Shrinks looking to change “pedophiles” into “minor-attracted people.”

This issue has created quite a stir in the blog-o-sphere, and while I’m a day late to the party, this horse still ain’t dead.  B4U-ACT is a group of “mental health professionals” whose purpose is to remove the stigma from being a pedophile.  And while it appears to be a small group, its simple existence is enough to be taken seriously.  I had never actually heard of the group until I ran into a post on another site that I frequent.  Upon first glance, the group’s website certainly seems mundane enough:

B4U-ACT is a unique collaborative effort between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals to promote communication and understanding between the two groups. Our goal is unique and unprecedented: to make effective and compassionate mental health care available to individuals who self-identify as minor-attracted and who are seeking assistance in dealing with issues in their lives that are challenging to them. We want to give them hope for productive and fulfilling lives, rather than waiting for a crisis to occur.

Sounds nice, right?  Let’s help ‘em out before they offend.  Well, others have fortunately been on this for a while now, and have done some important digging of their own.  Verdict: B4U-ACT was started by an unrepentant, convicted pedophile whose stated goal was to decriminalize the sexual abuse of minors.  Moreover, several individuals currently affiliated with the group are quite open about their desire to decriminalize, and in fact normalize, sexual abuse of children (while taking part in it).  It behooves you to read the entire linked article, as well as B4U-ACT’s website (also linked above).  Everyone needs to keep up on this group, as well as their efforts, since the main stream media doesn’t seem to want to touch it.  Remember…liberalism is more than just big-spending government.  It’s a movement that seeks to degrade definitive ideas of right and wrong, while replacing them with moral relativism.  It has already succeeded in convincing many that there is no authority outside of oneself, and it will continue to do so until stopped.

Happy Birthday America! Remember Your Past.

Declaration of Independence

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

// //

// //

Unemployment continues to rise. Government continues to spend.

Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months

If I had a dollar for every time the media reported an “unexpected” rise in unemployment, I could quit my job.  Rising unemployment is not unexpected when it happens month after month.  Rising unemployment is not unexpected when our government continues to spend money it doesn’t have.  Rising unemployment is not unexpected when the government threatens to, and does, raise taxes.  Rising unemployment is not unexpected when the government passes huge financial regulatory bills that nobody voting on the bills reads or understands.  In fact, it’s completely expected.

President Obama’s, and the Democratic Congress’s, response to the unemployment crisis is incomprehensible.  Talking about the economy improving doesn’t actually cause it to improve.  Now, with the Greek economic crisis affecting the entire European market, and eventually us, a double dip recession is possible.  We continue to give unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies to the unemployed, regardless of how long they’ve been unemployed, which is a kind and politically correct thing to do, but doing so fails to do anything to stimulate the economy or create jobs.  In fact, the opposite is true.  It increases spending, which will ultimately require tax increases.  The government needs to stop spending, stop pushing policies like cap and trade, stop kicking the tires on a value added tax, and cut taxes on everything, for everyone.  Let’s start with capital gains and payroll.

At some point, one has to ask whether the Democrats (who have complete control of the government) even want to improve the economy.

Financial Overhaul Bill passes the Senate…and the buck.

Senate Passes Financial Overhaul Bill

With the help of Republicans Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the Senate passed its financial regulatory bill today.  While I haven’t read it yet, the bill is described by the Wall Street Journal as such:

The 1,500-page bill includes an array of curbs on banking and finance, aimed at creating new consumer protection rules, providing more scrutiny of big bank operations, and insulating taxpayers from future bailouts of financial companies. Opponents argued throughout lengthy debate that the measures will over-regulate the financial industry.

While it might address some of the problems that lead up to the financial collapse, it appears to have completely ignored one huge issue: the Community Reinvestment Act.  Lest we forget, the root cause of the collapse, before the banks traded anything relating to mortgages, were home loans made to people during the housing boom that could never pay them back.  The Community Investment Act, originally signed into law by Jimmy Carter, was created to pressure banks into extending credit to low income individuals.  If it is not significantly modified, along with Fannie and Freddie, the primary cause of the collapse will not have been addressed.

Look, no one likes the banks.  That’s a given.  But the amount of vitriol being spewed at them is disproportionate to their responsibility.  Like it or not, their only purpose is to make a profit.  The government’s role, however, is to simply legislate the rules that banks operate under.  In direct contrast to that role however, the govt. has been actively manipulating the private housing market for decades, in an effort to make sure everyone owned a home.  With the passing of the CRA, what used to be the American dream suddenly became a right.  Simply put, nothing good happens when the government goes beyond its simple rule-making function and begins to directly influence how the actors play the game.  That’s exactly what happened here.  Instead of addressing the problem though, the govt. appears to do what it does best: pass the buck.

