Video Purportedly Showing Space Aliens Shown

A man has screened a 3 minute video purportedly showing space aliens to a press conference.

Jeff Peckman, who has proposed the city of Denver create an 18-member extraterrestrial affairs commission, screened the video for the media Friday at Metropolitan State College.

We are not alone as that grainy black-and-white video clearly shows. We are indeed surrounded by idiots. Extraterrestrial life landed in Nebraska and sought out our brightest minds. And then attempted to communicate using the universal language; Peek-A-Boo.

The video was taken on July 17, 2003, in Nebraska by Stan Romanek, according to Alejandro Rojas, the education director of the Mutual UFO Network, who spoke at Friday's press conference.

Rojas said Romanek set up the camera because he feared Peeping Toms were stalking his teen daughters, according to the Post.

And he was right! Peeping Toms from another world! Were these lonly E.T.s looking for some hot monkey love? An interstellar booty call perhaps? Or were they genuinely seeking to make first base contact and were mistakenly drawn to the second floor window by teen pheromones? With those big eyes it is possible they were simply drawn to the light like normal bug-eyed monsters.

Peckman did not release the video to FOX News.

"It's under agreement right now and negotiations are under way to create a documentary out of this for widespread use," Peckman said.

Ah now I see. The aliens brought us a message of peace. And these people are negotiating the film rights before the whole world can bask in the glory that is alien contact. Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course the whole thing smells like a hoax, not that I would have believed it were the video 3 hours long and shot in high definition color. Either the old man was right and some hot-blooded boys were trying to check out his daughters with a mock alien head, or the whole thing was staged so that people could make a buck. 

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Is It Me or Is It Getting Cooler?

Did you know that they are planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Lies Truth" in British schools? Well one person saw it as the political piece of crap that it was and challenged it. The court has ruled that there are 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

So if the government wants to show the film they have to amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that:

1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.


2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.


3. Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

Wow. Wouldn't it be great if political indoctrination was illegal in our schools? I have stated (or parroted) that "Global Warming" is nothing more than a liberal political construct. A bogeyman to scare people into listening to liberal policy makers and a club to use on big business in the name of the environment. The Brits now acknowledge that Al Gores shlockumentary is politically motivated and scientifically inaccurate. Here are the 11 areas they have identified (emphasis mine):

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.


• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.


• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.


• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.


• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study. Fact is four polar bears drowned but this was because of a particularly violent storm.


• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age. The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.


• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.


• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.


• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.


• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.


• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim

Since this took place in Europe I am sure the Greenies and Gore-lovers will scoff at the court's findings. They will come up with a 101 excuses for the apparent inaccuracies but most importantly they will continue unabated to try to force "Global Warming" legislature down the throats of the rest of us.

KFC: We Do Chickens In

Ya know, some people just don't understand the whole food chain concept. Things at the top of the chain eat things lower down. Generally the things eaten are usually dead and in many cases their death has to be brought about.

Well tree huggers feel that somehow we should be kind to our food. Specifically PETA feels KFC needs to be nicer to chickens. They have a website where you can generate a sign. So I did. I don't think they would like it though. Being an old farm boy I grew up where parents would tell their kids "We're having chicken tonight, go get me a couple." And the kids would grab the chickens by the neck and wring them until their heads popped off. Oddly I wasn't scarred nor do I need therapy. Plus I eat KFC without a twinge of guilt.

I don't think people should intentionally torture animals. But is what KFC doing torture? Do the chickens know? Perhaps the PETA spokes person for this cause, Pamela Anderson, could tell us what the chickens are feeling. Or not.

The Times They Are A-Changin

At least in France they seem to be. A pro-American conservative won the Presidential election Sunday. The moonbats became unhinged. Sarkozy Win Sets Off France Riots was an interesting read. See if you can spot any bias in the reporting...

Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative who beat Socialist Segolene Royal in a runoff Sunday, is a divisive figure whose tough language and crackdowns on crime and immigration have angered many on the left and in the immigrant-heavy suburban housing projects that erupted in riots in 2005.

So if you are tough on immigration and crime you are divisive. And who was it that got angry again? Hmmm, the left and the rioters who destroyed millions of euros of property in 2005.

But just like in 2005 the moonbats have decided to display their displeasure in the same manner.

Some 730 cars were burned nationwide Sunday night and 592 people arrested, police said.
Late Monday night, several hundred people massed again at the Place de la Bastille in Paris, breaking windows in nearby shops and starting street fires. Riot police dispersed them, and about 100 people were arrested, police said Tuesday. A handful of cars were ignited in the area.

The French handed Sarkozy a mandate. They are tired of the economic and social chaos that plagues their nation. But the left didn't go down without a fight. No. The socialists stood firm on their platform planks and fully expected the better man to win... well no they didn't Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal threatened the French people.

Royal had warned of renewed violence in case of a Sarkozy victory, and had sought to make the campaign a referendum on Sarkozy's polarizing persona.

Way to take the high road and sell your agenda Sego.

