Cargill reinstates and apologizes to Luis Padilla

In a complete reversal and then some, Cargill has not only rehired Luis Padilla with full benefits, but has given him back pay, issued an apology and erased the incident from his records. They will also be releasing a new company policy regarding employee expression. Hallelujah!

Mr. Padilla had this to say, which I completely agree with:

"For me, this was about honor and freedom and justice," Padilla said. "Even though there may be some who believe differently, I would never treat anyone unfairly because of that, and I expect the same fair treatment from them. That is the American dream."

It's stuff like this that makes my brain squirm

Wikipedia's entry on 0.999... (a repeating decimal that goes on for infinity). Read the first sentence:

In mathematics, 0.999... [can't reproduce the symbols here] is a recurring decimal exactly equal to 1.

Now, if you're like me (and probably 99% of the rest of humanity), you look at the number 0.999... and think, "That's not exactly equal to 1 because it's not 1!" Your eyes are telling you it's not exactly equal to 1.

Now scroll down the Wiki page to the proofs and look at the little grey boxes on the right. This is where the squirming begins.

First, the fraction proof in my words. We all know that three thirds (or as we Norwegians say, "tree turds") equals exactly 1. Well, one third ("one turd") equals 0.333... (another infinitely repeating decimal), so 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999... or 1.

Or how about the algebra proof? I'll just leave this one to speak for itself:

c = 0.999...
10c = 9.999...
10c − c = 9.999... − 0.999...
9c = 9
c = 1

This stuff makes me glad that the most amount of math I usually have to do involves balancing a checkbook to two decimal places.

A little reciprocal link-love for Sam

Samantha Burns is a Canadian blogger who's definitely in the right-wing camp even though some of her topics would make most conservatives a bit hot under the collar (possibly in more than one way!). She's certainly not afraid to delve deeply into sex. (No, that was NOT a freudian slip, thankyouverymuch!) Usually, it's about weird sex (like a recent story about an S&M; sex ed course at the U of Toronto). And, quite frankly, I have to admit that I send her links to stories that are a bit too blue for this blog (like a recent story about an S&M; sex ed course at the U of Toronto).

*ahem*

Anyway...

Sam linked to this parody of an interview with Lancet about their claims of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis in the last 3 years. It's pretty good. Here's a little sample:

DR. PROCTOR- Toppling Saddam made it worse, as our study shows. Just under 600,000 people died because of the sanctions, and a further 700,000 died because of the war.

VOX POPLAR- So statistically it would have been better to leave Saddam alone.

DR. PROCTOR- Exactly.

VOX POPLAR- Even though over a million people died when he was left alone?

DR. PROCTOR- That's a questionable statistic derived from massacre reports, Saddam's archives, and counting the dead in mass graves. Hardly a truly scientific method.

Read the rest at the above link.

Also, be sure to check out Sam's weekly (duh!) "Moron of the Week" game, which I personally suck at, but you might not.

Those who've never studied history are doomed to say really stupid things

Our old friend CanadianCynic hasn't changed at all, I see. Look what "brilliance" he's displaying here:

Another moderately weird milestone

True to leftist form, he takes the deaths of human beings - people with names, faces, personalities, families - and grinds them down to a meaningless "milestone" number. What is it with liberals and this "milestone" meme?

to which I am now officially indifferent.

He's obviously lying about being "officially indifferent." He never has been, isn't and never will be indifferent about anything to do with America, President Bush and the Iraq conflict.

* Official death toll from terrorist attacks of 9/11: 2,752.

* Official death toll for American troops in Iraq: 2,785.

So ... in vengeful retaliation for terrorists killing almost 3,000 people on 9/11, the United States has allowed those terrorists to kill an even larger number of its citizens overseas.

Sounds like a fair trade.

Here's where history steps in and - as CC is fond of saying - "bitch slaps" CC. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 military personnel and 68 civilians. The U.S. subsequently entered into World War II, and over the course of almost 4 years (December 1941 to August 1945), we "allowed" the Axis powers to kill 407,300 more of our military personnel and 11,200 more of our civilians. CC is ineptly trying to make the idiotic point that our involvement in Iraq is stupid and wrong because the deaths of military personnel has exceeded the deaths of civilians on 9/11. So what do you think he'd have to say about our involvement in World War II? I mean, hey - "only" 2,471 people died at Pearl Harbor. Once we reached 2,470, we should've immediately backed out of the war, right, CC? Care to make that argument to the face of a WWII vet? No, I don't think you have the guts to do that, just like you don't have the guts to make your argument about the conflict in Iraq to any soldier who supports our efforts and was, is or will be stationed there.

BONUS SLAP: Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, yet we felt compelled to join the fight against them. Hmm... Wonder what CC and his fellow moonbats have to say about that? I'd ask him, but he still just deletes my posts because I didn't give the predetermined answers he wanted for one or two poorly conceived "gotcha" questions.

UPDATE: CC sez: "Mine's bigger than yours." Apparently he thinks I'm supposed to be jealous of his hit counter. That's like expecting me to be jealous of a guy who is getting lots of attention from rubberneckers because he totaled his car while driving like an idiot.

I have ceased to be surprised and shocked by stuff like this

From Jim Sedlak of Renew America via Big Blue Wave:

The situation in South Dakota is beginning to get desperate for those who support the "right" to kill babies in the womb through medical and surgical abortions. Although publicly proclaiming that victory is in sight, the rank-and-file of the "pro-choice" movement in the state is becoming increasingly frustrated.

...

Vandals extensively damaged the interior of a VoteYesForLife.com volunteer's car. The perpetrator broke into the vehicle during a Sioux Falls youth rally.

Vandals spray-painted an unborn memorial sign at Bible Baptist Church in Brookings. Additionally, the culprits attacked more than 100 crosses staked in remembrance of those aborted. Four of the 826 crosses displayed were destroyed.

Vandals spray-painted the wall of O'Gorman Catholic High School in Sioux Falls with a slogan opposing the law.

Spray-painting of the South Dakota State University Newman Center church (directly tied to the cemetery of the innocents next to the church, which was also vandalized).

Vote Yes signs in Rapid City stolen

Vote Yes signs in Sioux Falls set ablaze

Vote Yes signs in Sioux Falls spray-painted with coat hangers

Vote Yes signs in Sioux Falls stolen (20 in one night alone)

In one of the more outrageous incidents, a number of the Vote Yes signs were spray-painted with a stencil. The top of the stencil is an outline of a baby in the womb (approximately 10 weeks of age) complete with an umbilical cord. Under the baby's outline is the two word slogan — "Eat Babies."

These people support the violence of slaughtering innocent babies. Is it then any surprise that they commit violence elsewhere against those that defend the unborn?

More good news from Iraq that the LSM won't cover

Via Gazing at the Flag:

Baghdad soldiers delivered an assortment of equipment and goods to the Muehla Agricultural Union on October 9.

Refurbished tractors, seed spreaders and water pumps were among the items donated to the union as it begins to move from underneath the guidance of the soldiers from Company B, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, and starts earning profits on its own.

Read the rest at the above link.

Search for "Muehla" on Yahoo! News shows zero hits.

Search for "Iraq quagmire" shows over 400 hits.

No surprises there.

Cargill claims to value diversity, but proves otherwise

As we all know (well, "we" meaning those of us on the right) "tolerance" and "diversity" are one-way streets in this day and age. We conservatives are expected to be tolerant of other people's opinions, beliefs and lifestyles, yet they are not expected to be tolerant of our's. In fact, intolerance of conservatives' opinions, beliefs and lifestyles is widespread.

Case in point, Cargill's recent firing of Luis Padilla in Virginia. His crime? Supporting traditional marriage. He simply painted the message "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7" on his truck's back window. Nothing near what Fred Phelps and his ilk are known for. Still, "tolerant" people complained that it offended them and Padilla was asked to remove the message. He [rightfully] refused and was fired.

Now I have to ask how many of Cargill's employees have messages or stickers on their vehicles that some could find offensive? How about pro-gay rainbow stickers? Do you think that if someone had complained that those were offensive the company would've asked the owners to remove them? I seriously doubt it!

Here's Cargill's Statement on Diversity, which is obviously as worthless as the amount of electricity it takes to load the page. What they mean by "diversity" is the same as what anyone else means these days: "tolerance of everything but conservative values."

Some liberal explain this to me, please

If a 16-year-old girl isn't mature enough to think about the consequences of sexual activity, then how the Herkermer Homolka can she be mature enough to get a waiver to have an abortion?

40,000!!!

Congrats to the person in or around Caledonia, Michigan, for being my 40,000^th visitor! The person did this search at 5:44 AM Eastern on Oct 18th and found this post. It took 750 days, 13 hours and 14 minutes to reach 40,000 hits.

Keith Olbermann puts in an entry for "Stupidest Person in the World"

Notice anything wrong with this statement:

"As a critic of the administration, I will be damned if you can get away with calling me the equivalent of a Nazi appeaser," Olbermann told The Associated Press. "No one has the right to say that about any free-speaking American in this country."

So... a free-speaking American cannot call another free-speaking American "the equivalent of a Nazi appeaser?" This from the guy who goes on his show every night and pretty much calls everyone in and supportive of the Bush Administration a Nazi (or the equivalent thereof)?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is just another example of the Constitution according to liberals - i.e. "free speech for me, but not for thee."

I read the LTTE in the Strib today...

LTTE = Letters to the Editor
Strib = the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, aka the far-left Bush-hating rag that poses as a major newspaper here in Minnesota

Anyway, I read the letters today and was not surprised to see several letters from Bush-hating liberals swallowing the 655,000 Iraqi dead figure hook, line and sinker. Sickening! And these people think we conservatives are the ones believing lies!

100,000 estimated dead (average of about 169 per day) between March 19, 2003, (the start of the war) and October 29, 2004, (the date of the first study) was ridiculous enough already, but to add 555,000 to that figure for the nearly 2 years since then is simply beyond the pale! That would be an average of about 779 Iraqis per day (712 days between 10/29/04 and 10/11/06). Yeah, right! Where are all the bodies, then? Where are all the graves? Why haven't the morgues been filled to overflowing?

This study is completely bull and only a fool or a liberal (or both) would believe it.

Democratic Underground fantasizing about President Bush's death again

A forum thread not long for this world:

Bush can be buried in Arlington.

Catch it "live" while you can. I'm screencapping it for posterity before it's forever lost down the DU memory hole.

The Lancet still fabricating ridiculous statistics

The Lancet in October of 2004 (right before the last election):

"About 100,000 Iraqi civilians -- half of them women and children -- have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. "

Of course, the Lancet's number was completely bogus. Did that stop the people at Lancet? Are you kidding? Look at what they've come out with now before this year's election:

Study: 655,000 Iraqis Died Due to War

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

So the Lancet is claiming that in two years the number of deaths rose from 100,000 to 655,000? That's an average of about 270 (bad math) 760 deaths per day. Absurd! I have to agree with this:

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

YouTube's bizarre censorship of conservative-themed videos

For a number of days now, Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers have been noting YouTube's rather odd choices regarding conservative videos. Completely inoffensive videos with conservative content are being flagged by other YouTube users as having "inappropriate content" (a process which YouTube claims is moderated, but is very obviously being abused). For example, this video lampooning the Clinton Administration and particularly Madeleine Albright. In fact, you can't even find that video by doing a search on YouTube for it's tags: David Zucker Albright

[Update: you CAN find the video by just searching for "David Zucker." I have no idea why adding "Albright" to the search changes things.]

Not only that, but Michelle had an inoffensive video completely removed from YouTube. That was a deliberate act by YouTube's moderators.

Ah, but meanwhile, here are the current video counts for searches of offensive words (don't click on the links if you don't actually want to see the words):

-the n-word: 1799 videos

-the c-word for certain female anatomy: 1976 videos

-the t-word for other certain female anatomy: 7906 videos

-the b-word: 23464 videos

-the f-bomb: 41636 videos

-the s-word: 50168 videos

And judging by a random sampling, very few of these videos have been either flagged as offensive or completely removed.

So to sum up YouTube's position based upon their choices:

Inoffensive videos with conservative content = flagged or banned.
Videos with truly offensive content = let the kids see it!

It's funny because it's true

Another child in a PVS wakes up

No doubt the liberals would've wanted him "euthanized" like Haleigh Poutre and Terri Schaivo:

Yamhill boy awakens after 22 months in coma

YAMHILL, Ore. (AP) - During the 22 months when her young son lay in a Gresham nursing home, trapped in an unexplainable coma, Yamhill resident Carla Rivers turned down offers from prospective buyers of the small, hot-pink motorcycle that he had loved.

"We knew he'd want to ride it again," Rivers said.

And, after two years of visits to his sick bed and prayers from their church and cards from the school friends Devon Rivers left behind when he was sickened with his mysterious illness, the 11-year-old awoke.

Until Oct. 7, 2004, Devon Rivers was an active, happy child, who loved Scouts and sports, school and church, riding his bike and playing with his baby brother, Brakken. He was the kid of kid that when he ran out of things to put together, he took things apart so he could put them together again.

All that changed the day his mother and father rushed him to the emergency room, where doctors made an initial diagnosis of rheumatic fever and prescribed antibiotics.

Five days later, Devon's condition worsened and he started having trouble breathing on his own. On Oct. 17, he lapsed into the coma.

Medics sent samples of Devon's spinal fluid to labs across the country, trying to figure out what was causing his illness. But every test - from West Nile virus to lead poisoning - came back negative.

Doctors guessed he had a viral illness. But they never were able to pinpoint what it was or what had caused it.

Eventually, he was moved to a pediatric nursing care center, where he received daily physical therapy that kept his muscles from atrophying and his joints from locking up.

I can just hear the liberals now: "He was only in a coma! Not a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovering like Terri Schiavo!"

Read on:

Yet every time doctors checked on him, they had the same prognosis: Devon was in a persistent vegetative state, and it was doubtful that he would ever recover.

Huh... Imagine that...

One Friday in late August, she told Devon the family was heading for Utah for a wedding.

As she spoke, she remembered, it seemed as though her son was actually looking at her, and that his breathing seemed different, as if he weren't relying so much on the tracheal tube.

A few days later, the Rivers family got the news: Devon was indeed breathing on his own, a very positive sign.

In the weeks since then, Devon has made a great deal of progress, so much that his parents are hoping he'll soon be able to relearn skills like using a spoon and brushing his teeth.

His parents say it all seems like a "walk on water" miracle.

"We want to know what's going on with him, when he can come home, what more we can expect," Rivers said.

A guaranteed smile

Free hugs!

Here's the touching background:

On May 19, 2001, the love of my life and my best friend finished her course here on Earth - my mother, Josephine Hunter. A day that began in sheer sadness ended in great joy because I realized that my mother had done exactly what God had required of her. She simply let everyone she came in contact with know that they matter. She was truly a friend to everyone, regardless of age, race, or gender.

What an amazing world it would be if we were known as people who have a smile and a kind word for everyone. No matter what our jobs are, perhaps the most important work we can do is to help and encourage others, especially by our actions. With constant threats targeted towards our morale and human spirit, kind and encouraging actions are needed to get us through our everyday situations, no matter how big or small they may be.

FREE HUGS will be the company that will always promote our two most sought after possessions, happiness and our sense of belonging. FREE HUGS will always consist of excellence in the development of leaders, action in the community, and service to customers.

So thank you for supporting FREE HUGS and always remember, we all need one.

Your Friend,

Jason Hunter

What a great inspiration! Everyone should do this.

Patty Wetterling's sleazy ads

Two of Wetterling's latest campaign ads are sleaze, plain and simple.

"More" is about Michele Bachmann's support of the national sales tax. The ad claims we'll pay "23% MORE at the pump," "23% MORE for groceries & clothing," "23% MORE for a new car," and "23% MORE for a new home." What the ad fails to mention, of course, is that the national sales tax will REPLACE the income tax. In failing to mention this key fact, Wetterling's ad makes it seem like the "23% MORE" will be on top of our income taxes.

"Crimes" grossly distorts the Mark Foley scandal to sickening levels. "Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a Congressman who used the internet to molest children." What a load of hooey! While I in no way defend what Foley did, Congressional leaders admitted no such thing, Foley didn't molest anyone, and what he did certainly didn't involve "children."

Michele Bachmann's response is here. Note that Bachmann hasn't even fully embraced the national sales tax plan.

Wetterling's ads insult our intelligence and decency and they prove that she is unfit for office.

Rosie O'Donnell shows us how liberals think

Via NewsBusters:

Well known liberal Rosie O’Donnell used the shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania as a springboard to promote gun control. O’Donnell, who famously sparred with Tom Selleck (video), stated on Tuesday's edition of ABC's "The View" that the event should spur tighter restrictions:

O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

This quickly led to an exchange with the program’s token conservative, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which O’Donnell asserted that there is no right to own a gun:

Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."

O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"

Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."

Isn't it amazing how liberals can find all sorts of "rights" in the Constitution that aren't there in any way, shape or form (e.g. the "right to abortion," the "right to gay marriage"), yet when it comes to a right that is explicitly spelled out, suddenly "there's debate."

What. The. Fudge.

Gay marriage ban upheld in... California???

Yeah, I know!



But it's true:

Jolting the gay rights movement back a step, a divided California appeals court Thursday upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage and warned that judges should steer clear of solving the controversy and let voters and legislators decide whether gays and lesbians can wed.

In a 2-1 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco overturned a trial judge's decision last year finding the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, concluding that California has a right to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Wow! They not only overturned it, but they used the exact same argument we conservatives are using: let the voters decide.

Oh, don't worry, liberals. I'm sure the 9th Circus Court of Appeals will "fix" this.

4D fetal scans hampering pro-choicers

This article is rife with pro-choice clap-trap, but it shows how frustrated they are because of the new 4D ultrasound scans of unborn children:

New foetal scans 'clouded debate on late abortion'

Sophisticated ultrasound scans that show foetuses as early as 12 weeks appearing to “walk” in the womb have had a dangerous impact on the public debate over abortion, leading doctors and scientists said yesterday.

The emotive photographs, taken with new fourdimensional imaging technology, have created a misleading impression that foetuses become viable and potentially self-aware at a much earlier stage than is actually the case, according to experts on foetal development.

"A dangerous impact." "A misleading impression."

Oh, horror of horrors! People are seeing the truth that unborn children aren't just "clumps" of amorphous, unhuman cells!

The pictures showed foetuses of 12 weeks’ gestation, bouncing and kicking in the womb, before the mother is usually aware of such movement. At 16 weeks, they can be seen sucking thumbs and yawning, and at 18 weeks opening their eyes.

Although Professor Campbell insisted that the images did not mean that the foetal brain was consciously controlling these movements, they were seized on by anti-abortion campaigners to demand a reduction in the time limit on terminations.

As U of MN professor PZ Myers put it, "Fetuses wiggle. So?" Uh huh. Hey, guess what? Newborns wiggle, too, and the movements are just as involuntary as they were seconds, hours, and days before they were born. Guess that means we shouldn't have any problem with post-birth abortions.

Ann explains the difference between Republicans and Democrats

Ann's gift for words is phenomenal, and she proves it once again:

WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

by Ann Coulter
October 4, 2006

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

Indeed. Ultimately, Foley did the right thing in stepping down. I think it came far too late, but it was the right thing. And, as Ann points out, you don't see much of the same from Democrats:

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Can you imagine what the Democrats would be saying now if Foley had acted like Gerry Studds or if Foley were [still] a Democrat? If he had acted like Studds, they'd condemning him for it, but if he were still a Democrat, they'd be defending him.

YouTube censorsing anti-Jihad videos

Michelle

Jawa

Crusader

Profiling is wrong

My PC book says that we can't just profile spinach. We have to pull all vegetables off the shelves.

(From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution via Snopes.)