Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Al-Jazeera Says No To Airing Violence Against Animals...But Beheading Of Infidels Still Ok

Example

Al-Jazeera, the middle-eastern television network famous for airing beheadings of kidnap victims has refused to air and an ad by the PETA. I guess liberals are not the only ones who value animals more than people.

According to WorldNet Daily:

The sheep, raised for wool, are later shipped alive to the Middle East for slaughter. The footage shows lambs partially skinned alive during a procedure called "mulesing." Sheep are repeatedly kicked as they are loaded onto what PETA calls "death ships." Other sheep are are shown being dragged and kicked in the head as their throats are slit while other sheep watch.

Who is the biggest hypocrite in this story?

PETA because they would seek to broadcast a commercial “decrying the violent slaughter of innocent animals” on a network that broadcasts the violent slaughter of innocent human beings.

Or

Al-Jazeera because they refuse to broadcast a commercial “decrying the violent slaughter of innocent animals” on a network that broadcasts the violent slaughter of innocent human beings.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Monday, June 6, 2005

Is There And Alternative To Affirmative Action? Yes!

Example

Some low income San Jose area schools have seen a dramatic increase in college attendance rates in the last few years. And it wasn't because of race-based set asides and preferences.

It was because Student from San Jose State University worked in these schools to help create a college going culture.

The San Jose Mercury News notes the following:

Six years ago, a group of San Jose State academics and master's students adopted the entire seventh-grade class from three lower-income San Jose schools. They had one goal: to see if intensive tutoring and mentoring would result in more kids going to college.
Even they were amazed by just how many more. The number of graduates headed to four-year universities from Lincoln, Gunderson and San Jose High Academy shot up 89 percent compared with last year, to 340 students.

Too often the administrators of affirmative action programs have focused on the wrong things. First, they targeted students based on their race, as if it were the only factor as to why these students were not getting admitted to college. Socio-economic status took a backseat to their ethnic background.

The second misstep was to provide admittance to students without proper preparation. And as noted in a previous blog “Racial Preferences…Help or Hindrance?” this practice inevitably would set these students up to fail.

Well the folks in San Jose State seem to have found the answer.

San Jose Unified School District has made it a ``vital priority,'' Tweten said, for teachers to instill a ``college-bound culture'' in their students. Already, the district is one of the few to require graduating students to take all of the classes needed to apply for four-year colleges -- whether or not they plan to pursue a degree.

So much effort is going into low performing student populations that the needs of potentially college bound students are not being met. But these folks are actually taking the time to see that all students (including those on the bubble) are actually prepared to be successful in college. The GEAR UP program, they are targeting those who might fall through the cracks. And while they’re not using race as a factor, I’ll bet that more ethnic minorities from these schools will benefit.

"Only 20 percent of counselors' time is devoted to helping kids learn about going to college,'' Tweten said. ``That means kids are practically getting close to nothing in understanding the complexities of making college a choice and how to go about doing that.”

Unfortunately though, state funded programs like GEAR UP are in danger of loosing their funding. Under the Governor’s proposed budget, such “outreach programs” will not receive funding. More specifically, the dollar amount equal to their funding last year was eliminated from the Higher Education portion of the budget. And ultimately, it will be up to the two state college systems (UC & CSU) to decide if they will cut these programs or continue to fund them and find other places to make cuts.

If as conservatives, we are truly about creating equality of opportunity then we have to support academic preparation programs like GEAR UP. They steer students to college who otherwise would never have considered it a possibility otherwise. And they do it without race-based set asides. But they seek out students who are interested in success and prepare them to be successful.

So as budget negotiations ramp up, let’s encourage Republicans and Democrats to steer a few buck to save these programs. I believe it would be a wise investment in our state’s future.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Friday, June 3, 2005

Definition Of Insanity- Giving A Liberal Your Checkbook

Example

Definition of Insanity- Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Also See- Democratic Buget Prososals)

Last week, liberal newspapers up and down the state published editorials supporting Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal. But that is not enough for the special interests and the Democrat controlled Legislature. They come up with their own plan!