Sarkozy is not out of the woods yet. His conservative vision for France can only succeed if the conservatives win the upcoming general election. If not then France will be like America with a conservative president and a liberal congress.

Please Blog Politely or Else

I don't know if you heard but some woman received some nasty comments and death threats on her website and now the liberal left is calling for a "blogging code of conduct". That is all just moonbatese for "censorship". But they want to make sure you understand that it is not censorship, it is a way to make free speech even freer! Here is the New York Slimes Times article A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs

Or you can go to Radioactive Liberty and read their take on the whole thing.

One of the things that caught my attention in the NYT piece is this section :

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor's comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.

So basically some think that if you come to my blog and cut loose with what I feel is unacceptable language in the comments; it is an affront to the First Amendment for me to delete your comment. Well let me say this about that.

First I will not subscribe to any "blogging code of conduct". I have a code of conduct that supersedes any that a bunch of liberal nanny staters could come up with. It is called The Bible. It dictates what I say and what I allow to be said. So if a commenter says something I feel that I would not want anyone to associate with me or my blog, it is history.

Secondly I control everything about my blog. That includes comments. You have free speech but you can't come into my house and just start spouting trash. If I don't like it it goes.

Now you may think that I am crushing freedom of expression or promoting only like minded opinions on my blog. Far from it. I am saying up front that I am the final authority at Dane Bramage and I have a low tolerance for ignorant trolls.

Now that I've said that, let me encourage everyone to leave a comment. So far I've needed a comment policy like a bald guy needs a comb and brush. And so far the only comments I have deleted were spam. So I don't reject opposite opinion out of hand. In fact I encourage it. It's just that if it gets too ugly I have the right to remove it. It is that simple.
FrankJ at IMAO has a more amusing approach to comments.

Stupid On So Many Levels

At first I was just going to make a snide comment on this as part of my Headlines feature but then I read more about Couple Fights to Name Baby 'Metallica'. Did you know that you have to register your baby's name in Sweden? More bizarre than that is the fact that they can refuse on the gounds that it is not a good name or that it is ugly?

Personally I think Metallica is a stupid name for a child. People who name their kids after music groups are paddling without all their oars in the water. But for the government to refuse you services because THEY disapprove of the baby's name is crossing way to many lines. This couple cannot travel with their child with out official documents in the childs approved name.

Remember that the next time your favorite moonbat insists that we emulate the liberal socialist utopias of Europe.

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

While trolling for headlines I came across this little ditty. "Cat bag apparel irks Florida officials "

It seems a fast food restaurant has designed their food bags to look like Rap clothing for cats.

Tampa-based Checkers Drive-in Restaurants Inc. is distributing "Rapcat" bags designed with cutaway areas for the cat's legs and tail. The cat's head sticks out the opening of the bag, which is designed to look like to a basketball jersey and gold chain worn by the hip-hop Rapcat puppet in Checkers commercials.

Of course that is enough to send animal enthusiasts into a tizzy.

A Hillsborough County Animal Services news release on Monday said forcing a real, unwilling cat into a "Rapcat" bag could be considered felony animal cruelty. The bag's warning - "not all cats will be down with wearing this bag. Do not harm or endanger any cat" - is not enough, the agency said. (emphasis mine)

Okay I have had cats in the past and I live with seven of them now. I pretty much know which ones would be down with wearing a bag and which ones would shred my flesh at the very attempt to bag them. I think the warning would be sufficient. But not nanny-state control freak animal services spokeswoman Marti Ryan. She said

...the agency is prepared to go to court if necessary to stop the campaign

Well there you have it. Another concerned citizen group fighting for the rights of cats to not have to go through therapy. Wait a minute. Hillsborough County Animal Services is funded by tax dollars. That means the tax payer gets to foot the bill of any attempt to put Checkers in it's place. I would be really mad if I lived in Florida and some low level bureaucrat used tax money to sue a fast food restaurant because they were afraid normal human beings would lose their senses and en masse stuff millions of cats into food bags. I mean come on. How many times would a cat have to object to being bagged before a reasonable person would stop? Just how many times do you think a person will think this is fun anyway? Do we really need a moonbat like Ms. Ryan to protect our cats and dictate our behaviour?

I guess the only thing missing is another moonbat complaing how Rapcat demeans African Americans with hurtful stereotypes.

Cynthia McKinney's Last Stand

From the FOX NEWS website:

In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney announced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.

The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment

Apparently Cynthia didn't get the memo. But I expected nothing less from such a fount of moral strength and character. She embarrassed herself and her constituency several times with her actions and her moonbat theories. Hey Cyndi! Hows the Tupac probe going?

McKinney, who has not discussed her future plans, has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.

She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation to establish a permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur's recordings at the National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into his killing.

Whatever was in the water in Georgia that allowed this woman to be a duly elected official hopefully has been removed. Wait! I see in my crystal ball, a trash TV show hosted by Cynthia! It wouldn't surprise me if she went the Rikki Lake route. I'm sure her former voters would tune daily to commiserate with her on how unfair life is.