The ladies are at it again! 

Stop over and see the Cotillion’s mini-carnival today, hosted by A North American Patriot.  Welcomes go out to Romeocat from CathouseChat, too.

Now for something completely different (heh!) thanks to Beth at MVRWC:

Time for the Inaugural Edition of our own Blogger Babes competition for

King of Cotillion

So without further ado, let’s ogle the nominees! See the bottom of the post for further details.

(most photos can be clicked for full-size)

Hardcore Conservative

MacStansbury

Retired Geezer (Blog Idaho) with his wife
(and someone you might know in the middle)

Bullwinkle (Random Numbers)

Mark (Mark My Words)

Hubris (cheater!!)

Timmer (The Daily Brief)

Gregg (Impacted Wisdom Truth)

Casey (The Gantry Launchpad)

Patriot Xeno (Right Hand of God)

Citizen Grim (Right Hand of God)

Alan Woody (Woody’s News & Views)

Xavier (Xavier Thoughts)

Jay (Stop the ACLU) - with family

Masked Menace (Villainous Company, sorta)

Thunder6 (365 and a Wakeup)

Rick (Brutally Honest)

Please vote over in the sidebar. You may PICK MORE THAN ONE, but don’t be ridiculous and click every single one, OK? Next Tuesday, we will have FINALISTS, at which point you can vote again. This vote, again, is for the FINALISTS. Get it? Next Tuesday, you’ll be doing the final vote for King of Cotillion!

Blogger Babes, please tell your readers to come over and vote! The polls will be up at multiple Cotillion blogs, so if it’s not at your favorite one (and of course it is!), you can go over to Beth’s site to vote. 

The prize: Bragging rights, massive and multiple linky love, and what the hell, Beth will toss in a free Blogad for two weeks if you want it. Voting this week ENDS SUNDAY NIGHT around midnight (CST) or something.  Beth says she keeps stupid hours, so it could be 4am, for all she knows.

A million zillion thanks to the guys for participating–this has already been a lot of fun! Y’all are extremely Kool for playing!

I have looked and looked and looked for a wedding photo of Rachael Ray and John Cusimano (they were married 9/24/05 and their ceremony was in Italy).  It took me awhile, and it isn’t the best picture, but here it is:

I hope you enjoy this tiny glimpse into their happiness!

Other Rachael Ray news…

Rachael Ray is going to have a talk show!  What does she have to say?

"People know me for my love of food, but I have so much more I want to
share," said Rachael Ray.  "Our show’s going to be all about taking a bigger
bite out of life.  I want people to see themselves in this show, because life
is full of messes and successes, and getting there is half the fun."

…and what does Oprah have to say?

"From the moment I had Rachael on my show earlier this year, I knew she
had ‘it,’" said Oprah Winfrey.  "She has that connection with her audience
that most people only achieve one-on-one."

Pretty exciting for a person who just did her thing and never expected to be "famous," huh?!?

In even *more* Rachael Ray news, her new magazine, "Every Day with Rachael Ray" launches October 15, 2005.  She has her website up, too.  You should go check it out here.  There’s supposed to be even more recipes and stories at this site.  You can also subscribe to her magazine there (yes, I know this because I subscribed…sheesh!).

That’s it for now, although you can hardly call it just "it."  Rachael Ray has hit it lucky again - a new marriage, a trip to Italy (green with envy, I am!), a new show with "Tasty Travels," yet *another* new show in her talk show scheduled for Fall 2006 AND her new magazine.  Whew!  I hope John can keep up!

I’m genuinely amazed each time I hear what the ACLU is "fighting" for.  Just when I think I’ve seen it all, or thought they’ve gone as far as they can go, they take that extra step into Stupidville.

In a nutshell, the ACLU is threatening a court date if Kentucky’s Boyd County School doesn’t force all of its students to participate in "tolerance training."  No, this isn’t the "normal" tolerance training - it’s homosexuality tolerance training.  I read a great article over at TheRealityCheck.org written by Richard Mullenax.  His thoughts on this issue summarize my thoughts rather succinctly.

After all, the ACLU wants kids to receive oral sex training and have all the condoms and morning-after pills at every school’s disposal.  Plus, you can’t talk about religion in school (unless it’s about Islam) or else the ACLU believes it’s a violation of "Separation of Church and State." When the ACLU wanted tolerance, it meant tolerance towards homosexuality.