An editorial in the Riverside Press Enterprise sums it up best:

The budget proposal that Assembly Democrats unveiled Tuesday would set California on a (familiar) road to fiscal disaster.

Tax increases and increased spending…that about sums up the Democratic Budget Proposal. All they have to offer is the same old tax and spend scheme that put us in debt in the first place.

In 1995-96, state income tax on stock options and capital gains -- mostly the province of the well-to-do -- brought in about $2 billion. By 2000-01, that revenue hit $17 billion, then fell to $5 billion two years later. By then California had committed the higher sum to ongoing programs, causing the state's current budget mess.

The Democrats in the legislature have refused to face the reality that California has a spending problem. Or rather, they have a spending problem! No matter how much money comes into the state coffers, they find a way to spend more. And they haven’t seen a government program they didn’t like. Unless of course a Republican proposes it.

But it is not as though they are incapable of saying “NO!” They’ve said “No” to fiscal accountability in schools. They’ve said “No” to any attempt to reform our state pension system, which has seen the cost to taxpayers go from $150 million to over $2.2 billion in the last five years. They have said “No” to allowing school districts to save millions of dollars by contracting out some nonacademic services. They even said “NO” to school textbooks that are over 200 pages! (See “Children Can’t Read? Get Rid of The Books!” )

They know how to say “No.” They just can’t seem to say it to the special interests.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, June 2, 2005

Earn $100 for Watching MTV!

I received the following email regarding a post from back in February “Sex And Nudity On MTV?...I'm Shocked!!!!”

This individual has made an interesting accusation, but an even more interesting offer I thought you might like to take them up on.

Craig,

You refer to your blog site as "Uncommon Sense" but perhaps it should be called "Uncommon Lies." I just came across a story you carried on Feb. 4 of this year, which claims there is nudity and sex on MTV. While it is true that there there are plenty of sexual situations and verbal sexual references on that cable channel, it stops right there. MTV does not, I repeat, does not show nudity. It censors out all nudity at all hours of the day, period.

Anyone who claims to have seen nudity on MTV is either lying or hallucinating. In fact, I'll issue a challenge to anyone who still thinks I'm wrong. I'll pay $100 each for every verifiable incident of nudity on MTV. Don't worry, I'm not risking anything by making this challenge. I've never had to pay out a dime on it and I never will.

To protect the integrity of your blog site, you should immediately disavow that story.

Regards,

Terry Mitchell
www.commenterry.com


This was my response:

Terry,

Thank you for your comments, however obtuse they may be.

The quote that I used was from the CBS News article on MTV. I even made it a point to link to the article. So I think your accusing me of lying is a bit of a reach.

Not that I have any problem disavowing CBS News, but if you sincerely have a problem with the accuracy of their story, take it up with Dan Rather…ugh… I mean CBS News.

But I will also say this, there is very little difference between showing a woman completely nude and showing her in thong and a bra or with her exposed nipples distorted using computer graphics. And anyone who thinks there is a significant difference is either in complete denial, seriously needs glasses or is a poster child for the coarsening of our culture.

There is a reason why those in the rap industry have dubbed these women “Video Hoes.” Their provocative displays denigrate women, especially those who are professional dancers. These talented artists are being replaced in today’s music videos with less talented women who are willing to get as naked as legally possible on national TV in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of modern culture.

Now as much as I disagree with it, I support their right to this! But I don’t think it should be on TV at all times of the day. AND IT IS!

And if MTV, VH1 and BET have a right to televise it, then I have a right to call my cable company and complain. Just as you have a right to conatct me and complain about my Blog.

You get an A for effort. But an F for substance.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

It’s Not About Marriage. It’s About Acceptance.

Example

In yesterday’s debate on same-sex marriage, California Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy made what was probably the most profound statement I have ever heard from him. He exposed the effort to define marriage as nothing more than an attempt to gain acceptance.

The San Jose Mercury News quoted Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg as she attempted to characterize those who do not support same-sex marriage as bigots:

``Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say that I am not a human being just as you are, you have no right to deny me the access to marriage in this state or anywhere else,''

Please note that Ms. Goldberg does not mention the rights, she is seeking the acceptance as a human being. This sentiment was echoed in the committee hearings where same-sex couples testified one after another that government approval of their unions would hopefully aid them in gaining the acceptance of their families.

What Ms. Goldberg does not understand is that those of us who support traditional marriage love and accept her as a human being. And despite our moral objections to her lifestyle choice, we do not seek to outlaw her right to love or be intimate with whomever she wishes. What we object to is being forced to honor that lifestyle. And that is exactly what we would be forced to do if our government put it’s official stamp of approval on it.

Dennis Mountjoy was speaking for most Californians when he stood up to defend, not just marriage, but traditional moral values.

``What the homosexuals in the state of California and in the United States want is not rights, they want acceptance,'' said Mountjoy. ``They want my children to be told that homosexuality is OK, that it is natural. I'm here to tell you that it is not OK and it is not natural and I will not have my children taught that.''

And this is not a right-wing, religious extremist, Republican point of view. As a matter of fact, 13 Democrats either voted against AB 19 or at the very least refused to support it. Democrat Assemblyman Alberto Torrico made it clear that this was not as much about civil rights, but about what is right.

``I'm going against part of me that's been a civil rights champion all my life,'' said Torrico, who did not vote on the bill. ``But it's all about what I think God wants for us, and I can't get around that.''

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Wednesday, June 1, 2005

California Says No to Same Sex Marriage... This Year!

AB 19 (Leno) came up for a vote this evening. All of the Republicans and even a few Democrats stood up for marriage.

I cannot tell you how difficult it was to watch the debate and not be saddened by the fact that such a debate should even be necessary.

Assemblyman Tom Harmon received a legal opinion from the California Legislative Counsel stating that AB 19 violates state law, because any measure that seeks to amend or substitute a measure passed by initiative must also be passed by initiative. Mr. Leno was also advised of this opinion and still pushed this bill.

Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones stood up and declared that Proposition 22 only spoke to marriages performed outside of the state of California, which is a complete lie.

In an affidavit by the author of Prop 22 it was noted that the language was constructed with the intention of outlawing the validation of same-sex marriages in California or recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thus the language “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid (addressing in state marriages) or recognized (addressing out of state marriages) in California.” And Assemblyman Ray Haynes did a masterful job of pointing this out.

As of 6:30pm the initial vote was 35 in favor and 37 against with 8 members not voting. The bill was put on call, to give members who have not yet voted a chance to vote. This means that unless Democrats are successful in getting the support of 6 of the 8 members who have not voted, AB 19 will fail.

Good Job!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

California Democrats Declare War on the Rich! Again...

Example

It was only a matter of time before Assembly Democrats proposed fixing California’s budget woes by increasing taxes on the state’s highest income earners. But it is always interesting to see how they try to put an new spin on the same old failed rhetoric.

Tax the Rich!

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

So for the first time in years, legislative Democrats are unified in flatly calling for tax increases to help balance the budget.

Specifically, Núñez said, they want to restore two top income tax brackets.

The highest earners now pay a 9.3 percent state income tax. Under the Democrats' plan, married couples earning from about $285,000 to about $570,000 would pay 10 percent, while those who make more than that would pay 11 percent.

Now keep in mind, this is on top of the 1% tax levied on the rich to pay for mental health. And don’t forget about the 1% tax that Meathead Rob Riener is pushing to pay for universal preschool. Are you starting to see the pattern?

Democrats don’t want to live within their means. And they know that the average taxpayer isn’t willing to pay more to cover their spending spree. So as usual they go after their favorite ATM machine…The Rich.

Unfortunately though, there is noting more portable than a rich man and his money. And as we continue to increase taxes on high income earners to pay for government programs, they will eventually leave.

For example, when Tiger Woods signed his $90 million deal several years ago he went from being a legal resident of California to being a legal resident of Florida. This move saved him about $4 million a year.

I am not saying that this one proposal will cause a mass exodus by the rich. But this “Tax the Rich” mindset will. One percent here and one percent there will eventually add up. And as it does, those whom we are targeting to pay for all these new programs will get tired of being soaked.

Then guess who will be left holding the Bag?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com