Light Bulb Ban for California: Because You Can't Smoke Cigarettes If You Can't See 'Em

The world is going mad about the speculative-at-best “science” of man-made global warming — simply nuts. And nowhere is this happening more than in California, which is weaving itself into a cuckoo’s nest to such a degree that the only way to save The Golden State now would be to crop-dust it with Thorazine.

Recent “news” stories inform us that we might as well kill ourselves now, as our future holds nothing but misery, so one state is taking drastic steps.

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.” The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012. They say it’s to save the planet, but I think it’s only so any smokers slipping through the cracks of all the smoking bans can’t see their cigarettes.

California is also leading the nation in the ranks of states who are trying to ban trans fats and SUV’s so people don’t hurt anybody by wrecking the planet and suffering heart attacks while driving to the abortion clinic.

“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?” isn’t to be confused with “How many legislators does it take to screw in a light bulb?” The answer to the latter being, “Depends on how many legislators the light bulb can hold.”

It’s somewhat comical that California lawmakers are concentrating on hamburgers, cigarettes and light bulbs when the real environmental culprits are right there on their television sets and in the movie theaters.

According to a UCLA study, Hollywood pollutes, big time – second only to the petroleum industry. Producing just a couple more movies about the environmental evils of big industry is sure to push Hollywood into the top spot.

As one example, consider the makers of the global-warming film “The Day After Tomorrow,” who had the foresight to help ensure there would be an opportunity for a sequel, because it’s reported that they spewed out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. The UCLA report found that the film and television industry emits 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.

Leave it to Hollywood to spend a fortune and destroy the environment in order to generate fake earthquakes and fires when, right behind them, are actual earthquakes and fires.

If the government was really concerned about the environment, they’d address the apparent environmental rapists in Hollywood — but, like most things, this isn’t about what it would appear to be on the surface. It’s not about light bulbs — it’s about control. That and perhaps big campaign donations from the energy-saving fluorescent light manufacturers lobby.

I have no problem with energy-saving measures, but liberals are now throwing around the word “ban” like baseballs during spring training. The word “ban” is really in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? This is why it’s so dangerous.

It’s a case study in irony. If you say you want to ban trans fats, SUVs, smoking, spanking, and light bulbs; the left lionizes you as a hero. If you say you want to ban books on homosexuality from your kid’s elementary school library, you’re a Nazi scumbag. Most “bans” are best left to totalitarian regimes, which apparently the left is hell-bent on creating in the United States.

The first “pollutant” we need to ban are buffoons in government, but that won’t happen anytime soon, as the “what to ban” docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at

U.S. Over-reacting In Response to 9/11?

Some of my friends on the right are shaking their heads at Johns Hopkins history professor and New Republic contributing editor David Bell’s column Sunday in the L.A. Times. In the essay, Bell spells out why he believes that the United States is reacting too harshly to a 9/11 that was, to Bell’s way of reasoning, not that big a deal — in a historical sense.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

Let me propose a slight variation of this opener: Imagine that on 9/11, thousands of people were killed in an attack on Johns Hopkins University.

If the above sentence were fact, do you think the rest of that “we’re over-reacting, historically speaking” column would have ever been written?

Bell closes the column with something that really confused me:

…the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Wow. You see sitting ducks sometimes, but not many will walk up and stick their bill in the barrel of your shot-gun.

Though half of that final paragraph could have been written by George W. Bush, the other half is baffling.

“Has not been much of a war after all”? Isn’t this guy from the same philosophical bunch that has military “death-counts” on their websites and announced from the hilltops the death of our 3,000th soldier in Iraq as if it were Iwo Jima II? I guess it’s “not much of a war” from a desk in the Johns Hopkins nerdery, but for our people who are there, they describe it differently.

But Bell also is admitting that this “war” (or “scrum” or whatever he thinks it is) is necessary, it’s just that we’re being a tad too aggressive – in essence running with scissors and not waiting the full 30 minutes after a meal before jumping in the water.

The problem with liberals is that they think there’s a Nerf version of everything.

Update: The author explains on his website what he really meant.

