So you’re slogging away at a 9 to 5 job, paying off that student loan, doing all the things The Man said you had to do to succeed. Then one day you stop and think to yourself: there has got to be an easier way to make money.

And that’s why you’re in jail now. Which is too bad, because it turns out there are a number of completely legal ways to make money–good money–without setting foot in an office or putting on a uniform or even learning a single skill. And people do it every day.

Potential Income:

$12,000+ per year (depending on the sperm).

Finally, it’s the job you’ve been training for since middle school!

The opportunities are only as limited as your own libido and genetics. For just a couple minutes of your time you can net around $100 for each donation, depending on the bank. Some even offer up to $500 a shot–but that’s only if you agree to do it "Open ID" style so that your offspring can come knocking on your door years later.

No matter what career you’re currently in, this should be the easiest job interview you’ve ever been through. There will be some basic health screenings to prove that you can physically handle the gauntlet of porn they’re about to throw at you. Also, be ready for a background check on you and your immediate family to make sure that you aren’t Charlie Sheen.

"What if I said you didn’t have to pay me?"

Did we just mention the porn? Yeah, they put you in a nice quiet room with a bunch of porn. Do the deed, drop off your semen at the desk and make an appointment for later in the week (you can donate every three days).

A hundred bucks, every three days, that’s $12,000 a year. And that’s just entry level. If you’re really serious about this, why limit yourself to one sperm bank? You can hit as many as you want, multiplying your yearly haul with each one. The "Open ID" method specifies that you’re limited to two pregnancies per state. But they distribute your sample for you, so assuming you don’t mind having a brood of 100 children scattered across America, you’re literally sitting on a potential $50,000 at this moment.

And they smile when you give it to them. And they keep it in drinking glass.

Even if you don’t go "Open ID," your earning potential is only limited by your ability to deliver the goods. The sperm count tends to decrease with the volume, but your guys can handle a few workouts a day, right?

Ladies, we’re not leaving you out of this one. You can donate eggs and–get this–you can wind up with $5,000 or more per cycle.

Potential Income:

$25,000+ a year.

We’ve all seen the guy with a guitar hanging out by the subway station with his case open to accept donations. And you’ve probably dropped a quarter in feeling sorry for his poor homeless ass. But don’t be fooled by that sad song about his wife leaving him for someone fitting your general description. He’s just doing his job as a "busker." And that job can pay anywhere from $10 to $20 an hour depending on the performer’s choice of location and level of talent.

"Cagey bastard always gets to the titty statue first."

There’s even a book on the subject by long-time busker Johnnie Mac, covering all the basics from the choicest locations to where to put your tip cup. Mac spent almost 20 years as a street musician and says he was, "making a fortune… in fact, more than triple what I was making in the job I left behind."

And there’s plenty of room for advancement. The Blue Man Group, Jimmy Buffet, Pierce Brosnan, George Burns, Bob Hope, Jewel, Jimmy Page, Penn and Teller, Rod Stewart, Simon and Garfunkel, Bob Dylan and Robin Williams all started their entertainment careers on the streets.

This is none of the people listed above but he’s probably loaded.

Sure those people all had talent, but you can also make money miming, fortune telling and standing totally still while covered in silver paint (though we’re guessing that last one involves lots of smart-ass kids walking by and punching you in the nuts).

Street performances are perfectly legal in most places as long as they don’t interfere with traffic and business. But you do have to deal with the other buskers who are trying to horn in on your racket. After all, your sweet saxophone playing isn’t going to get you any cash if there’s a dude noisily plucking at his banjo five feet away, drowning you out. Luckily there’s a sort of "Busker Code" that street entertainers follow which basically states, "I got to this corner first, and if you try and set up shop here, I’ll stab you."

Potential Income:

$50,000 a year (if you survive).

The key to science is trial and error. This occupation offers offers the excited opportunity to get paid to be one of the two.

Anyone can do it and, if you get involved in enough studies, man can it add up. For instance here’s one that pays up to $1,500 for just two days of your time (granted, you have to be in chronic pain to qualify, but who isn’t?) or you could get paid $15 an hour to be a test patient for medical students to poke at. And best of all, it’s perfectly safe!

"Open big. Good, now swallow this tree frog."

Okay, that’s a lie. A couple of years ago 11 people got tuberculosis after participating in a study that was apparently trying to find out what happens when you stick 11 healthy people in the same room with one guy who has tuberculosis.

Sure, that sounds horrifying. But we know at least one of their symptoms was prominent swelling. Of their wallets.

