.~Javier Plumey~.|Fatih, Technology, Politics, Whatever.

LOL! This is a picture of the man, Russel Brand, that called President George W. Bush, a retard, at the MTV Music Awards. 

The New York Times were appreciative of Brand’s turn, saying the “manic, intelligent English comedian, injected the show with politics (pro-Barack Obama), raunch and philosophical musings.

That figures, that the American newspaper that most hates America should say that.

So he insults the Jonas Brothers, a quasi-Christian band, and then continued to make lewd, raunchy jokes.  I liked what Jordan Sparks, who wears a promise ring, had to say:

 ”I just want to say, it’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?”

He turns the MTV awards into his personal pro-Obama rally. I wonder if Obama really wants to have the likes of these kinds of people on his side. Probably not.

UPDATE: There are now over 2,600 comments on MTV’s boards about this issue, the majority of which are condeming MTV and many of which are demanding apologies. Let’s see what MTV does.

I recently sent a fax to Congressman Robert Wexler regarding his verbal assault on VP nominee Governor Sarah Palin:

Mr. Wexler,

As a constituent in your district I wanted to tell you that I am deeply embarassed and vividly enraged at the vile comments you have made regarding Governor Sarah Palin. In a recent interview you said that she “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice in American politics.” You have also invoked the name of Adolf Hitler and the phrase “Nazi sympathizer.”

Your statement was not only cruel and misleading, but also incorrect. A statement on John McCain’s Web site says Palin actually worked for the Steve Forbes campaign in 2000. Furthermore, to draw this conclusion from seeing that she wore a Pat Buchanan pin one day and then to speak openly, using such strong language, is both shameful and reflects very negatively on your professionalism and personal integrity.

I understand that you are assisting Senator Obama’s presidential campaign in Florida, but is it worth drawing such negative criticism to yourself simply for the cause of his election. Wouldn’t you rather be putting your best foot forward, instead of in your mouth?

Want a clear indication on Obama’s level of concern for America? Look no further than his response to Hurricane Gustav. Let’s compare the difference:

John McCain told the delegates and the crowds ready at the RNC that “This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans”. Senator McCain took a trip down to Mississippi to look at how Mississippi and Louisiana preparations were going. He’s already called on his supporters to not only send money, but to be prepared to respond with work.

Obama on the hand, says that he “could” ask his worshipers supporters to coordinate volunteer efforts if needed. He made some vague reference to a “an email list of two million people” if necessary, and that in the meantime, he and his cult camp would stay out of the area until things have “settled down”.

How insulting is that?!? Here is a man who claims he has concern for his fellow American citizens, and yet the best thing he can come up with it is this base non-committal political rhetoric? An email list? Is he serious? Who’s going to get these emails when half the Gulf Coast is flooded?

Is this the kind of person/administration that you want running America? If there is a threat of war, do you want your commander in chief “laying low” until things “settle down”? We need a leader with decisive action, not one who will cower at the first sign of personal danger!

UPDATE: Looks like the indifference of the liberals is an epidemic!

Look at Michael Moore’s classy comments here: Hurricane during GOP convention is “proof there is a God in Heaven”

Democratic Convention leader claims God is on the side of the Dems

I fired off this email to President Robert Bruininks, of the University of Minnesota Morris, regarding disgusting statements made by one of the professors of the university on his school-operated blog. Here is sample of the comments. WARNING, serious language here:

“It’s a Frackin’ Cracker!”:

“Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion
wafers?” Myers continued by saying, “if any of you would be willing to do what
it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you
sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage
(no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching
Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more
humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it
with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and
presented here on the web.”

Bill Donahue represents the Catholic League, who first posted comments about a University of Central Florida student who held the Eucharist hostage for days. This tirade of stupidity was an apparent response to Mr. Donahue’s comments.

Here’s the letter I sent:

Mr. Bruininks,

I am not a student at your university, nor do my children attent your institution, but I am appalled at the shocking comments made by Paul Zachary Myers, one of your professors, regarding his plans to desecreate the Eucharist. The Eucharist is an essential part of the Catholic-Christian faith and we Catholics believe it to be the physical manifestation of the presence of Christ. Regardless of his personal opinions, Mr. Myers has no right to so blatantly and shamefully disgrace the millions of Catholics around the world through the language on his university-operated blog.

If he had chosen to do this on his own personal blog, then we could excuse his lunatic ravings as a mere expression of a deluded and uneducated opinion. However, since the post was made on a blog maintained by the University of Minnesota Morris, we can only assume that his opinion is one which matches that of the administration of the university, mainly, yourself and the other faculty.

I ask that you take these steps:

1. Censure Mr. Myers
2. Delete the post from the blog
3. Demand that Mr. Myers post an apology
4. Make an official statement separating your institution from the opinion of Mr. Myers

I hope that you will take action on this matter and restore the good name of the faculty of the University of Minnesota Morris.

UPDATE: I have since learned that the blog is NOT operated by the university, but instead merely linked to it. I have sent a revised letter to the President stating that if the university removes the link from their site or if they provide a clear disclaimer that they are not associated with Mr. Myers’ ramblings, then no apology from the University or Mr. Myers is necessary, though one would be appreciated, considering the incrudelity he showed in the vulgarity of his comments.

UPDATE: The University has taken off the link from their site. In this matter, Mr. Meyers’ behaviour has been proven folly and the matter is closed.

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18

This is exactly the kind of thing that the liberals want, to completely run the country. Now they want to own the nation’s oil refineries. Outside of the Army can you think of a SINGLE government organization that does its job well? Hmm…Medicare, SSA, Department of Justice, TSA? Now they want to control the supply of oil and thus the economy?

This is nothing but a power move. Nothing good can come it? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the government owning our energy resources? IT DOESN’T! This government we have, run by liberal democrats, wants to control every aspect of our lives. Bring on socialism, because we’re not far away!

I just got an email response to my letter to the office of Senator Mel Martinez. It looks like another canned response, but here it is anyway. This was in response to my previous letter:

My letter to Senator Mel Martinez (FL)

Thank you for contacting me regarding America’s Climate Security Act. I appreciate hearing  from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

On October 18, 2007, Senator Lieberman introduced America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191). This bill would create an absolute cap on total emissions from all covered entities including the electric power,
transportation, industry, and commercial sectors with the goal of reducing
greenhouse gases. This cap would be lowered over time through 2050, and a market would be created to sell and trade emission allowances. On December 5, 2007, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out a revised version of S. 2191, and further action is expected on the legislation in the 110th Congress.

I believe that the threat of climate change is real, and I am working with my
colleagues in the Senate to regulate and reduce greenhouse emissions. As we consider climate change legislation, we need to ensure that the laws we pass will in fact reduce carbon emissions and lessen the threat of catastrophic climate change. Additionally, we need to consider and attempt to mitigate any negative effects the new laws would have on our economy, energy prices, and Americans living on fixed incomes.

The United States cannot solve this problem alone, and similar efforts in China and India are critical to combating this threat. However, our country can provide needed leadership and technological innovation for the international community, and, as one of the world’s largest energy consumers, it is time for the United States to accept this responsibility. The choices we make now in dealing with climate change may be some of the most significant environmental and economic decisions of our generation. I assure you that I am committed to passing legislation to counter the threat posed by global climate change, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers S. 2191 or similar legislation.

I think I am going to load up S. 2191 and take a look at these carbon emission allowances. I’ll report my findings later tommorow.

I am in the midst of corresponding with Mr. Robert Wexler, Congressman from Florida regarding the proposed constitutional amendment H.J. RES. 89 that would define marriage on a FEDERAL LEVEL. Here’s the dialog, I’ll update as often as we (me and whomever is sending back these replies) continue. The formatting of this looks weird, but it’s all there:

My Original Fax:

RE: Support H.J. RES. 89!

The American people want to protect marriage from activist judges!

I am very disappointed that the Democratic Party has endorsed homosexual marriage. I
urge you to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008,
which would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Our families and children need this constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

I realize that there are some minority factions of our country that desire the
status of marriage between same-sex couples. However, it is the OVERWHELMING
opinion of Americans that marriage is between a man and a woman. Do not bow to
the special interests of a minority. This is NOT a civil rights issue, but
rather one of choice. Please side with the MAJORITY of Americans and co-sponsor
this bill.

Here is the reply I got via email:

Dear Mr. Plumey:

Thank you for expressing your thoughts about the proposed constitutional
amendment that would define marriage on a federal level, H.J. Res. 89 in this
Congress.

This amendment has been debated numerous times in the past few years. As you may know, on June 7, 2006, the Senate soundly rejected the amendment in a procedural vote, which received only 49 of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the issue. Sixty-seven votes would have been necessary to approve the constitutional amendment. On July 18, 2006, the House then voted on this amendment (H.J.Res. 88) in spite of the Senate’s prior defeat of the measure.

H.J.Res. 88 failed to receive the requisite two-thirds majority by a vote of
236 to 187. The House had already gone on record this session opposing such a proposal; on September 30, 2005 the House voted on H.J.Res. 106, a prior version of the marriage amendment. As with H.J.Res. 88, H.J. Res 106 failed, receiving 227 votes, nearly 50 fewer than needed.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states,

“Full faith and credit shall
be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” HOWEVER, in 1996, 104th Congress passed the   “Defense of Marriage Act,” which modifies Article IV, Section 1 such     that no state is required to recognize the same sex marriages of any other state. The Defense of Marriage Act became Public Law 104-199 and currently stands under Chapter 115 of title 28 in US Code.

For your reference, I have included the most relevant portion of the act below:

Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a
relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage
under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right
or claim arising from such relationship.”

This provision has allowed each state to decide for its citizens how to define marriage and does not require any other state to recognize its marital unions.

On an issue that is so divisive for America and since each state is able to make this determination based on the will of the state, I do not see a need to make a change at the present time.

Rest assured that I will continue to monitor this important issue. Thank you
again for taking the time to write. Please feel free to contact me anytime
if I may be of help to you.

Interesting, and while I would normally agree with this position, the fact is that the people who are voting in these states are not having their voices heard. Case in point: the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overrule the majority of the people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Here’s my followup response:

RE: Your email response to my fax inquiry re: Support H.J. RES. 89!

Thank you for the prompt and courteous reply to my inquiry regarding this proposed
amendment. I understand that under The Defense of Marriage Act no state is
required to give effect to another’s state’s definition of marriage. However, I
feel that there is one very important aspect that is not being discussed: a
federal amendment to the Constitution is the only way to guarantee and protect
the status of marriage so that activist judges cannot overrule the desires of
the voters. The courts in many states want to force this lifestyle on voters and citizens who do not want it. Take, for example, the recent actions of the California Supreme Court.

Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can protect the will of the people, which
throughout the entire United States, is a positive affirmation of the
sanctity of marriage between a man and woman.

Your responsibility as a representative of the citizens of South Florida is to ensure that our opinions are not overruled by activist judges who have their own agenda, outside of the scope of the will of the people.

Furthermore, we must also consider the considerable and unnecessary misuse of millions of dollars in litigation it will cost states to have to continually defend the will of the people.

This amendment is the right choice for America because it will protect the right of every citizen to have a say in the way our country is run.

Again, I implore you to support H.J. RES. 89. Supporting this amendment is to support the
will of the people. Thank you for listening.

This is a fantastic graphic indicating the regulatory apparatus that would have to be implemented to cover the regulatory requirements as set forth in the Lieberman-Warner global warming legislation. Anyone who blindly accepts that we should approve this bill, without amendment and discussion needs to have their head examined. Courtesy of www.heritage.org:

Here’s a quick summary of why this legislature is a bad idea, courtesy of GOPUSA:

This legislation will create an unprecedented tax on industry that will profoundly change every area of the American economy.

Under
a system of cap and trade the government would set a limit on emissions
that declines every year. The goal of Warner-Lieberman is to return to
2005 levels by 2012, and to further reduce that number by 30% by 2030.
Companies affected will be awarded emission credits, which can be
bought, sold and traded to other companies.

Cap and trade is an indirect tax that will hamper the economy and will be passed on to consumers through price increases.

This
new tax gives politicians unprecedented control over business with the
ability to favor one group over others. It will create an opportunity
for corruption and fraud to run rampant.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce put together a great chart
on the regulatory apparatus that would be needed to implement the
economy-killing Lieberman-Warner global warming legislation. Not only
would this be a massive expansion of government, but it would also have
a devastating impact on states.

I’ll try and cover the points, if and when this ever comes up again. It’s not likely to be approved, at least not in this Congress. But since both McCain and Obama have made it a priority to help “clean up the environment’, I’m sure this thing will rear its ugly head again in the near future.

Here’s a recent letter I wrote to Senator Martinez of Florida (my home state) in response to this video (See the video below):

Senator Martinez,

I just viewed your speech to the Senate on how the Congress leadership should handle the rising cost of energy. I think your points were right on and I wanted to show you my support of your work.

In particular, the use of American innovation and technology, I think, will ultimately lead us out of this issue. A diminished, or completely removed, dependency on foreign fuel sources will do wonders for our economy and the political status of America throughout the world and the Middle East region.

I look forward to hearing more from you about this subject and I hope to see you represent Florida’s interest in the rapidly growing field of Cellulosic Ethanol as well as in the use of other bio waste in the production of energy.

I would also encourage you to take the time to explore the use of advanced photovoltaic surfaces that can be used on roads and highways to generate electricity from the Sun and heat for which Florida is famous.

Thank you for your work,

Senator Martinez On Rising Energy Costs

NASA is going to be making a pretty big announcement on May 14th. Given the instruments cited, I wouldn’t be surprised if they finally found the first extra-solar planet with similarities to Earth. What else could it be?

WASHINGTON — NASA has scheduled a media teleconference Wednesday, May 14, at 1 p.m. EDT, to announce the discovery of an object in our Galaxy astronomers have been hunting for more than 50 years. This finding was made by combining data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory with ground-based observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_M08089_Chandra_Advisory.html

Technorati Tags: geek, science, space, NASA