The Left is right to be scared of Rand Paul

When you spend as much time as I do listening to progressive talk radio, it becomes painfully obvious to figure out who the left is truly frightened of, because they talk incessantly about how bad of a candidate so and so is for the Republicans, or how dumb such and such is.  That’s how I figured out they were so scared of Sarah Palin.  The left spent far more time trashing her than even addressing McCain.  Why?  If they truly thought she was a damaging Vice Presidential candidate, then they simply would have giggled at her selection and moved on.  But they didn’t.  In fact, they continue to talk about her constantly now, and she’s not even an elected official.  Why?  Because she was, and largely still is, a refreshing conservative voice, who isn’t covered in Washington sludge.  “Regular people” identified with her, and often agreed with her small government mantra.  Rand Paul shares those same characteristics, and that is why the left is so preoccupied with what would usually not receive much attention: a Republican likely winning a Senate seat in a heavily Republican state.

Rand trounced establishment pick Trey Grayson to win the Republican nomination on Tuesday.  Grayson enjoyed the support of just about every establishment Republican around: Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, even (somewhat ironically) Sarah Palin.  Now, the left is doing everything they can to color Rand as a racist extremist.  Why?  It’s very simple: Rand scares the hell out of the Dems.  He scares them because he’s not typical, and he’s not typical because he doesn’t resemble a Republican all that much.  Many of the established Republicans in Washington aren’t any different from the Democrats.  They’re all married to big business, big government, big money, and generally ignore their constituents back home.  Rand, who was basically elected by the Tea Parties, isn’t so much a Republican as he is a Conservative.  That’s also why he scares the Republican establishment.

Rand is a sign that the Tea Parties both haven’t died, and haven’t been co-opted by the Republican Party, despite its best effort.  He may also be a sign that many have reached their breaking point with the Federal Govt.  Congress if full of lifetime politicians who simply hand power back and forth to each other, without much changing.  Let’s face it, the only reason the current Congressional Republicans are acting like conservatives is because their spending-like-drunken-sailor ways have alienated their base (it also helps that the Democratic leadership has shifted so far left; Mitch McConnell looks a lot more conservative standing next to Chuck Schumer).  They’re simply fighting for their careers, and after watching three-term Senator Robert Bennett get broomed in Utah, and now Rand winning in Kentucky, they’ll have to fight harder.

There is no doubt that Rand holds some far-right views, but at least he’s honest about being a small-government conservative.  That honesty, and the connection it creates with the public, should scare the left.

Dems scared of own budget

Next year’s budget sinking in deep red ink

It’s a difficult choice for Democrats.  Pass a $3.8 trillion budget that will increase the deficit next year to a record $1.56 trillion and further prove that they don’t actually care about reducing debt, or fail to pass a budget that: continues the Bush tax cuts for the “middle class” while allowing them to expire for the “wealthy;” includes $282 billion for jobs; and contains billions in entitlements funding.  Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad said yesterday that hopes of passing the budget were “fading.”  The reason for the Democrats’ hesitancy is legit: passing the budget would further evidence their true feelings about debt, which will not help come November.

Of course, the Democrats will do all they can to only pass the parts of the budget that they can run on: like tax cuts and jobs spending.  The only problem is, the American public is on to them, and they know it.  While not always paying enough attention, the American people aren’t stupid.  By now, everyone knows that the Administration pushed through its enormously expensive “stimulus” bill on the assertion that without it, unemployment would exceed 8%.  Well, they passed the bill, even though a majority of America didn’t support it, and we’re currently sitting north of 9% employment.  What did all of that money buy us?  Well, nothing actually.  The Administration admits that no jobs were created as a result.  But it did give us a lot more debt.

Now they want to pass a gigantic budget, and sell it to the people with the boondoggle they call “economic stimulus?”  Are they serious?  I wasn’t an economics major, but there’s only one thing that is going to cause employers to hire new employees: sustained growth.  Company A isn’t going to hire a new employee because it may receive a government check in the mail.  Instead, it will hire a new employee when Bob, Frank, and others begin to regularly shop there again.  What will cause Bob, Frank, and others to shop there?  More money in their pockets.  What’s the easiest way for them to have more money in their pockets on a consistent basis?  How about letting them keep their own money.  Tax cuts.  Lots of ‘em.  And not just for the “middle class,” but for everyone.  What’s the benefit of increasing taxes on the wealthy?  Why are the Dems so invested in class warfare?  Doesn’t everyone realize that private individuals create jobs with their spending?  Nothing is created by government spending, because the government doesn’t have any money.  Every dollar the govt. spends is taken from us.  Every dollar taken from us is a dollar not spent at Company A.  Every dollar not spent at Company A, is a dollar not going toward hiring a new employee, or a salary increase for a current employee, or re-investment.  This is simply common sense.  But liberals don’t worry about common sense.  If they did, they wouldn’t think the idea of taking my money and giving it to someone else was rational.

Supreme Court watch: Graham v. Florida

In the matter of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court considered whether a state can sentence a juvenile to life in prison, with no possibility of parole, when the crime convicted of did not involve homicide.  In a decision that overruled the law of 37 states, the majority found that sentencing such an individual to life in prison without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  In doing so, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, made clear that, at the end of the day, their opinion that the sentence was too harsh was all that was needed to trump the rights of 37 states.

Facts

Terrance Graham was 16 in 2003, when he, and two other youths, attempted to rob a barbeque restaurant.  During the commission of the crime, one of the youths struck the manager in the back of head with a metal bar (he required stitches).  The youths then ran away, and Graham was arrested.  He was subsequently charged as an adult with armed burglary with assault or battery, a first-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and attempted armed-robbery, a second-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.

Graham pleaded guilty to both counts, and entered into a plea agreement.  He also wrote a letter to the court, stating that he would not get in trouble again.  The trial court accepted the plea agreement. The court withheld adjudication of guilt as to both charges and sentenced Graham to concurrent 3-year terms of probation. Graham was required to spend the first 12 months of his probation in the county jail, but he received credit for the time he had served awaiting trial, and was released on June 25, 2004.

Less than six months later, Graham was again arrested, this time for allegedly participating in a home invasion robbery.  During the invasion, Graham held a gun to the homeowner’s chest while his accomplices ransacked the home for thirty minutes.  Later that same evening, the three allegedly attempted a second robbery.  During the robbery, one of Graham’s accomplices was shot.  As Graham was dropping him off at the hospital, a police officer told Graham to pull over.  Graham then proceeded to lead a high speed chase, until he crashed into a telephone pole.  While Graham denied his involvement in the robberies, he admitted that he violated his probation.  The court sentenced Graham to life in prison.  Florida does not allow for parole.  Graham was 17 when he was convicted.

Law

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that life without parole, for a juvenile who hadn’t killed anyone, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  The Court’s decision is interesting because its cited legal support is seemingly contradicted by other portions of the case.  For example, the Court began its analysis by examining the relevant “national consensus.”  In other words, what is the majority of the nation doing?  Well, according to the Court, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Federal law all allow for life without parole for a juvenile, involving a non-homicide crime.  Apparently the Court didn’t like that answer, because, after stating the national consensus was relevant, it then completely disregarded it.  Instead, the Court inexplicably looked to how many juveniles were currently in prison without the opportunity of parole, for non-homicide crimes.  The answer,

According to a recent study, nationwide there are only 109 juvenile offenders serving sentences of life without parole for nonhomicide offenses.

The Court presumably used the small number to support the notion that actually sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole for non-homicide crimes wasn’t the national consensus.  I find this rationale odd for two reasons.  First, by this logic, practically every crime would not fall within the “national consensus,” because there are far fewer people in prison then there in the population generally; and there are likely far fewer murderers in prison then there are drug-dealers.  Second, the small number actually offers support for the conviction as a practical matter, because it evidences restraint on the part of courts.  In other words, Graham’s sentence is the exception, not the rule.

After seemingly satisfying itself with the outcome of the “national consensus” argument, the Court moved on to the “life without parole for a juvenile who didn’t kill anybody is really mean” argument.

[the sentence] “means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.”

I’m deeply moved by the Court’s sentiment.

Next, the Court talks about the importance of penal goals for a sentence.  The Court runs down four recognized goals of punishment: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.  Which goal is chosen is “within a legislature’s discretion,” and any one of these can provide legitimate justification for a sentence.  The Court runs through all four, but the analysis that caught my eye was incapacitation.  The Court stated,

Incapacitation, a third legitimate reason for imprisonment, does not justify the life without parole sentence in question here. Recidivism is a serious risk to public safety, and so incapacitation is an important goal. (citation omitted) (statistics show 67 percent of former inmates released from state prisons are charged with at least one serious new crime within three years).

After providing actual facts to support its finding that incapacitation is a legitimate goal (high recidivism rate), the Court puts on its “let’s make some arbitrary law” hat.

But while incapacitation may be a legitimate penological goal sufficient to justify life without parole in other contexts, it is inadequate to justify that punishment for juveniles who did not commit homicide. To justify life without parole on the assumption that the juvenile offender forever will be a danger to society requires the sentencer to make a judgment that the juvenile is incorrigible.

Apparently the majority, who very likely never laid eyes on Graham, did not think he was incorrigible.  The Court then agreed that Graham “deserved to be separated from society for some time in order to prevent what the trial court described as an “escalating pattern of criminal conduct…” but…

…it does not follow that he would be a risk to society for the rest of his life.  A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity. Incapacitation cannot override all other considerations, lest the Eighth Amendment ’s rule against disproportionate sentences be a nullity.

After reading the Court’s opinion up until this point, I’m wondering what “other considerations” are overriding Florida’s right to throw away the key.

What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance.

Oh, there’s the overriding consideration.  The arbitrary determination that criminal “like Graham” should be given a chance at parole.  This case is the very definition of judicial activism.  The sentencing of Graham is a state’s rights issue, unless it violates the Eighth Amendment.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say life without parole for a juvenile who didn’t kill anyone constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  Thus, the Court made it up.  Even more egregious however, was the Court’s failure to apply its own analysis for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  Instead of giving some deference to the sentencing judge, the majority, from its ivory tower, decided to manufacture some Constitutional law.

Any liberal complaining about the conservative court should be given this case.

“Forcing our people to face discrimination.”

Mexican President Rebukes U.S. Law at White House: Arizona Immigration Law ‘Is Forcing Our People to Face Discrimination’

Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited the White House this morning to discuss, amongst other things, illegal immigration.  He also took the opportunity to spout nonsense about the Arizona law.  He stated,

“…the Arizona law…is forcing our people to face discrimination.  If we are divided, we cannot overcome these problems.”

Let me get this straight.  Arizona, a state in the United States of America, is forcing your people to face discrimination?  The last time I looked, Arizona wasn’t forcing anybody to jump the border and live there illegally.  Quite the opposite actually: it’s trying to keep them out.  In fact Felipe, if you and your government weren’t so disgustingly corrupt, your citizens may actually be able to make a living in their own country.

Of course, this is the same guy who felt he had the right to criticize our building of a fence in our own country. Instead of a fence, Felipe believes improving Mexico’s economy would be more effective at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, and he’s probably right.  The problem, though, is that his idea of economic improvement is having workers in America send money to Mexico.  As of 2007, approximately $20 billion had been sent by workers in America, many of whom are here illegally, to their families in Mexico.  So, there is a method to his madness.

Take that City of Angels

Power Play Over Immigration Law

In what must be defined as nothing short of awesome, Arizona Utility Commissioner Gary Pierce has indicated his willingness to shut off the electricity supplied by the State of Arizona to the city of Los Angeles, in the event L.A. goes through with its well thought out boycott.  Arizona supplies L.A. with 25% of its power.

I think residents of L.A. should be ecstatic about this idea.  It will reduce their energy costs and help save the planet.  It will also provide an incentive to put all of those highly-efficient and economical solar panels on their homes.  Who knows?  Maybe the Governator will provide subsidies to Algore so he can make his pad greener.

11:00 p.m. post: man is apparently whale aphrodesiac; studies show bacon unhealthy

Two bits of (not so) surprising news to ponder this evening.

Tilikum Gets 2 SeaWorld Killer Whales Pregnant

Well, for anyone who has seen the cult classic “Orca,” this may not come as much of a shcck, but apparently all it takes to get killer whales to mate is to let one of them go all Darwin on a trainer.  Sweet, lovable Tilikum, who only a few months ago fatally attacked a trainer at Sea World Orlando, has conceived two baby whales.  Congratulations orca.

Study: Hot Dogs, Bacon Pose Big Health Risk

Apparently, hot dogs and bacon are bad for your health.  I, for one, am shocked.  Good thing someone spent money on this study.  I’m thinking class action lawsuit.  Any takers?