Just when it seemed that the press has exhausted all the possible rumors the could exist regarding the future of Yahoo, another one is making the rounds. With mergers, buyouts, partnerships and purchases all proposed as the company’s salvation, a new report is suggesting that Yahoo’s fate might involve a stint as a privately held company. Unfortunately, the very conditions that make this rumor mildly plausible mean that any deal of this sort is unlikely to go through.

Yahoo’s had quite a year in the headlines as it is. The company was targeted for purchase by Microsoft, but Redmond offered a price-per-share that was below what the company’s management thought it was worth, so that deal was rejected. This failed deal acted as blood in the water for Carl Icahn, who waged a proxy battle for control of Yahoo’s board, with the intention of resuscitating the deal with Microsoft. With that challenge beaten back (and Icahn on the board), Yahoo’s management turned to their plan for future viability: an ad-sharing deal with rival Google. Unfortunately, the government wasn’t happy with this deal, and Google walked away. Rumors have also persisted that Yahoo could potentially purchase Time Warner’s AOL division.

That brings Yahoo to the present: an economic crisis, plummeting share prices and ad revenues, and Jerry Yang resigning as CEO, leaving no obvious plan for increasing future revenue. Not exactly an ideal situation for a publicly-traded company. Which is why the new rumors, reported by The Wall Street Journal almost make sense: a turnaround artist is looking to buy the company out at $22 a share and take it private.

Yahoo is clearly in need of a long-term plan but, while it comes up with one, the company is being harmed by the public perception that it may be inviable, or at best a very poor bet in the long term. This has the pernicious effect of dropping its share price, which leaves it fewer options (it makes buying other companies through stock swaps much harder, for example) and makes it harder to retain skilled staff as working for stock options becomes less appealing. This situation is likely to get worse as the recession continues in the coming months.

Taking the company private eliminates a lot of these concerns. Without a focus on quarterly income, stock price, etc., the company could have a better chance of attracting the people it needs: those who can figure out how to turn Yahoo’s huge population of regular users into a source of new revenue. The company could reorient itself as it rides out the current economic storm, and reward its owners through a new public offering when conditions improve. Alternately, the new owners could divide it up and sell off the parts for profit at that point.

The rumors also make sense in terms of the supposed white knight: Jonathan Miller, former head of Time Warner’s AOL division. Miller sampled several strategies for making AOL a viable concern after it became clear that it had a finite lifespan as an ISP, eventually settling on a portal strategy that has a lot of parallels with Yahoo’s current situation. Miller’s fit for the position goes well beyond his familiarity with AOL and portals, however. He was one of Carl Icahn’s initial candidates for Yahoo’s board during the earlier proxy fight, and The Journal reports that he’s been working behind the scenes to smooth the Microsoft-Yahoo negotiations.

Miller has also been working in a venture capital firm, so presumably has some sense of how to drum up the money to get a deal to go through. That, unfortunately, is where the rumors make the least sense. Right now, investment cash is extraordinarily hard to come by, and Miller almost certainly knows that. Supposedly, he’s working with sovereign wealth funds from a number of nations, but the appeal of this deal, at least at the moment, has got to be limited. Yahoo will need a lot of work, making it a risky bet, and most economists expect rough financial times to continue for months, so the buyout price is likely to only get better if they wait.

Other than coming up with the cash for the deal, however, this is one of the rare rumors about Yahoo that largely appears to make sense. Unfortunately, that cash issue is so significant that it raises the question of whether this might be another strategic rumor, leaked to pave the way for some other interested party to swoop in with a deal.

SOURCE: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081202-report-white-knight-wants-to-take-yahoo-private.html

 =======NEVER DRIVE WITH YOUR WIFE========

A police officer pulls over a speeding car. The officer says, ‘ I clocked you at 80 miles per hour, sir.’

The driver says, ‘Gee, officer I had it on cruise control at 60, perhaps your radar gun needs calibrating.’

Not looking up from her knitting the wife says: ‘Now don’t be silly dear, you know that this car doesn’t have cruise control.’

As the officer writes out the ticket, the driver looks over at his wife and growls, ‘Can’t you please keep your mouth shut for once?’

The wife smiles demurely and says, ‘You should be thankful your radar detector went off when it did.’

As the officer makes out the second ticket for the illegal radar detector unit, the man glowers at his wife and says through clenched teeth, ‘Dammit, woman, can’t you keep your mouth shut?’

The officer frowns and says, ‘And I notice that you’re not wearing your seat belt, sir. That’s an automatic $75 fine.’

