Down another penny

Gas in Lancaster is now down to an average of $2.87.

Heidi Wheaton: Ideas and Agendas

Visit the website Lancaster Values.

1. Protect life - born and unborn.

2. Defend traditional marriage.

3. Repeal slot machine gambling.

4. Fight higher taxes.

5. Control state spending.

6. End lawsuit abuse.

7. Reform the state legislature.

Now there's some great ideas!

Switching topics? What happened to gas?

Oh, that's right. It dropped another 2¢ to $2.88. So much for over $3.00 "by the time this column is published".

Turning Green

Gas down another two cents in Lancaster, Rush found "not guilty".

Uh oh. Gas prices dropped another two pennies to an average of $2.90. Now what?

Oh no! Rush not guilty?

Still waiting for gas prices to hit $3.00 in Lancaster

Yep, still waiting...

The price in Lancaster went down today 1­¢ to $2.92.

Get the best price on gas

This map is clickable if you follow this link. It will show you the exact location for the best price on gas.

Or you can also visit PennsylvaniaGasPrices.com.

Do I smell gas in here?

http://www.factsonfuel.org/gasoline/index.html
U.S. Pump Prices in Perspective, 1918-2005


Changes in the Price of Gasoline and Other Consumer Items Between 1982-84 and 2006

Misleading editorial - again.

Bloomberg article in question

The bit about Iran getting a bomb in 16 days is pretty much a gross exaggeration.

But with this administration, I suppose that goes without saying.

Iran is thought to have about 164 centrifuges in use right now. That same State Department official, down near the bottom of the Bloomberg story, notes “it would take a little over 13 years [emphasis added] to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon” with so few centrifuges.

And the U.S. intelligence community’s best and most recent estimate is that, why yes, Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon — in five to 10 years.

But as with Iraq, why should facts get in the way of scare-mongering?

Source

The SAME article:

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

"We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days[emphasis added]," he said.

In fact, Iran will move forward to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

One wonders how these paragraphs did not garner mention in respect to this article?

Media lie: 2,000 U.S. combat deaths in Iraq

To date, we are still not passed 2,000 U.S. combat deaths.



Click image to enlarge.

Remember the sh*tbag that tried to stuff the phony Downing Street Memo down our throats?

Source

Congressman Conyers (D-MI) Forced Staff to Baby-Sit

RUSH: Let me get on to this Conyers business, because if I don't I'm going to keep pushing it back and people are going to say I'm tricking them; I'm teasing them, when I'm not. "Two former staff members John Conyers (D-Michigan), said the long-time Detroit congressman made them baby-sit his children, run errands and work on political campaigns while they were on his congressional payroll." CNN has an investigative unit and they went after this. We first heard about this story and told you about it two months ago (The Hill), because you as a regular tuner-inner are the on the cutting edge of societal evolution. So the investigative correspondent is Drew Griffin. He did a story on Conyers the second most senior member of Congress, ranking member of the judiciary committee. Here is former legal advisor Sydney Rooks talking about her experience as Conyers' baby-sitter.



ROOKS: Several times he just brought them into my office and said, "I'll be back later." Later could be a few minutes; later could be hours; later could be frantically calling around trying to find him because it was now eight or nine o'clock or later in the evening, and not knowingly what to do with the children. It was common; it was ubiquitous, and it wasn't just me. I wasn't the only person who got stuck with the kids for the day. I wasn't the only person who had to take the boys to the bathroom, change a diaper, or anything like that. We would also take them to doctors appointments, other things, too. If they had to go; they had to go. Somebody had to take them -- and there was no reimbursement for gasoline or anything like that.

REPORTER: Did you feel like a servant, like a house servant?

ROOKS: Many times I, frankly, did, yes.

RUSH: Yes. Well, I'm not surprised -- and then the correspondent spoke to a former deputy chief of staff for Conyers. Her name is Deanna Maher, and she said this about baby-sitting his kids.

MAHER: He handed me the keys to his car and his house and said, "Take care of my child, Carl, and everything. Make sure." In other words, I had to stay at the house and take care of him -- and that was for several weeks.

RUSH: Now, this is not supposed to happen. They filed ethics complaints, these two women have, against Conyers. Now, this is really gutsy for CNN. I don't know what's happening over there, but their investigative correspondent caught up with Conyers on Capitol Hill to ask him about this, said to him, "Congressman Conyers, I'm Drew Griffin with CNN."



CONYERS: Hi, Drew! Hi!


GRIFFIN: I have been trying to meet you for several weeks now to discuss these allegations by your former staff members.

CONYERS: (grumbling)

GRIFFIN: Ethics violations.

CONYERS: Oh, just a minute, sir. I've -- I've been told not to discuss them because we haven't examined them, and I have an attorney.

GRIFFIN: Well, can I just ask you...?

CONYERS: No.

GRIFFIN: Have you have required your staff members to baby-sit your children?

CONYERS: No, no. Look...

GRIFFIN: Does that mean you did not?

CONYERS: May I say... I told you I could not discuss it.

GRIFFIN: I just asked a yes or no question.

CONYERS: Now, this is not fair.

GRIFFIN: Have you required your staff to baby-sit your children and at one point, baby-sit your children for six weeks?

CONYERS: Oh, come on!

RUSH: Now, you can see the reporter is a little timid doing this. It still wasn't the same as if it had been a Republican. But he still went after him, still went after Conyers. The House Ethics Committee does have the power to vote on starting an ethics investigation against members of Congress. In the case of Conyers it hasn't yet happened. "CNN made several attempts recently to reach Conyers to answer these allegations. Last week, he declined to answer questions about duties assigned to the staff. CNN also called his lawyer, Stanley Brand. Their calls were not returned. The employees say that they used congressional staff time to work on local elections in Michigan, including a campaign for Conyers' wife, Monica, who is the Detroit City Council's president pro tem."

This is interesting in that now that it's out there, it makes it even tougher for the Democrats to move forward with their "culture of corruption." I wondered. I saw this on their web page at CNN and I said, "This is two months old!" At least they followed it up. Nobody else (other than where it first appeared in The Hill, the Capitol Hill newspaper and this program) did it get discussed nationally. I mean, there might have been others, but in terms of the drive-by media, this is the first.



END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

(CNN: Congressman accused of using staff to baby-sit - Drew Griffin)
(The Hill: Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints)
(CNSNews.com: House Democrats Accused of Corruption, Too)

Yeti discovered?

Click Here

Get a sneak peek at Animal Planet's Jeff Corwin show titled "Realm of the Yeti" airing at 8 p.m. Saturday.

"On Saturday night, you will see Yeti." Source

So, same-sex marriage won't increase taxes, eh?

Source

States Ranked by Total Taxes and Per Capita Amount: 2005
(Amounts in thousands. Per capita amounts in dollars)
Total tax per capita

Rank	State	Amount
#1	Vermont	3,600.16
#2	Hawaii	3,477.93
#7	Massachussetts	2,815.23

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division
Created: March 29 2006
Last Revised: March 30 2006

---

They can dish it out but can't take it

Source


Dr. Sanity
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
Monday, November 21, 2005

THEY CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT CAN'T TAKE IT

I notice how all the democrats and their counterparts here have suddenly changed the rules again. For two years they have continually called the President and members of his administration liars, cheats and all sorts of names. That he "deliberately misled" this country into an unnecessary war. Their extreme wing has compared him to Hitler and proclaimed that the terrorists are better than he is. Bush is called an "incompetent bastard" and every possible vile name. America is referred to as a "terrorist state" and on and on. (Michelle Malkin has posted some interesting comments from the DU--for even more unbelievable vitriol you can check out her link--or you can just take my word for it that the people at the DU have slipped the bounds of earth and are well on their way to interstellar space).

Now, finally, when the Bush Administration is fighting back and calling them to account for what they have said and what they are saying--all of a sudden we start to hear the whining.

"We just want to debate..." "Are you calling us unpatriotic?" "How dare you refer to someone who makes cowardly statements as a coward?"

They can dish it out, but they can't take it. They question Republican motives all the time, but seem to be unable to tolerate their own motives being questioned.

You know. The usual bait and switch. They didn't mean it, after all, it seems (if the vote in the house on Murtha's proposal meant anything). You see, they want to have their cake and eat it too! They want to bash Bush as much as they like; undermine the war and the brave men and women who are fighting it; and they don't want you to question their motives. Or their patriotism.

Well I do. I question their motives. I question their patriotism. I question their integrity. I question their honor. I question their courage to stand up for what is right in the face of declining public support (due mainly to their efforts). I question their support for the troops. I even question their intelligence if they cling to the notion that somehow their unceasing public attacks and deliberate undermining of both the military and the commander in chief aren't enabling and encouraging the enemy,while putting our own soldiers in more jeopardy.