John Kerry: National Pariah, International Embarrassment

Senator John “botched joke” Kerry, who has himself become a sort of national pariah — at least if you’re a member of the military or have properly functioning neurons – is the winner of this week’s “Jimmy Carter Award” for doing what liberals do best: going overseas to knock the United States and tap dance for some of the world’s biggest America bashers and sponsors of terrorism.

At the annual “World Economic Forum” in Switzerland (anti-greed world leaders like to be near their money on occasion) Kerry called the U.S. an “international pariah.” Ironically, this happened at almost the exact same time that fellow insulter of Vietnam veterans, Jane Fonda, was in D.C. speaking at her first anti-war rally in 34 years.

Was this simply an anti-Bush statement and not intended as an insult to all Americans? No. It’s your fault!

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

We also have the “unfortunate habit” of electing elitist, leftist pinheads. “Through and American lens”? Well, I’ve tried looking through John Kerry’s lens, but Vineyard security keeps stopping me before I can get in the house.

What global suck-ups like Kerry never understand is that, in most cultures, the despots or “enemy” you’re brown-nosing and appeasing do not look higher upon an individual who sells out their own nation, whether merely verbally or literally — especially when that person is one of the most powerful senators in said pariah.

People like John Kerry are constantly seeking acceptance, and the less they get it here, the more they look for it there.

I have no hard data to support this, but I can almost guarantee you that the people who Kerry tries to appease with his anti-U.S. rhetoric, while appreciating his selling out of his own country, don’t respect him in the least. Relationships with turncoats are sort of like being married to somebody who cheated on their former spouse: they did it once, and in the back of your mind you know they could do it again, even if they now claim that “you’re the only one for me!” Next thing you know they’re in the vegetable patch bangin’ the gardener.

This is why there cannot possibly be any respect for John Kerry in either direction: To both sides involved, Kerry is more valuable as a member of the other team.

“Traitor” isn’t a dirty word. At some point it went out of style here in the United States, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t exist. They’re not called “traitors” anymore, but rather “enlightened,” “progressive,” or “open minded,” but the end result is the same. The inherent punishment, however, in being a traitor, is that once you begin playing both ends against the middle, nobody likes you. John Kerry’s finding that out.

Let us not forget that Benedict Arnold died a man without a country. So would John Kerry, if his wife didn’t already own so much of the United States.

Most amazing are the people in Massachusetts who keep voting for the man who bounces around the globe calling them myopic morons and outcast boobs. Come to think of it, maybe Kerry’s right.

Above we see one of the main reasons terrorists are so encouraged — along with some other guy in a turban.

John Kerry signs and autograph for the former president of one of the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism, Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami of Iran. “Khat-man, stay as sweet as you are. Have a bitchin’ summer!”


Recent posts: U.S. over-reacting to 9/11?Air America Sold For a Hybrid Car, Tofu Burger, and a Birkenstock To Be Named Later — Jane: Stop this crazy thing!


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at

The Star Mangled Banner: “Hillary Rodham Clin-tone Deaf” Rocks Iowa

Well, it’s taken years, but Hillary Clinton finally has something in common with me. Neither of us can sing. Will it be enough to get my vote? I seriously doubt it, but at least she’s trying.

There’s something in the air in Iowa. This kind of thing isn’t new there. Candidates who are rookies at presidential races really need to be educated on the Howard Dean model: Those open microphones can only lead to embarrassment. Hillary hasn’t learned that yet.

Here’s the New York Senator and presidential hopeful in Iowa over the weekend, impressing voters in the Hawkeye state with her golden pipes. I’m not sure she could find a note even with the help of Onstar and Mapquest.

If you listen closely, toward the end, you can hear Helen Keller’s pleas of “knock it off!” from beyond the grave:


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at Doug

The Star Mangled Banner: "Hillary Rodham Clin-tone Deaf" Rocks Iowa

Well, it’s taken years, but Hillary Clinton finally has something in common with me. Neither of us can sing. Will it be enough to get my vote? I seriously doubt it, but at least she’s trying.

