The National College Republicans came up with an idea to comment on the whole "global warming" scare and have a little fun in the process.

"Freeze out cataclysmic environmental scare tactics with a little humor. The Oklahoma University College Republicans gave out free snow cones to students for an event they called "Global Cooling Day."

Stage an event like this one to grab the attention of your campus and raise awareness on the real facts of the global warming phenomenon. Engage with students and debunk some of the myths and cool the hyperbole surrounding the issue.

OU CRs simultaneously used the event to promote their first meeting, sign-up members, and sell CR shirts. A tent and tables were set up at the busiest spot on campus, and OU CRs gave away nearly 1,000 snow cones each day.

Prior to your "Global Cooling Day" event, arm your College Republican chapter with solid talking points on the issue, and then kick-back and enjoy the sun. The facts are on your side...

...Consider staging a similar event on your campus--but make it a beach party instead. Kiddie pools, sand, bikinis--you get the idea."

"As more and more experts continue to confirm the harmful effects of global warming, the College Republican National Committee is urging its membership to mock the threat by throwing beach parties this summer. The College Republicans actions demonstrate the misplaced priorities and short-sightedness of the future of the Republican Party, according to the Democratic National Committee. As College Democrats continue to fight for issues that young Americans care about like an affordable college education, Republicans continue to push their out of touch agenda.

"The College Republicans' beach parties mocking global warming are just another example of the misplaced priorities and short- sightedness of the Republican Party," said College Democrats of America President Grant Woodard. "The College Republicans' ignorance toward the seriousness of global warming and climate change shows a Party more focused on partying than talking seriously about the issues facing young people across America. While College Republicans party on this summer, College Democrats will be knocking on doors, working to get Democrats elected nationwide. With young leadership like this, Republicans should prepare to get burned in the upcoming elections."

Who do you think will have the edge in influencing the youth vote? Hmmm.

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Just as a heads up for anyone in CT who cares to show their support for Joe Lieberman, MoveOn.org is sponsoring a rally on Thursday June 8th at noon.

Where: Omni Hotel, 155 Temple Street, New Haven, CT 06510 (Handicap Accessible)

Good thing they pointed out that it was handicap accessible, I'm sure they're going to need it for many of the attendees.

Apparently, they're providing signs. Here's the link announcing it: http://political.moveon.org/rsvp/lamontrally/index.html

Anyone in the area interested in doing a little photo shoot of the event on their lunch hour can email me photos and I'll post them. Should be interesting.

UPDATE - 8/8/06:
Seems this post got a particularly prolific blog commenter (and proprietor of dumpjoe.com), CT Keith, a little bent out of shape. He wanted me to be aware of his spinal surgery scheduled for the day of the rally. Well, I'm glad to say that the surgery must have gone particularly well. Because it looks like Keith is fit as a fiddle and back on his feet as of August 2.

Also, he seems to have retained enough vigor to go stumping for Ned Lamont (as we can see on this video). I'm not expert on what the usual recovery period for major spinal surgery usually is (especially where you're having a disc removal and a spinal fusion) but this procedure boasts a recovery period of only three months compared to other spinal fusion procedures where the recovery period is six to nine months. So CT Keith must have found the best doctors in CT, being as his surgery was only two months ago.

Congrats Keith! Hope your doing well.

Posted by: Gary at 06:12 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I just wanted to let you know I can't attend as I will be in the hospial having surgery on my spine.If I wasn't scheduled for Surgey I would be there and the Handicap Accessibility makes that easier for me. You may believe being handicapped is something to be made fun of or makes someone unworthy to have an opinion or to vote but I promise you thats not the case. Be careful when you write.It's just as easy to show you're stupidity as your inteligence.

Posted by: ctkeith at June 07, 2006 08:10 AM (D7u00)

2 This may come as no surprise Keith, but somehow I'm skeptical that you really have "Surgey" scheduled in the "hospial" tomorrow. Before you comment on someone's "inteligence", I suggest you invest in a dictionary. Or are you dyslexic too?

Posted by: Gary at June 07, 2006 08:41 AM (QoxB+)

3 Believe what you want. I'm having the disc removed between L3 and L4 and my spine fused tommorrow morning.I had a total hip replacement on Oct 1 of last year and although I'm doing better Stairs are something I can't handle well yet. The Idea that you would equate being Handicapped with being what you consider stupid shows that you and your site are only trying to play to the knuckledragging Neanderthal portion of the Republican party.Although this portion is rather large in other states CT. voters reject you clowns at every opportunity they get.