It appears that many parents were unsupportive of the efforts to have this type of training presented to their children. 

District figures illustrates 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did, too. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn’t show up.

There is a reason that some of the Kentucky students did not show up for the training course. The ACLU doesn’t have the power to have students tolerate homosexuality if the students don’t approve of it.  Plus, the ACLU shouldn’t force this subject on students unless the school has parental consent to do so.

But the ACLU does not see it that way. The intolerant organization along with the Gay-Straight Alliance believes it has a right to force-feed homosexuality down the throats of the American people.  Perhaps there should be a separation of "Homosexuality and State" if the ACLU and gay radical groups continue to impose their ideology.

James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project says: "The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what’s in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum." Esseks goes on to say, "Parents don’t get to say ‘I don’t want you to teach evolution or this, that, or whatever else.’ ‘If parents don’t like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school.’ "

I’m sorry, James you incompetent boob, but *I’M* the one in charge of my child.  I have EVERY right to shelter him or her from teachings that go against our morals and beliefs.  This is a topic that *I* as a parent should address - my kids don’t need to learn about homosexual behavior from a video and a quiz.  And guess what?  I PAY TAXES AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT MY CHILD LEARNS AS I AM PAYING FOR THEIR EDUCATION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.  IF YOU DON’T LIKE THAT I WOULD PULL MY KID OUT OF THIS KIND OF TRAINING IN LESS THAN A HEARTBEAT, WHY DON’T YOU HOMESCHOOL YOUR OWN KID?  Now, go in the corner and curl up into the fetal position and whine that I’m not tolerant of you.  Go ahead, I dare you.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mullenax is on a roll:

The ACLU shows its true colors everyday by its never-ending liberal bias. What right does it have to take Christmas out of schools when former president Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas into a National Holiday in 1865? What right does the ACLU have to attempt taking "Under God" out of our pledge when the Deceleration of Independence says that our Creator endows us? And most importantly, what right does the ACLU have to take away our moral conscious when over half of the country voted based on moral decisions? The answer is simple: The ACLU has no right, but its leaders think they have the right to tell us what we should tolerate and not tolerate.

UPDATE:  Thanks to the Gray-Tie for blogging on yet more fun ACLU stuff.

Take a close look at Richard Merritt, Jr., scum-sucking asswad:

This man was arrested in Lincoln, Nebraska after a period of weeks in which he repeatedly attempted to entice young children into his car by using cash.  There were at least 10 different reports on his efforts.  Thank God he was arrested, because when police caught up with him, he had a 10-year-old boy in his car.  Imagine the relief the parents must feel.

While police followed leads, the big break came when Lincoln police Chief Tom Casady overheard a captain talking about the case.

"I recognized that was the same M.O. Richard Merritt had been doing previously," Casady said.

The disgusting part of this is that Merritt served a sentence in 2003 for a series of exposure incidents - egregious enough that the police chief remembered the case.  You know how much time this miscreant served?  A whopping 90 days.  And here we are, just 2 years later, arresting the bastard for trying to get kids in his car to fulfill his sick fantasies. 

Parents were worried this guy would get off with yet another slap on the wrist as enticement is a misdemeanor in Nebraska (WTF???).  Luckily, they were able to charge him with attempted sexual assault of a child, which is a felony (his bond was set at $500,000).  Would you want this sick bastard parked out front of your child’s school?

In court on Wednesday, prosecutors said Merritt told investigators he fantasized about getting a child in his car and acting out his sexual fantasies, which included hearing the victim scream.

Given the number of ridiculously light sentences and the minimal amount of time served in some of these types of cases, I admit I’m a bit cynical about how this will turn out.

Kim Jungek said her son was walking with two other kids after school on Sept. 1 down an alley when a man approached and offered cash to get them in his car. She said she’s upset now that she didn’t call police.

"A number of other parents didn’t call police, and maybe if we would’ve put those pieces together, maybe he wouldn’t have had so many opportunities," Jungek said.

She said she’s glad Merritt faces a felony charge.

"I don’t want him out in my neighborhood or any other neighborhood. Misdemeanors would not keep him behind bars," she said.