There’s something in the air in Iowa. This kind of thing isn’t new there. Candidates who are rookies at presidential races really need to be educated on the Howard Dean model: Those open microphones can only lead to embarrassment. Hillary hasn’t learned that yet.

Here’s the New York Senator and presidential hopeful in Iowa over the weekend, impressing voters in the Hawkeye state with her golden pipes. I’m not sure she could find a note even with the help of Onstar and Mapquest.

If you listen closely, toward the end, you can hear Helen Keller’s pleas of “knock it off!” from beyond the grave:


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at Doug

Jane: Stop This Crazy Thing!

A girl is born the daughter of a rich and famous actor. The story, all too often, goes downhill from there. Jane Fonda’s story doesn’t really go downhill, but spins sideways, where it loses control, careens into a guardrail, flips, makes exercise videos and comes to rest for a time in Ted Turner’s bank account.

Jane Fonda spoke at an anti-war rally for the first time in 34 years yesterday, urging Americans to join her in the call to end the war in Viet…er, Iraq.

Fonda is perhaps the most controversial character ever produced by Hollywood — an activist whose prattle has been so taken to task that she makes Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Ed Asner, et al, pale in comparison.

She has been called everything from a hero, to a traitor, to a communist. Is or was Jane Fonda a communist? If she is, the definition of “communist” must be found in the same dictionary of life that has allowed her to get breast implants and a facelift and still, somehow, be defined as a “feminist.”

This isn’t a rare occurrence by any stretch, especially considering who were and are Fonda’s contemporaries. Prevailing Hollywood mindset leads celluloid-sniffing activists to believe they can also perform plastic surgery on their political views, being one way while appearing another — it’s radical leftism with the lines and wrinkles of personal lifestyle and greed surgically removed for the sake of outward appearances. Unfortunately for them, it’s also painfully obvious.

Much of Hollywood, Fonda included, falls into this category. They won’t admit it, but most of the Tinseltown anti-establishment, pro-socialist sect are, in fact, capitalist to the point where they make Carnegie, Mellon and Gates look like free-range Marxist hippies.

The story about yesterday’s DC protest says that Jane Fonda has “apologized” for going to Vietnam in the early ’70s to buddy up to the North Vietnamese, broadcast on their radio, and say American POW’s were being treated humanely — among other traitorous activities. Fonda has apologized in the past, such as in an interview with Barbara Walters in 1988, for the effects of her actions on U.S. troops — but then always goes on to explain that her cause was just. Anti-war activist apologies to U.S. troops often end up sounding insulting and illogical, like drunk drivers telling their victims they’re very sorry for the accident, but still dig drinking.

An example of one of Fonda’s “apologies” came in a “60 Minutes” interview last year with Leslie Stahl. Fonda offered a roundabout regret, but no apology. Fonda called the day she lounged around on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun “the largest lapse in judgment that I can even imagine” — and this is from the woman who agreed to make “Barbarella,” so that’s saying something.

Fonda is just one in a long line of those who claim to “support the troops, but not the war.” There hasn’t been a bigger pile of yellow excrement since the day after my dog ate two dozen Marshmallow Peeps. To some degree, however, this is an accurate statement. For example, during the Vietnam war, it’s clear that Fonda supported the troops. Not ours, but still…

Fonda was joined at yesterday’s “we love the troops and want them home” rally by a group called Code Pink, members of which are known for hanging around the Walter Reed Army Hospital, which houses many wounded soldiers, and waving signs such as “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.” This sounds like a bunch of people who obviously respect the soldiers, doesn’t it?

Jane Fonda hasn’t spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years, so I hope she got all that pent-up anger out of her system for another 34 years. By then, Fonda will be 103, but there may be another war at which she’ll need to publicly cringe — well, not cringe at the war so much as that flashing the “peace” sign is terribly painful with arthritis.


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at

The Stars Align: Al Gore, Democrat Nominee

At this moment, there are three declared candidates who are considered “front-runners” for the Democrats’ nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. That rattling sound you hear are DNC nerves.

It isn’t looking good for Hillary. Though polls show her as the early favorite, Hillary is sitting on so many fences that eventually she’ll succumb to splinter-shock. Her past as a radical leftist is bound to be dug up time and time again and used in comparison to her more recent “softer” statements, and Hillary will be forced to do more dancing than Ginger Rogers standing on a downed power line. A tamer and more moderate (read: fake) Hillary Clinton is also bound to anger the Democrat base, and Hollywood is already beginning to shift their support away from Queen Cartpetbagger. Why? Hillary’s support of the war in Iraq and the softening of her position on abortion are only two reasons.

Hillary may well founder, which leaves us with the man in the on-deck circle, Barack Obama. With only two years’ national experience, Obama will ultimately be chewed up and spit out like a dog pill poorly hidden in a hunk of Fido’s cheese. Some say Obama smoking cigarettes and having the middle name “Hussein” will be a big deal, but these two facts will offset each other. How so? Engaging in the promotion of America’s biggest killer will give chills to liberals, but this will be balanced out by sharing a name with an innocent victim of George W. Bush who didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

As for announced candidate number three, when voters hear “John Edwards,” he’ll be closely associated with John Kerry, and most Democrat primary voters will rightly think “been there, done that.” Clearing forest like a lumber company to build a home isn’t bound to go over well with the tree-huggers, either. Listening to one of the reasons that health care is so expensive complaining about the cost of health care may not add up for some of the more astute Democrat voters.

And then there’s the undeclared Al Gore, who remains a hero to the Democrat base. After all, Gore’s the only high-profile Democrat with experience at winning a presidential election, isn’t he? Gore’s winning of the overall popular vote but yet losing the White House continues to chap Dem behinds, and many would love to give Al another shot.

Couple that with the fact that Al may win an Academy Award this year, and Gore looks like the man to beat in ’08. Gore’s global warming film “An inconvenient truth” got two Oscar nominations. In late February, the Gore-loving, global warming fearing Hollywood glitterati will jump in their three-mile-per-gallon limos and head for the red carpet, some after burning tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel on their private planes, to back Gore in his quest to save the planet and root for the film to emerge victorious, not to mention urge him to run for president.

It’s been a long road back for Gore since his 2000 heart-break. Ever since, though, Gore’s been rebuilding himself via his environmental work. There’s are good reasons Gore often says that the most serious threat to the world isn’t terrorism, but rather global warming: Gore hasn’t made an Oscar nominated movie or written a book about terrorism.

There’s one way to tell if global warming is actually a greater threat than terrorism. If we start seeing Al Qaeda switching from car bombs and hijackings to aerosol hairspray and leaving an SUV running instead of blowing it up, then we’ll know.

The Democrat nomination is Al Gore’s for the taking. Sure, there will be questions, such as why global warming wasn’t such a big deal for the eight years Gore was actually in a position to do something about it, but this is but a minor point considering that the Democrats are nervous at having three “firsts” on their candidate list: A woman, a black man, and an ambulance chaser. If they ever all walk into a bar, there’s a hell of a joke there.

Al Gore offers the Democrats a way out. Gore is tested, high profile, loved by Hollywood, and he’s the only candidate who has experience winning a presidential election — or so they’ll tell us. He’s the “safest” bet at this point, and who else can be billed as most capable of actually saving the planet? I predict not only do the Democrat suits convince Gore to run, but that they even convince him to wear a cape on the campaign trail.

The stars are aligned perfectly for Al Gore to get the nomination.


Recent blog posts: Global warming, and Alec Baldwin, take the weekend offJohn Edwards’ new environmentally unfriendly home


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at

Stop the Presses!

Two items have rocked the political world today.

1) Rosie O’Donnell has called for the impeachment of the president. Watch it, Rosie. If you keep going around talking about how much you can’t stand Bush, you’re going to get kicked out of the Lesbian union.

2) Elizabeth Taylor has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. This could cost Hillary the votes of Taylor’s ex-husbands, which might be enough to shift the election in the direction of the Republicans.

As a side note, have you ever seen Tayor’s “White Diamonds” commercial? When Liz throws down something and says “these have always brought me luck,” I thought for sure they’d turn out to be camera lens filters.


Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at