Pricey Three Way

Couple bids $100,000 for a day with Tim Tebow. Kinky dogs...

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. -- There are a lot of fans who would give anything just to spend a couple of minutes with Tim Tebow.

...

One couple is willing to spend $100,000 to spend a day with the New York Jets quarterback.

"That day I feel like I've got to do a few extra things to be special, you know? I've got to try to be a little bit better."

...

"I got goose bumps thinking about it because that's what the night was......and then you found out what their motives are.....

...

"I think Tim was stunned," Dellenback said. "Then I'm sure he went in his head and thought, 'What am I going to do for a day?' But it's great. Now that he knows what he's going to do, he's so excited to do it."

We can read between the lines ESPN, well done reporting on the perverted world of sport.

But 100K?!? Would Jenna Haze cost that for a day?

Big Brother is Watching You

Look what just popped up in the sleepy little beach town of Leucadia, California.


Look... up in the sky... it's a bird... it's a plane... it's... a government surveillance camera recording citizens' activity.



I'm guessing the city got a federal grant to install it. Just for traffic safety, you know. Nothing to be alarmed about.

And to get the sheeple used to being monitored, much as they've become accustomed to being groped by TSA goons for the privilege of air travel... or to allowing no-knock warrants and asset forfeiture without due process in the name of the "War on Drugs."  Heck, no one even noticed when Obama signed a bill allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge.

Are you OK with this, America?

Greenspan's Body Count in Academia

Look who's cited in the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law: little ol' W.C. Varones!

Elizabeth L. MacDowell, Associate Professor of Law at UNLV, discusses the 2008 Karthik Rajaram murder-suicide in her paper When Reading Between the Lines is Not Enough: Lessons from Media Coverage of a Domestic Violence Homicide-Suicide:

In this context, the story was soon  swept up in what Associated Press writer Kelli Kennedy characterized as a trend of suicides and murder-suicides across the country attributable  to worsening financial conditions.  In the blogosphere, W.C. Varones even included the Rajaram family in his “Greenspan’s Body Count”—a list of suicide and murder victims whose deaths he attributes to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s policies.

While we're honored to be cited in such a prestigious journal as the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, the author is a complete loon steeped in Grievance Studies nonsense. From her intro:

This was obviously a domestic violence homicide, by virtue of the fact that Karthik had killed his family. But in the aftermath of violence, significant questions remain about what occurred beforehand. Statistics tell us that a history of abuse most likely preceded this killing. Whether that was the case in this family, whether these killings were preventable, and what this tragedy would teach us about preventing domestic violence in the future, all remain to be seen.

However, media accounts of domestic violence homicide and homicide-suicide typically forego explora tion of these significant questions, presenting domestic violence crimes as isolated events that are unrelated to other similar cases. As a result, these accounts tend to cloud rather than clarify the problem of domestic violence. Coverage of the Rajaram case would take these familiar concerns to new levels, as the emerging narrative first inspired incredulity, and then anger.

This Article is a response to the secondary, routine acts of violence enacted in the media that utterly efface victims of domestic violence, even in death. In particular, it grew from a desire to do some small justice on behalf of Subasri Rajaram, whose position as the erstwhile safety net in her family is easy to imagine and empathize with. While it would be dishonest to pretend that we can discern the truth of her story from the scant details provided about her in media reports, or from mere demographics, it would also be irresponsible to ignore what is known about similarly situated women in considering the circumstances that led to her death.

Get that? If the media even discuss the contribution of economic stresses to a murder-suicide, the media themselves are committing violence against the victim!

Can you believe your tax dollars are going to fund dingbats writing drivel like this? Or that your children's five-figure annual college tuition is going to fund it?

The sooner the higher education bubble bursts and these professors take up new jobs as Walmart greeters, the better.

Seen on Facebook

Ron Paul: Liberty. "I guess you guys aren't ready for that, yet.  But your kids are gonna love it."

Keep the faith

Stocks dipped a little today, and gold and gold stocks were worse, on Fed minutes indicating no imminent QE3.

Sure, we could get a brutal correction this year in stocks, gold, or both. You could argue Bernanke needs a bad correction politically before he can fire up the printing presses again.

But keep your eye on the horizon. Long term, there's no way the $15 trillion (and counting) in debt can ever be paid back in sound money. Nobody can afford sound money -- not homedebtors, not the banks, and certainly not the federal government which wouldn't be able to make interest payments without slashing Social Security and Medicare.

Therefore, there will be no sound money. Devaluation is the only way out. Real assets for the long run.

"Constitutional law professor" Obama either completely clueless or blatantly lying

Does he think we don't remember what happened? And that we can't check facts on the Internet?

CBS News:

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.

Strong majority? It passed 219-212 after months of backroom deals, bribery, arm-twisting, and lies. That's a strong majority?

Unprecedented? How about the Flag Protection Act of 1989? It passed the House 380-38 and the Senate 91-9. Now that's a strong majority. And then the Supreme Court went ahead and precedented all over it.

Want another precedent? How about McCain-Feingold? That passed 240-189 and then got struck down by a Supreme Court that could read the First Amendment.

I'm no Constitutional law professor, and I came up with those two precedents off the top of my head.  What the hell are they teaching at Harvard Law?

Being willfully ignorant of historical precedent is bad enough. But Obama's statement indicates he doesn't even understand the basic concept of having a Constitution.  His argument would mean that the Supreme Court and the Constitution are completely irrelevant and Congress can always do whatever it wants. If you went to Chicago and Obama was your professor for Constitutional law, you might want to take a refresher course.

Separated at birth

Cesar Chavez and Jamie Dimon