Posted by: ctkeith at June 07, 2006 09:57 AM (D7u00)

4 Don't you go making fun of neanderthals. they have feelings too.

Posted by: Gary at June 07, 2006 10:16 AM (QoxB+)

5 I believe apologizing for the ignorance you displayed in this diary is probably your best course of action now. Of course I don't expect you will.Just Like Joe Lieberman and George W Bush you believe on Wendsday what you Believed on Monday and anything that happened on Tuesday that proved your assertions on Monday were wrong be dammed. By the way,Reagan was wrong.Greed isn't good.

Posted by: ctkeith at June 07, 2006 10:46 AM (D7u00)

6 Ronald Reagan didn't say "Greed is good", Michael Douglas said it in "Wall Street". Try to get fantasy and reality straight. And BTW, Wednesday is not spelled "W-E-N-D-S-D-A-Y". Seriously, dude. Go out and buy that dictionary.

Posted by: Gary at June 07, 2006 11:27 AM (QoxB+)

7 I had the decency not to delete his lame comments. If there's one thing I will not tolerate it's a total stranger lecturing me on what I write on my own website. Keith's physical problems may be real. Or he could also have completely made it up. Regardless, his attempt to extract some kind of apology from me on the premise that I'm supposed to feel guilty about what I wrote in that particular post is laughable. Both of you need to learn that no one owes you an apology because you get all bent out shape about something they say or do. That's your problem, not mine. If you don't like it, move along.

Posted by: Gary at June 07, 2006 03:09 PM (PLHs9)

8 Hope it's OK to make comments that are actually on topic here - I'm trying to understand why you want Lieberman supporters to attend an event celebrating the endorsement of Ned Lamont by two major Democratic organizations? Are you trying to organize some sort of protest? If so, then please say that so that your readers will understand your purpose. I'm sure that any protesters will be treated with the respect deserved by people that choose to exercise their democratic rights. However, given the total lack of a pro-Lieberman grassroots movement, I wouldn't expect anyone to show up for your little protest. Unless, perhaps the campaign wants to send some of the well paid Lierber-Youth on the staff. BTW - I know ctkeith quite well. He suffered a major injury as an employee of the the City of Branford and he is indeed scheduled for surgery this week. Your remarks about handicapped people are insensitive and detract from any credibility you might otherwise have. Are you politically opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act? If so, you could try making that argument instead of justinsulting individuals challenged with disabilities.

Posted by: neal at June 07, 2006 03:25 PM (KbDrt)

9 Neal, the purpose of the post (if there is one) is to alert any pro-Lieberman readers (Democrat, Republican or whatever) in case any were interested in a) showing their support for Lieberman or b) recording observations of the rally to share (for those who don't have their own blog). To be honest I put it out there on a whim not seriously considering that forty-eight hours notice was sufficient time for organizing anything substantial outside of a few individuals who might be interested. Face it, Lieberman doesn't really need anyone there to show support because Lamont doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of mounting a serious challenge. Lieberman will will his party's nomination on August 8th. If by some chance in hell he doesn't, then he will run as an independent and win anyway. The majority of voters (across party lines) like Lieberman enough to make this happen and there isn't a thing the fringe MoveOn kooks can do about it. If Keith has suffered the injuries you say, he has my sympathy, but my comment above stands. If he wants to make me "feel bad" about my comments, he's in for a major disappointment. And don't lecture me about insensitivity. I have three children with disabilities. They have been beneficiaries of the American With Disabilities Act. So you can just back the fuck off right now. Your problem (as well as Keith's) is that you take what some guy on a blog writes too seriously. We all have problems. We all get thrown curveballs. We all have disadvantages that we have to deal with. But if you're going to go around wearing it on your sleeve expecting everyone to walk on eggshells to avoid hurting your feelings, you're on the wrong website.

Posted by: Gary at June 07, 2006 04:07 PM (QoxB+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hiding from the Apocalypse! Don't you people have calendars?

Posted by: Gary at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeez Louise, the freaking touchy-feely Lefties have their panties all in a twist because the U.S. Army has revised it's detainee rules in its Field Manual.

