Redstate

It's become painfully clear to me why the Democrats lose. After Minnesota, Penn State, and Notre Dame over the weekend, and now one-strike-away Houston, clearly anybody that I root for will find some heartbreaking and unbelievable way to fall just short.

Maybe I'll register Republican just to see what happens.

I was watching C-SPAN2 this morning and listening to the Horse Whisperer, Mr. Harry Reid, and he was commending Feingold and McCain, every Democrat's favorite Republican, for opposing a rider on the transportation bill that would waive the $15,000/cycle limit on leadership PAC contributions to the national party.

I would imagine the real reason for wanting to waive this limit is that a campaign in 2008 would be able to throw an unbelievable amount of money at the RNC, and then receive some support from the establishment, which looks to be a fairly big deal in a race as open as this one appears it will be.

But, no worries, because McCain-Feingold came to the rescue and opposed this horrible, awful provision that might allow people to do with their money what they want. That would be very bad, of course.

Naturally, it makes plenty of sense for Democrats to oppose something like this. One, they don't have enough money in their leadership PACs to throw at the DNC in the first place, and two, if they did, the DNC would just lose it or spend it on a new office for Howard "He Would've Won" Dean, since we all know the DNC couldn't find itself in the mirror.

Kofi  is troubled, everyone's troubled,the vote in Iraq is tainted,questions of legitimacy are raised,the new govt will not ,can not,rise to the level of Fidel Castro's regime,  every mothers son of a Sunni didn't approve, a flawed democracy,the spectre of mass bloodshed is raised, hopes are crushed, a failure of the Bush administration, we must withdraw by a date certain, preferably tomorrow if not sooner.  Ted Kennedy will give a speech, the bottle will fall out of his back pocket, grown men and women of the media will cheer and cry, or cry and cheer.  Frank Rich will do a theatre review masquerading as political philosophy, Eleanor Clift will have a baby [two-headed], and Harriet Miers will crack open a law book.

Endosymbiosis is a theory that complex life can develop by simple organizisms "capturing and absorbing" another life form.  The result is a more complex organism.

There have been several theories about the evolution of flaggelum.  But the discovery of a new species in the midst of this process seems to shed some light on the subject.

In detail, the endosymbiosis theory says this:

Chloroplasts probably evolved in a manner similar to that of mitochondrion. However, chloroplasts probably were ingested by only some eukaryotic cells, and were ingested after the first mitochondrion. This is why almost all eukaryotes have mitochondrion but only some have chloroplasts. Certain eukaryotic cells ingested smaller prokaryotic autotrophic cells. These cells were able to produce organic food molecules for their host cells by fixing carbon, and the host cells gave these prokaryotes inorganic compounds like CO2. Eventually, the mitochondrion and chloroplasts became so interdependent that they became organelles of the host cell.

I guess only time will tell if the new species will entirely prove the last sentence.  It seems to verify the rest pretty well.  Just some interesting stuff.

If you were a Democrat would you want to look in a mirror?

On November 8, 2005 there will be a general election in Texas.  Among the list of issues will be Proposition 8 which will decide whether to amend the Texas Constitution to include a definition of marriage which holds it to be between one man and one woman.

As Conservatives, we all (presumably) support the notion that this definition is consistent with our beliefs in the traditional family structure.  But, putting that aside for a moment, consider the sterile side of this; an election will be held and voters will decide the issue.  Yet, if you subscribe to the American Statesman you can read this article in today's paper which tells of 22 elected officials coming out against the amendment.  Now, people have the right to speak.  My problem is that these public officials are always able to access the media, and are essentially getting free political advertising.  Many of us John and Jane Does would love to have the same free access to the media to express our opinions about this legislation; access our own free political advertising.

I know this is not a McCain-Feingold level issue, but isn't it disconcerting to see the "sentiment" of McCain-Feingold (which tries to assure "level playing fields") has no real merit or meaning?  That it's just a matter of who has what access to which mediums, and knows best how to play them?

A noteworthy quote from Austin's inept Mayor says:

"A fundamental cultural characteristic of Texas is that we mind our own business."

.

The most notable quote goes to State Rep. Naishtat:

Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, said the proposal sprung from the Republican-majority Legislature this year out of "arrogance (and) mean-spiritedness."

Noting that a 2003 law already voids same-sex marriages in the state, Naishtat said: "This is all about discrimination and hatred... It doesn't matter how you vote. It doesn't matter (legally) whether this constitutional amendment passes or not."

I'll be sending a letter to the ditor expressing how shameful it was of these photo-op clowns to make the statements they made.  It will have little impact on the issue at hand, but I'll feel better.

I have to remember to list this ballot proposition on my 2005 endorsements.

It took a while but I finally found the official list of proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.

haystack