows, she'll think twice next time."

An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped the girl secure the abortion, said the ACLU is still mulling whether to appeal the TV ban under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."

Satire used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon (though there are indications that they have left some intelligence assets in place), and now this news story indicates that Syria might be trying to extricate itself from the terrorist campaign in Iraq:

...Syria’s decision to re-establish ties [with Iraq] after 23 years of severance could be key to easing the insurgency in Iraq and boosting regional security, given Syria’s 310-mile (499-kilometer) shared border with Iraq and its strong ties with Iraq’s Sunni tribes, analysts said.

"If it weren’t for American pressure on Syria, I doubt the Syrians would have done such a gesture," he said.

I wanted to get that last bit in there just in case there's any liberal out there who's already working on a theory which has Syria taking action for some reason other than Bush Administration policy. The Arab/Moslem world is changing, and every last bit of it is directly attributable to our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.

In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.

Here's the list for April...

1) Lynrd Skynrd: Sweet Home Alabama
2) Beastie Boys: Sabotage
3) Eve 6: Beautiful Oblivion
4) The 5 6 7 8s: Woo-Hoo
4) Johnny Cash: Hurt
4) Papa Roach: Scars
7) Ash: Piece of Candy
7) Blink-182: All The Small Things
7) Collective Soul: Where the River Flows
7) Disturbed: Down with the Sickness
7) Green Day: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
7) Gwen Stefani: Rich Girl
7) Johnny Cash: When The Man Comes Around
7) Kiss: Lick it Up
7) Modest Mouse: Float On
7) Rob Zombie: Never Gonna Stop
7) Uncle Kracker: Follow Me

If you want to suggest some music that you think I should check out, feel free to post it in the comments section...

Ever so often in the mainsteam media, you'll run across a story written by a liberal reporter pondering the profound mystery of conservatives. What makes them tick? Why are they so uncivilized? Are they really taking orders from Rush Limbaugh? In short, conservatives are treated as these baffling creatures that are impossible for the "normal" person to understand.

Well, now that the Democrats have decided that it's important to attract more religious voters, they've begun the same process with Christians and it's really fascinating to watch liberals who are largely hostile to religious people try to figure out how they think.

Read some of the details from this story in the Washington Times and you'll see what I mean:

"The 58-year-old man stepped to the microphone and spoke like a zealous Christian anxious to learn about carrying the Gospel to nonbelievers.

"Instead of railing against the Christian right," he said, liberals should be "going out and talking to them and writing stories about your experience with them."

Is this really rocket science? Is it really so hard to figure out why someone who's religious might see Republicans as better representing their interests than Democrats who have these bizarre conspiracy theories about "dominionism" and "theocracies" -- and who have to be trotted out?

Let me just take a few moments to explain a few things to these puzzled liberals.

To begin with, if you think religious people are unsophisticated, gullible rubes and you're repulsed by them, it generally comes through loud and clear, whether you try to hide it or not. While there are a few of those type on the right, mostly libertarians, the overwhelming majority of them are on the left. Remember the "Jesusland" meme that the left was going on and on about right after the 2004 elections? People don't forget that sort of thing.

Furthermore, it's not enough to toss out a few religious verses at election time, when you go into a black church, or when you show up for a campaign stop down South. People have got to believe that you're the real deal, not just making a shallow political pitch. So if you're not a politician who has talked about religion enough to cheese off the anti-religious zealots (like Bush when he said Jesus was his favorite philosopher), you probably should shoot for that. It'll give you a little street cred and keep people from questioning your sincerity.

Last but not last, you can talk about Jesus all day, every day (Are you listening, Howard Dean?), but if you love the ACLU, think the Boy Scouts are a hate group, and support gay marriage, you're going to have trouble connecting with a lot of religious voters.

Summing it all up: If you want the support of religious voters, all you need to do is:

1) Like religious people.
2) Come across as genuinely religious, not as just using religion for political gain.
3) Support positions that are important to religious people.

Is that really so difficult to figure out?

Hat tip to Right Thinking Girl for the story.

"In addition to those with these liberal attitudes, there are some conservatives who think that we need workers from Mexico to do work that Americans will not do.

Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants -- "undocumented workers" -- are available to work for less.

Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer." -- Thomas Sowell

Remember this ridiculous radio billboard put up by Clear Channel?

When you see so many illegal immigrants in an area that a company feels a need to pander to them like this, you have a problem.

Which is why I liked this response from KFI 640 AM in LA:

Something Tom Tancredo said in an interview I did with him back in 2003 seems especially relevant in light of that first billboard:

Tom Tancredo: ...Does anybody really believe that the United States of America really can't control our own borders? Does anybody really think that? When people go, "Oh it's impossible," they're talking like we're a third world country. In fact, we will be if we keep this up.

I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all. That is the honest to God eventual outcome of this kind of massive immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism that permeates our society. ...The fact is, that won't occur in a legal way, it will occur in a de facto way.

John Hawkins: Because the numbers will be so great it won't make a difference?

Tom Tancredo: That's right. There are places right now in East LA & Southern Texas that you would not honestly -- there is absolutely nothing that you would say makes them part of the United States of America. They are a separate country -- it is (like a) separate country -- right now...