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

Typical that such "outrage" would come from a group of people that despise the brave men and women serving in our military and hurl insults at them as they lay suffering from wounds at Walter Reed Army Hospital. But when it comes to terrorists, don't you taunt them! Don't you humiliate them!!

Here's a clue, you Liberal pussies: When you are detaining enemy combatants who tried to kill Americans and would try again if they were released, hurting their widdow feewings is on the table. That is not torture. We have an enemy that follows NO rules. They lurk in the shadows. They pretend to be just like us. They use our trusting natures against us. And worst of all, they target and murder the innocent.

These are the kind of people that will kidnap someone who never did anything to them and cut off their heads in front of a video camera, for crissakes.

And we're supposed to get squeamish at the idea of making them stand around naked or wear panties on their heads? Please. We live in a new world, and it's a brutal one.

When Liberals get all indignant over the treatment of these murderers they remind voters exactly why they can't be trusted to deal with them.

Posted by: Gary at 04:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Well looks like Pixy has been pretty busy fending off this weekend's Denial-Of-Service attack. I noticed that the site was up and down since Friday (mostly down) but everything looks OK now (fingers crossed).

The only adverse effect I noticed was the elimination of some votes cast in this week's poll (which I admit is a lame one).

Posted by: Gary at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Reports have come in that the new Vince Vaughn/Jen Aniston comedy, "The Break-Up" pulled in a respectable $13.7 million last night, causing Universal to revise up their expectations for the opening weekend gross.

Look, here's the bottom line. This is another one of those "chick flicks" in raunch-comedy clothing. It's got something for him and for her. When was the last time you can remember a movie about relationships that the average guy is eager to see?

Vince Vaughn is such a big draw for men because he plays pretty much the same character in every movie. And as my friend, Kevin, says: "I'm perfectly OK with that". Except for the brief period when Vaughn would play a psychotic nutjob, his comedic talent is exactly what guys like me who were weaned on "Animal House", "Caddyshack" and "Stripes" appreciate - a confident, yet unpretentious style wrapped in an archtypical "everyman" package. He's the regular guy, but the one in the crowd who always seems to land on his feet.

Jennifer Aniston has really picked a series of unfortunate roles in films. But I recently saw her in "Friends With Money" and she was pretty damn good. It was actually the first time I saw her in a movie (besides "Office Space") and didn't think of Rachel from "Friends".

The key here is the chemistry that Vaughn and Aniston seem to have which should bode well for the film's success.

However, it's still way to early. Critics have savaged it, but most critics harbor an elitist attitude that handicaps a movie like this before they even see it. Aniston's off-screen problems with Brad Pitt have probably soured some of these folks on her as well. While this one has been much anticipated, it could easily tank after Sunday if word spreads that it doesn't meet expectations.

We shall see.

UPDATE: 6/5/06
All told, the film took in a little over $38 million. While it exceeded expectations and was the third-highest grossing opening weekend for a romantic comedy, the real test will be the next couple of weeks. Normally, movies lose about 50% in their second weekend. What it will come down to is word-of-mouth.

Posted by: Gary at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, with Dan, Peter and Tom gone from the airwaves, we have a new horserace over ratings for the Evening News.

Just for kicks, I set up a poll to see who you think will garner the lion's share of its ever-shrinking audience - Brian, Charlie or Katie. Go vote in the sidebar.

Posted by: Gary at 03:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Literally. He was forced to leave a tell-tale sign behind that linked him to the crime:

Police found the finger end stuck between two toppled gravestones in the cemetery in Fleming, New York state.

Officers, who say a total of 53 headstones were knocked over, later arrested a man missing a finger.

He has been charged with criminal mischief, criminal trespass and cemetery desecration, reports 13WHAM-TV."

Posted by: Gary at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

But only 75,000 jobs were created last month.

Statistically speaking, we're at near full employment. But CBS can still find a way to spin this news as negative. Check out the headline: "Unemployment Dips, But Hiring Slows". WTF?

They just have to find that cloud in the silver lining. Umm, guys. Maybe hiring slowed because employers can't find enough unemployed people to take the jobs.

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Peggy Noonan writes this morning in her WSJ column about a minor movement aimed at the 2008 Presidential Election. There's a new party a-brewin': Unity '08. The idea is that some moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are trying to create a fusion ticket for President.