The driver says, ‘Yeah, well, you see officer, I had it on, but took it off when you pulled me over so that I could get my license out of my back pocket.’

The wife says, ‘Now, dear, you know very well that you didn’t have your seat belt on. You never wear your seat belt when you’re driving.’

And as the police officer is writing out the third ticket the driver turns to his wife and barks, ‘WHY DON’T YOU PLEASE SHUT UP??’

The officer looks over at the woman and asks, ‘Does your husband always talk to you this way, Ma’am?’
…
…
…
…
…
…
I love this part…. :

‘Only when he’s been drinking.’

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

WASHINGTON | Finally, the outlines of a coherent debate on the federal bailout. This comes as welcome relief from a campaign season that gave us the House Republicans’ know-nothing rejectionism, John McCain’s mindless railing against “greed and corruption” and Barack Obama’s detached enunciation of vacuous bailout “principles” that allowed him to be all things to all people.

Now clarity is emerging. The fault line is the auto industry bailout. The Democrats are pushing hard for it. The White House is resisting.

Underlying the policy differences is a philosophical divide. The Bush administration sees the $700 billion rescue as an emergency measure to save the financial sector on the grounds that finance is a utility. No government would let the electric companies go under and leave the country without power. By the same token, government must save the financial sector lest credit dry up and strangle the rest of the economy.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is willing to stretch the meaning of “bank” by extending protection to such entities as American Express. But fundamentally, he sees government as saving institutions that deal in money, not other stuff.

Democrats have a larger canvas, with government intervening in other sectors of the economy to prevent the cascade effect of mass unemployment leading to more mortgage defaults and business failures (as consumer spending plummets), in turn dragging down more businesses and financial institutions, producing more unemployment, etc. — the death spiral of the 1930s.

With almost 5 million workers supported by the auto industry, Democrats are pressing for a federal rescue. But the problems are obvious.

First, the arbitrariness. Where do you stop? Once you’ve gone beyond the financial sector, every struggling industry will make a claim on the federal treasury. What are the grounds for saying yes or no?

Second is the sheer inefficiency. Saving Detroit means saving it from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy can allow operations to continue while helping shed fatally unsupportable obligations.

The point of the Democratic bailout is to protect the unions by preventing this kind of restructuring.

Which will guarantee the continued failure of these companies, but now they will burn tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s the ultimate in lemon socialism.

Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.

If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards — to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.

Republican minimalism — saving the credit-issuing utilities — certainly risks not doing enough. But the Democratic drift toward massive industrial policy threatens to grow into the guaranteed inefficiencies of command-economy maximalism. In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith, but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/895779.html

Across 46 years, 22 films and six leading actors, the James Bond film legacy has featured some of the world’s most luxurious and iconic sportscars.  From the signature Aston Martin DB5 in Goldfinger to the Lotus Esprit Turbo in For Your Eyes Only, 007 has spared no expense in choosing his wheels.  To celebrate the release of the Quantum of Solace, here’s a list of the 007 hottest cars from the James Bond Legacy…

001: the BMW Z8

In the 1999 film The World Is Not Enough, James Bond piloted this bad little Beemer before it was officially produced by BMW.  Apparently, those are the kind of perks that accompany a license to kill.  During filming, the crew actually used a series of working mock-ups of the Z8 that vary a bit from the official production car.  After the first model rolled out of the factory, all 5,703 of the original BMW Z8’s sold out, going for a starting price of $128,000.

002: the Alfa Romeo 159

The Alfa Romeo 159 is among the latest James Bond sportscars, as featured in the 2008 Bond film Quantum of Solace.  This one, however, isn’t driven by 007– but a chase scene rival pitted against Bond’s Aston Martin.  During the production of the film, the set was closed down due to a third and terrible accident where a stuntman driving the 159 crashed into a wall.  The stuntman was airlifted to a nearby hospital where he lay in a coma for days– the same hospital in which he was treated for injuries in shooting the same scene days prior.  If you perform your own stunts and want a piece of the Bond villainy action, you can get your hands on an Alfa Romeo 159 for around $33k before import costs…

003: the 1971 Mustang Mach-1

In 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever, 007 took to the streets of Las Vegas in a Ford Mustang Mach-1– in hot pursuit of the Las Vegas Police.  Diamonds was Sean Connery’s last film, but also the first film in history to feature the now-famous “two-wheeled stunt”, where a car is lifted off the ground, balancing on two wheels on one side of the car.  The ‘71 Mach-1 featured plenty of muscle in its 429hp V8 option, which will fetch you around $25,000 well-restored on today’s market.

