Lunch, and a show too!

Nearly nude activists protest at KFC.

Fried Chicken and mostly naked women... it doesn't get much better than that.

The facts, according to PETA, are that KFC's suppliers mistreat to the point of torture the chickens that are eventually paired with mashed potatoes and biscuits ..."I just think it is key that people know the facts," said Powell, who became a vegetarian three years ago after researching the treatment of animals in the food chain. "From there they can make their own decision."

That decision, I suppose you are expecting, is to become a vegetarian, no doubt. But, I got news for you, those passing motorists aren't honking in support of the chickens.

A more disturbing facet of PETAs agenda is their targeting of children :

Members of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were outside a Lincoln (Wisconsin) Middle School giving away "Chicken Chumps" trading cards that warned against what they claimed were health hazards associated with chicken meat. The cards had characters such as "Cruel Kyle," "Tubby Tammy" and "Sickly Sally," each meant to illustrate the potential ill effects of eating the domestic fowl. A fourth card, "Feathered Friends," portrayed chickens as family birds that don't want to be eaten.

While I agree with PETAs right to protest, I find questionable there targeting of school children, on or near school property, with a message that is factually questionable. Chris Link, PETA campaign coordinator, said he hoped the information might convince students to become vegetarians. He contends all meat is packed with fat and cholesterol, which can lead to illnesses such as heart disease and obesity. Chickens are given antibiotics to plump them up faster, Link said. Gee, and I thought they were given antibiotics as a disease preventive... so remember, next time your sick, don't hit the antibiotics or you'll get fat.

Can't convince the parents? Start early with the children when they are assumed to be incapable of rational thought, they are after all the next generation of voters. Yet PETAs assumption that targeting children will advance their agenda seems to be backfiring, as students at the Lincoln school held their own counter-protest... It's tasty," said eighth-grader Colin, 14, whose sign read "I Love to Eat Chicken." "We can eat whatever we want, and PETA can think whatever they want," he said. Way to go Colin, seems you have the basic concept of American freedom down pat... Lincoln must be doing a good job with their Civics program.

Last time I checked, chicken (sans skin) was a viable low-fat, low-cholesterol meat with little to no antibiotics residue.

It's not about the chickens folks, it's about the meat! PETA doesn't really want you to stop eating chicken and start eating meat... they want you to join their vegan bandwagon of karmic bliss. An interesting read by the consumer freedom foundation regarding PETAs targeting of children can be found here:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/040817_petakids.pdf

While I am all for the humane treatment of animals, (wild, pets, and livestock), I find PETAs approach and tactics questionable and more disturbing than the mistreatment of chickens. They seem to eschew science and fact, whenever convenient, simply to further their own agenda and their targeting of children is reprehensible. In order to raise awareness for their cause, members of PETA have begun distributing "buckets of blood" to children outside KFC restaurants. By specifically targeting children with these buckets, which include fake bones, bloodied feathers and a rubber chicken, PETA has sunk to an all-time low. They have even sunk to the low of comparing food processing plants to the Nazi gas chambers:

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/petas-death-wish-when-fried-chicken-becomes-auschwitz/


To read PETAs message, go here: http://www.peta.org/

If we are not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

But on a more serious note, Humans are omnivores... not herbivores.

Bears, dogs, crows, people, and yes EVEN CHICKENS ARE OMNIVORES!

SAVE THE WORMS!!!

~Finntann~

The Worst in Politics

Steven Ybarra, democratic super-delegate has offered his vote...for $20 million.

http://cbs13.com/local/Superdelegate.Vote.Ybarra.2.718616.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyFKKPMWWE3914VCwkVV7XndqacgD90H0F203

Ostensibly, he wishes to use the money to register and educate Mexican-American voters.

This has got to be the most disgusting behavior I have seen yet, I am totally and utterly appalled. This man belongs in jail for he is the epitome of corruption...and if his behavior under federal and state law is not illegal, it ought to be.

You might argue that his motives are just and he is not seeking personal gain...but is he? Undoubtedly, as a Democratic super-delegate, his intent is to register and educate these Mexican-American voters to be good democratic party voters. I seriously doubt he is out there registering voters for the Republican party. In the end, is his intent not to get another 1.3 million (his figure not mine) democratic voters out there for the presidential election? Is his personal gain not getting his party into office? Welcome to the new Tammany Hall!