Noonan laments the current polarization of U.S. politics and bitter rancor that passes for the current level of partisanship. Could we be seeing the seismic shift in party affiliation that has failed so many times in the past, she wonders?

I'm inclined to think...nah. more...

Posted by: Gary at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

Just when they think they have a club to beat Republicans over the head with, Democrats can't seem to wipe the taint of scandal off of themselves.

Here in CT, our own Rep. John Larson (D-CT01) seems to have gotten his pecker caught in the William Jefferson ringer:

"Last December, Larson was running for vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the No.4 leadership spot. The voters were his fellow House Democrats, including Jefferson. So what a convenient time it was for Larson to give Jefferson's legal defense fund $2,000 from his political action committee on Dec. 12. Happy holidays!

Mind you, there are rules governing these tricky transactions. Federal lobbyists, for example, can't give to a congressman's legal defense fund. They can, however, give to a PAC that gives to the defense fund. Larson's Synergy PAC took contributions from both state and federal lobbyists. "If you want to look at them that way, that is an indirect way for them to do it," says Larson spokesman Brian Mahar.

Larson won that Feb. 1 race. His office won't say whether Jefferson was one of his supporters. And his office can't confirm how Jefferson voted because it was a secret ballot.

But it looks bad. After all, there are many more worthy causes to give to in New Orleans than a congressman who would not, even then, cooperate with a subpoena for documents."

H/T: H-Bomb at Ankle-Biting Pundits

Posted by: Gary at 10:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's a guy that did a drive-by link squat in a comment here. Normally, I frown upon such gauche self-promotion. But then, normally, the links that people leave are to some stupid crap.

However, I gotta give this guy credit. He did a full photo essay on a recent moonbat parade in D.C. Nicely done, and he has good sense of humor. And he served our country in the U.S. Air Force.

Go check out the post here.

Like Sam Kinison said in "Back To School", I like the way he thinks. I'm gonna be watching him.

Posted by: Gary at 08:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Whenever I read about Al Gore's latest shenanigans, I'm reminded of that scene in the movie "Scrooged" where Bill Murray unveils his trailer for the network's Christmas special. It's designed to scare people into watching it, ending with the tagline: "Your life just might depend on it!"

Gore gave a speech in the UK this weekend where he referred to global warming as the impending "planetary emergency". Declaring to the audience that he was devoting himself to thwarting this threat, Gore assured them that the world was facing "a danger that could bring the end of civilization".

This is why I desperately want Al Gore to run for President in 2008. He really, truly believes that flogging the phantom scare of global warming trumps fighting terrorism as the country's number one priority. And he believes it with all the fervor of a televangelist. The vast majority of voters understand that the enemy we are fighting is the real, tangible danger that could bring the end of civilization - our civilization. When he's up on stage all alone he looks and sounds to the Left like a sage of our time. But standing next to a candidate who is serious about fighting the GWOT, he's a joke.

Will Al run? He certainly seems to be laying the groundwork. Rich Lowry at NRO Online's The Corner puts it this way:

"He is one of those people who wants to be president, but doesn't really want to run for it. So he wants the party to come to him. In keeping with this desire, the movie is a painless way to advance his political ambitions: if the buzz around it doesn't increase his standing in the polls, he can say, “Hey, what's the big deal, it was only a movie about an issue I care about, and never had a political purpose”; if, however, it does create some sustained political momentum, he can capitalize on it if he wants. Apparently he is telling the people closest to him what he is saying in public, that he isn't interested in running. People are all over the map, though, on whether he will ultimately run or not. The conventional wisdom seems to be correct: that he will only do it if he sees a clear path to victory."

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

This week's edition hosted by Don Surber.

Posted by: Gary at 09:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a new poll up in the sidebar. It's a fairly specialized one that'll mainly appeal to parents and caregivers of young children.

It's called "Survivor: Wiggle Bay". Assuming all of the Wiggles characters are stranded at Wiggle Bay to compete for the top prize, which one do you think would be voted off first?

Silly, yes. But I've been kicking around this scenario in my twisted mind for some time.

Have a great weekend!

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

The House just approved ANWR drilling...again. But how long will it take the Senate to kill this? Freaking Northeast Liberal Republicans will bend over for the enviro-whackjobs...again.