004: the Aston Martin DBS

Bond’s Aston Martin finally got itself a facelift.  Like the BMW Z8, the Aston Martin DBS was featured in a Bond film before it hit the public.  This $265,000 Aston Martin features a 6.0L V12 pushing 510 horses to hit 62mph in 4.3 seconds.  The DBS was pitted against that Alpha Romeo 159 above, and this one didn’t escape without bruises either.  During filming, a stuntdriver reportedly lost control of the Aston Martin– which wound up in Lake Garda in Italy…

005: the Toyota 2000GT

Produced between 1967 and 1970, the Toyota 2000GT was built in very limited numbers, designed to show that Japanese autos could compete with the sportscars of Europe.  Apparently James Bond took notice, as the 2000GT was famously featured in 1967’s You Only Live Twice.  However, Bond’s 2000GT had a slight problem– Sean Connery was too tall to fit in the Toyota, so a convertible version was made to compensate.  While the original 2000GT sold in the U.S. for $6,800, it can be found at auction today for as high as $200,000.

006: the Lotus Esprit

In 1977’s The Spy Who Loved Me featuring Roger Moore, the Lotus Esprit became one of Q’s most impressive sportscar mods.  In a long chase scene between 007 and the infamous Bond-villain Jaws, Bond’s Lotus Esprit makes a cunning escape by transforming into a fully-diveable submarine.  While a submersible version featuring that bikini blonde above are not available today, a similar Lotus Esprit could be originally purchased for around $16,800 at the dealer in 1977.

007: the Aston Martin DB5

Last but certainly not least– the original Bond-mobile, the 1963 Aston Martin DB5.  In the 1964 film Goldfinger, 007 was provided with a weaponized DB5 by Q Branch himself.  Aston Martin, however, wasn’t so keen on the deal.  After much negotiating, Aston Martin finally agreed to a product placement deal that made automotive history for the brand.  The DB5 was the latest-and-greatest sportscar to be produced in the UK, initially selling for $13,000.  Its inline six engine produced 282hp to hit 62mph in 8.1 seconds.  Bond’s version, however, was outfitted with an array of gadgets from smokescreens to heavy machine guns.  Its not the weaponry that makes the Aston Martin DB5 a legend– it is its design which symbolizes the class and cool that has made James Bond the legend he is today.  If there is one car that fully explains what StyleCrave is about, you’re looking at it, front and center.

http://stylecrave.com/2008-11-11/the-007-hottest-cars-from-the-james-bond-legacy/

A man escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns and finds a young couple in bed.

He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair, while tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom. While he’s in there, the husband tells his wife:

"Listen, this guy’s an escaped convict, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn’t seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck." If he wants sex, don’t resist, don’t complain, do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably very dangerous. If he gets angry, he’ll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you."

To which his wife responds: "He wasn’t kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked me if we had any vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you too!!"

 ======================================================

 "Every-Vote-Count" go support your candidates by casting your vote and reminder to vote yes on prop 8 *_^

Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia , there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.

She called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’
‘Not I,’ said the cow. ‘Not I,’ said the duck. ‘Not I,’ said the pig. ‘Not I,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did.
The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

‘Who will help me reap my wheat?’ asked the little red hen.
‘Not I,’ said the duck.
‘Out of my classification,’ said the pig.
‘I ‘d lose my seniority,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my unemployment compensation,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.
‘Who will help me bake the bread?’ asked the little red hen.
‘That would be overtime for me,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my welfare benefits,’ said the duck.
‘I’m a dropout and never learned how,’ said the pig.
‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,’ said the goose.

‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, ‘No, I shall eat all five loaves.’
‘Excess profits!’ cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
‘Capitalist leech!’ screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
‘I demand equal rights!’ yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)

And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama)came. He said to the little red hen, ‘You must not be so greedy.’
‘But I earned the bread,’ said the little red hen.
‘Exactly,’ said Barack the farmer. ‘That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.’

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, ‘I am grateful, for now I truly understand.’ But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one
cared…so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for.

EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That’s $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight
years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember
anything.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by
a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts,
you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do
is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you
can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be i n heaven," says the
senator.

"I’m sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St . Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes
down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself
in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse
and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians
who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it’s time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a
good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St.
Peter returns.

"Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would
never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but
I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down,
down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and
putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
"I don’t understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here
and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now
there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?"

Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100.00. When the postal authorities received the letter to God , USA , they decided to send it to the President.

The president was so amused that he instructed his secretary to send the little boy a $ 5.00 bill.