This is the perfect illustration of the 'rot' in American politics, and the perfect reason to get rid of super-delegates. What is a super-delegate after all? Whatever happened to 1 man 1 vote? Now the political elite of both parties are given undue influence in our government as a form of political patronage. It is estimated that right now, the vote of a super-delegate is worth the vote of 10,000 of the common man. Is this what we fought a revolution for? This disgusting subversion of our democratic ideals?

This is behavior worthy of the backroom political machinations of the Kremlin, not the world's bastion of democracy. I for one am outraged and utterly ashamed, as an American, of this despicable and abhorrent political intrigue.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, unless you kiss enough posteriors in your political party in which case we'll make you a super-delegate.

~Outraged~

The Pendulum Swings Left & Right

Does Labour's worst local election results in forty years indicate a swing to the right? Dropping to only a projected 24% share of the national vote now places Labour in third, behind the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Labor suffered a loss of 331 seats in local elections in England and Wales.

The question then becomes, is this any indication of where the general American election will go?

An interesting idea to contemplate is whether or not the general population is voting based on principle, or whether simply in a reactionary fashion. Labour, in power in the UK, suffers a significant loss... is this due to the abandonment of Labour's principles by the population at large, or simply due to the current state of dissatisfaction with the economy, taxes, bank-bailouts, and immigration problems. Could it be that these same issues will prompt a shift to the right in the UK while simultaneously causing a shift to the left in the US? Are we voting for principles? Or against the incumbents?

We define ourselves as Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Authoritarian... but how much difference is there between parties as opposed to candidates? An interesting take on this can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Take the test if you care to see how they rate you, but more specifically, check out their ratings of the US Primaries... in which 16 of 19 recognized candidates are firmly in the Authoritarian Right block. (Not sure what to think of their methodology, as they placed me, close to the cross-hairs (Centrist?) in the Libertarian Right quadrant).

Is this clustering to the Authoritarian Right indicative of anything other than our common American and/or Western values? World-wide the majority of political figures wind up in this same quadrant. An interesting point to note, is that in playing around with the compass test I had to go to (what I consider) extremes to push my score to the outside edges, which is either indicative of a centrist bias on the test, or a personal centrist bias... I'm not sure which (lol).

I would be curious to know if the candidates positions on the chart are a result of participation, or an analysis by others... and if by analysis, how much reliability can we place in the assessment.

~Finntann~

Good Money Bad Politics

The 110th Congress of the United States has been seated since Jan 3rd, 2007, our esteemed congress members are paid $169,300 a year for their efforts and labors. Now we all understand that there is a presidential race going on, but here are some interesting statistics.

John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.

Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3

Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6

Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.

One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:

John McCain $129,600

Barack Obama $88,425

Hillary Clinton $65,250

I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.

Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.

Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes

Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.

Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.

Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)

In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:

John McCain missed only 9% of the votes

Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes

Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.

But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.

Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.

Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.

Good sources of data for voting records are:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:

Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N

~Finntann~

Small towns, Guns, and Religion: What's the problem?

What's the problem? The problem isn't that the response from both sides of the democratic campaign is patronizing and demeaning, the problem is that the issue, for the most part, is completely irrelevant. It is a distraction from the issues at hand.

We are debating not over the loss of American jobs, the flight of industry overseas and the loss of our manufacturing base, but are debating semantics. We argue over the sound bite and whether or not the remarks were 'elitist', we argue over the choice of words 'bitter' and 'cling'.

Recognize this for what is is... a distraction, the opportunistic politics of the circling shark sensing blood in the water, and we are in a frenzy.

I listened to Obama's speech, there is a longer excerpt than what I had previously seen available on Huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

as well as a the full 51 minute recording, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html

What I found most striking was that this was not the well rehearsed and eloquent speaker I had heard in the more widely televised speeches, but seemed far more off the cuff, with Obama struggling for the appropriate words or phrase to convey his thoughts.

I found other portions of the speech far more disconcerting than the "bitter and clinging" parts... specifically his comment that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

It gives me pause, and causes me to wonder if he has an accurate self-assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.

Focus on the issues, not the sound bites. The issue is not whether or not a particular candidate is elitist or demeaning, they all are, these are not the issues that will make or break America. The issues are not a stark black and white, good and evil, although many try and make them out to be so. The issue is which candidate has the best overall platform, that in its totality will be best for the country.

And that, I will leave to you to decide.

~Finntann~

Washington's Farewell

Washington's farewell address was written to the American people and appeared in newspapers in 1796, although it existed in draft form as early as 1792. Americans, not Washington gave it the title "Farewell Address". Paragraphs 20-25 are a warning on the dangers of political parties, the entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.

Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.

Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!

Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.

Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.

~Finntann~

Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.

I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":

http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5

A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.

And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!