You'd think with gas prices being what they are they'd strap on a pair and make this happen. I'm not holding my breath.

Hat Tips: HotAir and RedState

Posted by: Gary at 04:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Gadzooks! Economic growth for the first quarter 2006 was just revised up to 5.3% - the strongest in 2.5 years!

One of the biggest reasons? You and me: "Consumer spending was one of the primary reasons overall GDP performance accelerated to such a brisk pace in the period." As Jack Kemp likes to say, "A rising tide lifts all boats".

And the Liberal girlie-men are still screaming about "tax cuts for the rich". Sigh.

Posted by: Gary at 10:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

From TV Guide online:

What happens when the countdown for the hatch computer ends? Why did Flight 815 crash? And has salvation finally arrived? The producers are promising answers in tonight's two-hour season finale, and you can hold them to it.What happens when the countdown for the hatch computer ends? Why did Flight 815 crash? And has salvation finally arrived? The producers are promising answers in tonight's two-hour season finale, and you can hold them to it. Don't expect anyone's salvation (unless Ana Lucia spent only three weeks in purgatory, and that's a long shot), but do expect hatch answers in flashback sequences featuring its previous occupant, Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick). As for Walt's rescue mission (and "trap"), expect fireworks. Certainly the sailboat that popped up offshore last week won't carry anybody to life happily ever after. ..expect hatch answers in flashback sequences featuring its previous occupant, Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick). As for Walt's rescue mission (and "trap"), expect fireworks. Certainly the sailboat that popped up offshore last week won't carry anybody to life happily ever after.

Posted by: Gary at 03:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Will someone please explain to me exactly when the age threshold for a prostate exam was lowered to 35?

Needless to say I was quite taken by surprise at my physical this morning. And here I was thinking that the worst I'd have to endure was the ceremonial juggling of the cojones. Sheesh.

Posted by: Gary at 11:48 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's really weird, because here, they've pushed it up to 50.

Posted by: rightwingprof at May 24, 2006 11:08 AM (hj1Wx)

2 I think 50 is for a colonoscopy. Maybe it's because my dad had prostate cancer but I always thought 40 was the age to start prostate exams. :shock:

Posted by: Gary at May 24, 2006 11:12 AM (QoxB+)

3 Yeah but it feels like they pushed it up to your throat.

Posted by: Santay at May 24, 2006 11:14 AM (JoJvT)

4 That's why I picked a woman doctor - smaller fingers.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at May 24, 2006 12:28 PM (IkTb7)

5 Eh. Gentlemen, please.

Posted by: Georgia Girl at May 24, 2006 01:08 PM (ZMwFa)

6 My doctor is a woman as well. I hope she still respects me.

Posted by: Gary at May 24, 2006 01:12 PM (QoxB+)

7 The humiliation of age...

Posted by: GroovyVic at May 25, 2006 10:33 AM (WPS4e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As much of a non-story this is, I figure I'd comment on it being as I'm from CT. Sen. Chris Dodd (Dumbass-CT) is considering a run for the Presidency. Frankly, Dodd is about as unimpressive a candidate as you could get. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has more chance at being President and the odds of that happening are slim to none.

Dodd is a five-termer who won his first race for the Senate off of his famous last name (his father, Thomas Dodd, was Senator until that body censured him and he was thrown out on his ass by the voters).

Chris Dodd's major claim to fame was his love affair with such notable communist dictators as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. And supposedly he and "Tailspin" Teddy Kennedy used to swap cocktail waitresses in the 1980's when Dodd was divorced.

Democrats have a host of has-beens and also-rans to choose from in two years. Even hacks like DE Sen. Joe Biden are going to be throwing their hat in the ring. I'll be surprised if Dodd is still in the running come January 1, 2008. But it should make things interesting here in CT.

Posted by: Gary at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The only thing striking about Dodd are his eyebrows. He's a joke. Don't be looking for him to last long in this race!

Posted by: Pam at May 24, 2006 09:10 PM (XmCyD)

2 Look out for Biden. He is smart, can articulte his position well --and-- he actually has a plan for Iraq that doesn't include cut and run --or--stay the course. Dodd couldn't get the nomination on a bet. Biden at least is in the running and has something substansive to say rather than talking points to nowhere.

Posted by: gosilent at June 05, 2006 01:01 AM (PNisb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment