No Runny Eggs

(H/T - Jim Hoft)

No, I’m not going to apologize for the language. This is some seriously fucked-up repugnant shit.

By a vote of 324-84, including the entire Wisconsin delegation in the aye column, the House of Representatives passed a law designed to do two things that will do everything but reduce gas prices:

- Allow anti-trust suits against OPEC.
- Demand the 932nd investigation into price-fixing by Big Oil.

I’ll briefly take the second item first. Because of the jackasses in Congress, including the fucktards in the Senate that refused to open up the Colorado oil shale fields, we’re at the extreme high end of the supply-demand curve. OF COURSE there’s going to be massive speculation when demand outstrips supply, and said speculation is going to leverage prices beyond what it would if there was a better balance between demand and supply. I will point out the 931 previous investigations all found that there was no collusion between the traders to keep the price high; what the fuck is gong to be different with the 932nd?

Berry Laker pretty much predicted the response of the market to this piece of horseshit. I missed the intraday charts, but oil closed at $133.17/barrel and wholesale reformulated gas closed at $3.3965/gallon. I’d say that’s a shot across the bow.

Now to the suing OPEC item. There’s a slight problem with that; they’re sovereign nations not subject to territorial law. When the Justice Department comes a-knocking, what do you suppose the reaction of Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC is going to be? If you think they’ll boost production just because a couple lawyers threatened them, I’ll point out that Saudi Arabia brushed off a friendly request from President Bush a couple weeks ago. When some judge decides to try to seize those countries’ assets in the US, what’s more likely; a capitulation from OPEC or a complete shutoff of the spigot and a “FUCK YOU!”? I’ll remind you that we’re more-dependent on OPEC now than we were the previous two times they shut off the spigot, and they shut it off for more-trivial reasons than all of them having their assets seized.

Then there’s the whole question of enforcement. If we’re serious about forcing the OPEC spigots open, it’s going to take a military operation that makes both theaters of WWII look like a training exercise. Talk about your blood for oil. Oh yeah, that’s going to cost a lot.

I do have to take a moment to ask Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner, two Congresscritters who usually know better, “What the fuck are you thinking by signing onto this smelly piece of shit?” There is nothing, I repeat, nothing that could possibly make this worth voting for.

(H/T - Bryan/HotAir Headlines, though since I’m only half-listening to Charlie today, I may have missed his take)

A year after the city of Milwaukee finally acquiesced and restarted calling the joint city/county Christmas Tree a Christmas Tree, Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) introduced a joint resolution to call the tree in the Capitol routunda the “Wisconsin State Christmas Tree”. That tree had been known as just that between 1916 until 1985, when the early hatchlings of political correctness renamed it a “holiday tree” (my memory’s hazy, as I was in high school then, but if it serves, ‘Rats ran all the branches of state government that year). In the interim, the Capitol has become a December playground as every religion, including the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, has displays there. The joint resolution is expected to fly through the Republican-controlled Assembly, but since the Democrats control the Senate, I doubt it will go anywhere. The takehome lines from the public hearing on the resolution yesterday direct from the linked AP article:

Snarlin’ Marlin Schneider (if you want an explanation for the “Snarlin’” tag, I’ll give it in the comments as it’s not exactly germaine in the post) - “I am here today to voice the ire and frustration of the majority of people of the state of Wisconsin who want their Christmas tree back in the state Capitol, not a politically correct holiday tree.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor from FFRF - “The state of Wisconsin cannot have a Christmas anything.”

Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc) - “(Holiday) means holy day, representative of Christmas, the holiest day in the Christian calendar.” (note to Joel, Christmas is #2 on the holy list behind Easter)

Schneider - “If it looks like a Christmas tree, and it smells like a Christmas tree and it’s decorated like a Christmas tree and it has presents under it like a Christmas tree, it’s a Christmas tree!” (emphasis in the original)

Ed Driscoll, who has the title of the year (”The Blogosphere Full Employment Act Of 2007, Part Deux”), delves into the target-rich environment of Gunga Dan Ra^THer’s lawsuit against C^BS. While Ed focuses on the admission that Ra^THer is Ted Baxter, let’s delve into another couple of paragraphs from the E! News story:

In the 32-page filing, Rather claims that (former CBS News president Andrew) Heyward pressed him to focus on the other stories he was working on at the time, such as Bill Clinton’s heart surgery and Hurricane Frances, rather than delve into the Bush story.

Rather, who along with Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw made up one of the most recognizable triumvirate of network news anchors in history, alleges that he served as little more than a glorified narrator for the Bush report and that it was CBS which forced him to issue a public apology on Sept. 20, 2004—”despite his own personal feelings that no public apology from him was warranted.”

If Ra^THer was little more than a glorified narrator on his, Mary Richards’, and Murray Slaughter’s personal vendetta against President Bush, why shouldn’t Heyward get him to focus on other stories? Morever, since Ra^THer is the public face of C^BS News, it is proper that he deliver the apology. If he didn’t want to do it, the door swings out as well as in.

(H/T - Dad29)

Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from VoteYesMarriage.com, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:

- In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.

- Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.

- In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.

- In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.

- In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.

Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.

On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:

1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
   to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?
3. Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
4. Should Family Code section 308.5 - which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” - be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.

Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) - There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.

To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”

Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) - Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) - “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”

In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.

Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) - No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.

In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.

Head on down to Michelle’s blog and take in the brilliance that is the army of Photoshoppers as we take on the DhimmiRATs’ elimination of protections for John Doe. Since this will in all likelyhood trigger a pingback, I don’t want to be empty-handed, and created a rotating sign.

