white supremist

Faux Think Tank claims Immigrant Farts Cause Global Warming

The white supremacist created Center for Immigration Studies has release a "study" that says immigration causes global warming.

Yeah. Immigrants are melting the polar ice caps.

They have such incredibly stupid "data" includes factors like "immigrant emissions". Tell me they're not talking about José's and Tanya's farts?

Included is the press release they're releasing today. I want you to come back to this post and link to each article that appears on traditional media. Because it's not the first time the likes of The New York Times uses this white supremacist group as a source for "experts".

CAUTION : Stupidity appears after the jump.

Submitted by liza on 13 August 2008 - 12:06am.
Immigrants | Immigration | white supremist | WTF

» read more | liza's blog | 35 comments | email this blog | 2376 reads

Progressive Win in California

I have been pushing some candidates in California for a couple of weeks, mainly Progressive Majority endorsed candidates. In the June 3rd primary election, those candidates did very well.

First off is a race for Superior Court Judge (office 125) where I covered the rather shocking news that a white supremicist, Bill Johnson, was running for judge as a Democrat. The good news is that Bill Johnson lost. His opponent, James Bianco, won with more than 73% of the vote. The main down side is nearly 25% of DEMOCRATIC voters in the district voted for a white supremicist. This in no way suggests those voters are white supremicists. It shows that so few people actually pay attention to the judicial races that they cluelessly vote for a white supremicist probably because they liked his name better. This is why you will find me publicizing judicial races as often as I can using as much information as I can: people need to know more about who they are electing as judges.

Now we come to the Progressive Majority endorsed candidates. They did well. Of the nine candidates, two lost, one outright won, and six advance to a runoff. Here are the full results:

State Representative

Bob Blumenfield
State Representative - District 40

» read more | mole333's blog | add new comment | email this blog | 123 reads

Buy it!

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

—

Lawrence Lessig