In fact, the only thing I don't question about them is their capacity for self-delusion.

I worry about their mental health. I really do.

Personally, I don't believe for a moment that they really want to debate the issues. What they want to do is more grandstanding and showboating to try to score even more points at the expense of our military and the Bush Administration. If you believe that they have any goodwill--except insofar as it will get them votes--then you have not been listening to them very carefully.

Just go check and see what Pelosi has been saying. Or Biden. Or (shudder) Kerry and his sidekick Edwards. If you think these are reasonable adults who will do what is right instead of what is expedient, then I also question the soundness of your own psychological health and maturity.

When the Democrats are capable of discussing their reservations about U.S. foreign policy without the accompanying media circuses and infantile grandstanding; and when they actually come up with alternative ideas or suggestions for how to win the war, instead of how to lose it--then, and only then will I take them seriously.

I am moderately irritated with the Republicans and the mistakes that have been made in Iraq and in the WOT. But, I am fed up beyond belief with the Democrats, who have been dragged kicking and screaming every single inch of the way into the realities of the 21st century.

If they cannot be bothered to do what is needed and to persevere to the end to defend this country and its national security interests, then I want nothing to do with them.

UPDATE: Here is yet another example of how intensely "patriotic" the folks on the left are. They never miss an opportunity to paint the soldiers defending our freedom as war criminals.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:46 PM

Washington Post: The Leak was good

Source

Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:

"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."

Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"

But as the Post notes: "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."

Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.

Direct lift? Plagiarism exposed?

Source

The wages of fundamentalism - For decades, "big science" - indeed any kind of science - has been led by the United States. There are warning signs, however, that American science is losing its edge, and may even have peaked. One reason is that as religious and political fundamentalism tighten their grip, they are beginning to sap America's intellectual vitality.

By contrast, the political turmoil that has broken out on the other side of the Atlantic shows that Europeans grasp how destructive fundamentalism can be.

According to a survey in Physical Review, reported in May 2004, the number of scientific papers published by West European authors had overtaken those by U.S. authors in 2003, whereas in 1983 there were three American authors for every West European. The percentage of patents granted to American scientists has been falling since 1980, from 60.2 percent of the world total to 51.8 percent. In 1989, America trained the same number of science and engineering PhDs as Britain, Germany and France put together; now the United States is 5 percent behind. The number of citations in science journals, hitherto led by American scientists, is now led by Europeans.

As battles have raged in Kansas and elsewhere in America over evolution and Genesis, reputable biologists have spoken up in favor of Darwin's theories, but who knows how many students have already been turned off biology by these skirmishes?

As a result of fundamentalist opposition, America is already falling behind in cloning and stem cell research, now led by South Korean, Italian and British scientists. In February the New Scientist reported a survey in which fully half the scientists working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said they had been pushed to alter or withdraw scientific findings for political reasons.

Compare with this.

To dispel the myths, let's look at the source's own charts.



As you can see, the U.S. is still contributing to over one half. (Much more than any other country listed on the chart.)

Here is a more accurate chart. Follow the link for a great table giving good figures.



Source: United States Patent and Trademark Office

With this one, you can see that Patents have been steadily rising.

It's important to consider that the United States remains #1 in Nobel Prizes. Source.

Also, South Korea's "breakthrough" in stem cell research was exposed as fraud.

In conclusion: "The sky is falling!, The sky is falling!"

Let's talk memos

Source

Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets

A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks.

Dated March 11, 2001, the Iraqi memo reads:

To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
The document is signed by Air Brigadier General Abdel Magid Hammot Ali.

While the big media has so far ignored the find, Captain's Quarters blogger Ed Morrissey notes:

"If this translation stands up to further scrutiny, it will provide a substantial answer to the question of Saddam's role in terrorism, both in general and specifically aimed at America.

"This memo will prove that Saddam had no intention of remaining neutralized in the region. He not only funded and encouraged terrorism, but he actively recruited terrorists from the ranks of his own military to carry out suicide attacks on American interests."

The Stokers

No kidding. Check here.

Our favorite "stoker" appears here. He's the one with his IQ printed on the back of his jersey.

Definition

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Bald-faced, Bold-faced, or Bare-faced lies?

Source:



One of Gil's favorite phrases to use (seen on at least two occasions), is "bald-faced lie". However, "Common Errors in English usage" by Paul Brians lists this as an error in English usage. It recommends using the word "barefaced".

Click here to see the entry.

A look at HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 177 Session of 2005

Source