The president thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy. The little boy was delighted with the $5.00 bill and sat down to write a thank-you note to God, which read:

"Dear God!"
"Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I noticed that for some reason you sent it through Washington D.C. and those assholes deducted $95.00 in taxes. "

 October 14, 2008

Sacramento — The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

Lying…who’s really lying?

The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)

In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”

It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading." Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.

“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’ taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.

According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1^st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.

The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:

 “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]

(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]

“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]

(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]

“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You’re in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude
and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.’

She rolled her eyes and said, ‘You must be a Republican.’

‘I am, replied the bass fisherman. ‘How did you know?’

‘Well,’ answered the balloonist, ‘ everything you told me is
technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your
information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help
to me.’

The man smiled and responded, "you must be a Democrat."

‘I am,’ replied the balloonist. ‘How did you know?’

‘Well,’ said the bass fisherman, ‘you don’t know where you are or
where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large
quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to
keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the
same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my
fault.’

CEO –Chief Embezzlement Officer.

P/E RATIO — The percentage of investors wetting their pants
as the market keeps crashing.

BROKER — What my broker has made me.

STANDARD & POOR — Your life in a nutshell.

STOCK SPLIT — When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your
assets equally between themselves.

FINANCIAL PLANNER — A guy whose phone has been disconnected.

MARKET CORRECTION — The day after you buy stocks.

CASH FLOW– The movement your money makes as it disappears
down the toilet.

YAHOO — What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker
for $240 per share.

WINDOWS — What you jump out of when you’re the sucker who
bought Yahoo @ $240 per share.

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR — Past year investor who’s now locked
up in a nuthouse.

PROFIT — An archaic word no longer in use.

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc was closed by the U.S. government in by far the largest failure of a U.S. bank, and its banking assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.9 billion.

Thursday’s seizure and sale is the latest historic step in U.S. government attempts to clean up a banking industry littered with toxic mortgage debt. Negotiations over a $700 billion bailout of the entire financial system stalled in Washington on Thursday.

Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan, has been one of the lenders hardest hit by the nation’s housing bust and credit crisis, and had already suffered from soaring mortgage losses.

Washington Mutual was shut by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp was named receiver. This followed $16.7 billion of deposit outflows at the Seattle-based thrift since Sept 15, the OTS said.

"With insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations, WaMu was in an unsafe and unsound condition to transact business," the OTS said.

Customers should expect business as usual on Friday, and all depositors are fully protected, the FDIC said.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said the bailout happened on Thursday night because of media leaks, and to calm customers. Usually, the FDIC takes control of failed institutions on Friday nights, giving it the weekend to go through the books and enable them to reopen smoothly the following Monday.

Washington Mutual has about $307 billion of assets and $188 billion of deposits, regulators said. The largest previous U.S. banking failure was Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust, which had $40 billion of assets when it collapsed in 1984.

JPMorgan said the transaction means it will now have 5,410 branches in 23 U.S. states from coast to coast, as well as the largest U.S. credit card business.

It vaults JPMorgan past Bank of America Corp to become the nation’s second-largest bank, with $2.04 trillion of assets, just behind Citigroup Inc. Bank of America will go to No. 1 once it completes its planned purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co.

The bailout also fulfills JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon’s long-held goal of becoming a retail bank force in the western United States. It comes four months after JPMorgan acquired the failing investment bank Bear Stearns Cos at a fire-sale price through a government-financed transaction.

On a conference call, Dimon said the "risk here obviously is the asset values."

He added: "That’s what created this opportunity."

JPMorgan expects to incur $1.5 billion of pre-tax costs, but realize an equal amount of annual savings, mostly by the end of 2010. It expects the transaction to add to earnings immediately, and increase earnings 70 cents per share by 2011.

It also plans to sell $8 billion of stock, and take a $31 billion write-down for the loans it bought, representing estimated future credit losses.

The FDIC said the acquisition does not cover claims of Washington Mutual equity, senior debt and subordinated debt holders. It also said the transaction will not affect its roughly $45.2 billion deposit insurance fund.

"Jamie Dimon is clearly feeling that he has an opportunity to grab market share, and get it at fire-sale prices," said Matt McCormick, a portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel in Cincinnati. "He’s becoming an acquisition machine."

BAILOUT UNCERTAINTY

The transaction came as Washington wrangles over the fate of a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, which has been battered by mortgage defaults and tight credit conditions, and evaporating investor confidence.

"It removes an uncertainty from the market," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP Capital in Sydney. "The problem is that markets are