Every day, what Tancredo described slowly yet surely gets closer to becoming reality.

"I want to thank all of the bloggers who like my columns. Kathryn posted this earlier, but apparently I'm the second-favorite columnist among rightwing bloggers. Mark Steyn -- who I will obviously have eliminated by the end of the week -- came in first. Assuming I'm reading the numbers correctly, what's interesting and oddly gratifying is that while I'm not too many bloggers' favorite columnist I'm one of the favorites of a great many bloggers. In a sense you could say that makes my column sort of a vanilla product on the web. Few people claim vanilla is their favorite flavor, but even fewer people dislike vanilla. I choose to read this not as a statment that people think I'm bland but that there's a flattering consensus about my writing out there (albeit among the forces of villainy and cruelty according to the left). It's particularly nice to hear because hate mail in the last six months has been running high and if you use the blog search engines -- technorati, blogpulse etc -- to guage opinion about yours truly, you would have to conclude bloggers think I'm a biggoted moron. So, thanks folks. I'll buy you a few beers at Mark Steyn's Irish wake." -- Jonah Goldberg

If you're a right-of-center-columnist, today is the Grammys, Super Bowl, and Golden Globe awards all rolled into one. That's because Right Wing News has polled the right-of-center members of the blogosphere on who their favorite columnists are and today, everyone learns the results.

You can find out who the right side of the blogosphere believes are the best columnists in the business by clicking here.

From Damian Penny of Daimnation!:

"There's a new book out called South Park Conservatives, by City Journal editor Brian Anderson, which uses the long-running animated series to illustrate his argument that an increasingly media-savvy right is fighting back pop-culture's anti-conservative hostility.

It's an interesting thesis, and I've requested a review copy from the publisher - but is South Park really a conservative TV series?"

As someone who has put together two sets of South Park quotes (here & here) & who has seen every episode of South Park, the answer to that question, is...let me explain where I'm coming from first.

South Park isn't totally friendly to conservatives. It's vulgar, obscene, a bit deviant, and the show certainly doesn't bend over backwards to give Republicans a pat on the back. Moreover, South Park is generally (but not totally) hostile & dismissive of religion. So given that, what's the show's charm to conservatives? It can be summed up with one quote by Matt Stone, one of the co-creators of the show:

"I hate conservatives, but I really f*cking hate liberals."

And he does.

The show ruthlessly skewers liberals on a regular basis --- whether you're talking about environmental wackos, PETA, know-it-all celebrities, illegal immigration, hate crime laws, sexual harassment, the rain forest, feminists, vegetarians, you name it...

Which brings me back to something that self-described political moderate Ann Althouse once said:

"What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy, and don't even seem to notice all the times you've written posts that take their side.

Conservatives who like the show, myself included, tend to just shrug off the few things we disagree with and enjoy the humor and the vicious liberal bashing. Personally? I spent my high school and early college years listening to gangster rap by bands like 2 Live Crew, NWA, & the Ghetto Boys and I still listen to the Insane Clown Posse. So, I'm not offended by the lewd topics or bad language in the show. Furthermore, while I wish the show were friendlier to religion, I'm not a purist about it and I'm not going to write off South Park even if I don't agree with their take on the subject.

Which brings us to Damian's primary question: "(I)s South Park really a conservative TV series?"

I'd have to say that in a relative sense, yes, it is. Most television shows are made by liberals, have a generally liberal view of the world, and if and when they get political, they come at it from a liberal point of view. So when you have a show like South Park, that's generally hostile to liberalism, it stands out so much that's it's practically a conservative show by default...

Jerry Lembcke is a leftie revisionist who runs around claiming that no soldiers were ever spit on when they returned from Vietnam.

Since the Boston Globe recently saw fit to publish his ridiculous, easily refuted claims, I thought it would be a good time to blow him out of the water by again posting links to two posts I've done before on this subject:

The Myth Of The "Spitting Myth"
The Myth Of The Spitting Myth Part 2

Don't buy the hype, folks...

The New York Times' pet conservative David Brooks claims to have the inside scoop on a secret deal Harry Reid offered to break the judicial filibuster impasse:

"Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

But Frist should have grabbed Reid's offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode."

The filibuster of the President's judicial nominees is an unconstitutional practice that defies more than 200 years of Senate tradition and Brooks' whole rationale for letting them do it boils down to, "but they want it and they'll throw a fit if they don't get it?"

Well, what if the Democrats want to be heads of every committee in the Senate and they threaten to throw a tantrum if they don't get their way? What if they decide that Democrats should be allowed to pick all the members of the President's cabinet and they say they're going to go "nuclear" if Republicans say, "no?"

Should the GOP just roll over and expose their throats then, too?

The reality here is that the GOP is as close to 100% right on this issue and the Democrats are as close to 100% wrong as it's ever going to get. If the Republicans in the Senate don't have the guts to stand up for themselves on an issue as vitally important as judges, even when the Constitution and 200 years of Senate tradition are on their side, then I'm not sure they have what it takes to lead.

If Frist and Reid want to work out some sort of real compromise or even a face saving deal for Reid, that's fine with me. But any "compromise" that leaves the judicial filibuster intact is an enormous win for Democrats, not a compromise of any sort. Frist should keep that in mind and act accordingly...