Revisions/extensions (10:55 am 7/20/2007) - It was (as likely as I can determine) Justin Higgins at Right on the Right that created the graphic. Sorry about not passing along proper credit earlier.

(H/T - Michelle)

The Dhimms, including Wisconsin’s twin embarrassments, Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) and Nobody’s Senator, Herb Kohl, as well as Dhimm Presidential candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, voted to kill protections for John Does mere hours after the House killed it. The John Doe amendment was intended to protect those that report suspicious behavior from lawsuits such as the one filed by the infamous Flying Imams. In “honor” of this, CDR Salamander has created a new PSA poster

I have a message for them - I am STILL John Doe, and if your minions decide to pull any shit in my presence, I won’t just be informing on them and waiting for the police to do something.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (11:22 am 7/20/2007) - WisCon, commenting on Michelle’s thread, has el-Slimeroad’s initial statement on his support of the Islamokazis and lawyers:

I put in a request to WisCon to get a copy if he does.

I missed where Jeff Wagner (who needs to go through the 12-step lawyer-recovery program again) got this story, but I knew Allahpundit would come through as he always does. Sky News relays the story of one John Brandrick from Newquay, Cornwall, England. Two years ago, Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske diagnosed him with terminal pancreatic cancer with a 6- to 12-month life expectancy. So, he did what any self-worshiping moron would do in that situation; he quit his job, stopped paying his rent, and spent all his money.

Needless to say, they screwed up the diagnosis, and eventually determined (after he survived past a year) non-fatal pancreatitis. Now, like any good lieberal, he wants his many Pounds of flesh (side note; God bless the Brits for not signing onto the Euro). The money quote - “But if you haven’t got any money - it was my fault, I spent it all - they should pay something back.”

Unlike Jeff (and like Charlie’s producer, Joe Scialfa), I have absolutely, positively no sympathy for this idiot. Take a look at the money quote. Mr. Brandrick admitted that his current financial condition is all his fault. If I were a judge, I would read that part of the quote back to him as I dismissed the suit. It definitely is true that a fool and his money are soon parted.

That having been said, this illustrates a pair of big problems with socialized medicine. First, where would Mr. Brandrick have gone for a second (or third, or fourth) opinion, like any self-respecting American would? Another gubmint-run hospital, staffed with gubmint-employed doctors that would have made the same 3rd-rate “diagnosis”. Second, just how did they make that diagnosis? Geez, you would think they would have been bright enough to perform a biopsy after finding the tumor, but I’ll bet that step was taken out in the interests of gubmint-ordered “cost control”.

Harriet Miers, not-at-all-affectionately refered to on this blog as the Mushroom when President Bush floated her as a Supreme Court nominee, is leaving her post as White House Counsel as of January 31. According to Fox News the real reason for her resignation was the fact that Karl Rove is anticipating non-stop lawsuits from the ‘Rat-infested Congress, and Miers’ career as a civil litigator left her woefully unprepared in either the criminal law or separation-of-powers disciplines.

And this is the broad that Bush wanted us conservatives to swallow on the Supreme Court? Most of SCOTUS’ work is in those two disciplines.

This morning’s paper has the story of 2 guys who were awarded more than $385,000 from DaimlerChrysler for an oft-broken 2003 Dodge Viper, which went for about $80,000 new. Let’s review a few items from the story:

• The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by James Mortle of Muskego and Joe Kiriaki of Franklin over a muscle car they bought because of its performance prowess. - That’s all well and good, but this intent should have come back to haunt them, as their later actions will show.
• On Aug. 1, 2003, according to court records, 71 miles after the 500-mile break-in period, the differential broke for the first time. - I didn’t know break-in periods only last 500 miles nowadays. My 2004 Subaru Outback Sport had a break-in period of 1,000 miles.
• It was repaired, but just 13 days later, with the odometer reading 686 miles, the differential broke again, court records say. Over the next six months, the differential broke four more times, each time while being shifted from first to second gear at around 50 mph. - Now that is very odd, especially considering that Road and Track states that the maximum redline speed in first gear is 59 mph. Further, 50 mph in first gear would be roughly 5085 rpm on the engine, well below the peak of its power (500 hp at 5600 rpm).
• When the Viper was running like it was designed to, Mortle reached 122 mph in a quarter mile on a drag strip, he said. - That’s odd; R&T only got to 119 mph in the quarter-mile. I’m reasonably sure they ran the engine right up to the redline and the rev limiter to get that performance. They also tested the more-aerodynamic, lighter (3000 pounds curb weight vs 3390 pounds curb weight for the stock Viper), more-powerful (520 hp) Viper Competition Coupe wearing racing slicks, and that car only reached 122 mph in the quarter-mile. I strongly suspect that these two yahoos stopped off at the aftermarket performance shop and did some engine modifications (modifications that would tend to void warranties; I know Subaru would void my warranty if I were to apply some of the performance-enhancing parts out there).
• But after the differential broke for the sixth time, the manufacturer refused to cover any more repairs, records show. Mortle asked for a replacement Viper under the state’s lemon law, according to the lawsuit, but the manufacturer refused, contending that he and Kiriaki abused the car. - Frankly, I’m surprised that DaimlerChrysler waited until the 6th blown differential to suspect something. Taking a car out racing tends to void warranties; at least, it would void mine if I were crazy enough to take my car out racing. Further, doing bonzai quarter-mile runs at a speed an unmodified Viper is incapable of reaching just screams, “Car abuse!”

To wit, we have a pair of yahoos who pushed their car beyond its limit, almost certainly violated at least one part of their obligations under the warranty they had, and got a judge and jury to ignore that to give them one big payday. I sure hope the other car manufacturers were paying attention.