Let’s just cross our fingers and hope that a felony conviction WILL, Ms. Jungek. 

To:  Tara Reid, White Trash Actress Extraordinaire

From:  The WTW Staff

Tara,  per your most recent interview with that media giant "Steppin’ Out", you wanted to set the record straight.  We at WTW are ready to alert the public about your heavy-hitting statements.

Tara Reid wants to know: "Why is partying and having a good time bad?"

and

…these questions are for American journalists, like "there must be a journalist school where students are taught how to kill Tara Reid."

She wants to know "how come when someone else gets messed up or is a junkie or gets DUI’d and goes to rehab and is considered a hero again?"

Um, can you say Courtney Love?  We know, we know, Tara.  She is your idol…your hero.

She said she’s hoping for a great movie role to impress people with her acting so they’ll leave her alone.

For our sake, Tara, we will hope for a great movie role to show your amazing acting talent as well.  Like the Emmy-Award-Winning performance you had in "American Pie."  Stunning!

Reid also said she can’t believe people made such a big deal out of her breast falling out of her dress on a red carpet last year. She told FHM "you would think my boob had popped out and shot Gandhi!"

Tara, we here at WTW actually believe that would have made a much more sensational news story.  Could you get that to happen for us?

She said "people act like it was the worst crime in the world." She’s learned her lesson, though. She said she uses "double double tape" now, so her "hooters are under control."

…and for that we thank you.

Tara, we at WTW will always consider you the WTW cream of the crop.  Thank you for being you.

By the way, Howdy Doody called and he would like his boots back!

——————————————-

Please stop by and visit all of my other White Trash friends in ye-ole Trailer Park:

The Cotillion happens to have their usual goings-on over at the main site and at The Gray Tie, but there’s a new gig in town.  Check out our latest project over at Beth’s site.  C’mon, we just need a few good men!

In the meantime, here’s obligatory eye candy for you, Ladies!

No one can convince me that the media is innocent in letting their bias seep through their reporting.  Here is how a recent article about Hurricane Katrina evacuees started out:

OMAHA, Neb. — The CEO of Omaha’s Open Door Mission is frustrated that the mission is helping evacuees who have been turned away by the Omaha Housing Authority.

Reading that first paragraph made me wonder why evacuees were being turned away - it actually angered me (my first thought was - how dare red tape get in the way of getting these people homes!).  Here’s more concern, a la Open Door Mission’s CEO:

Many who have been turned away by OHA have headed to the Open Door Mission, which is already crowded.

"We’ve had about 50 over the last two to three weeks," said the Open Door Mission’s Candace Gregory. "It’s frustrating that we have all of this housing available, that’s public housing. I wish it was available to everyone."

Of course it is frustrating.  How DARE the OHA turn people away?!?!?  Oh, but then the truth comes out:

OHA Executive Director Brad Ashford said those failures relate primarily to criminal history.

"There are 23 people who have failed the background check, so we can’t place them in public housing," Ashford said. "Certainly, any type of drug offense or a violent felony, or any felony really, if it’s committed within three years."

Ashford said OHA cannot make exceptions for evacuees for the safety of the residents who are already there.

So, because of their criminal behaviors in the past, it has become a challenge to find housing for the evacuees.  It is NOT because the OHA is being negligent or unfair and it certainly isn’t because they are evacuees.  It is because they committed criminal offenses.  Even if New Orleans had never been damaged by Hurricane Katrina, these evacuees would have been limited in their abilities to obtain certain jobs, get qualified for certain public assistance.  All because they CHOSE to commit a felony - a number quite violent or dangerous in nature (drug charges, violent felonies - would you want these folks living in your apartment complex or your back yard?). 

And the kicker - all but one of these 50 people have been found housing through other means.  Which leads me to wonder why this woman is complaining to start with. 

Call me cold-hearted, call me ruthless.  Or don’t.  Bottom line, we should do everything we can to help the victims of this disaster - WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF COMMON SENSE.  If the OHA had placed these felons into public housing, the media would have reported on the horrific choices of the OHA to put others in harm’s way and the law suits would have been flying regarding preferential treatment so this is by far a better solution. 

The media is so focused on finding "the story" that they seem to make a big deal out of events that aren’t such a big deal.  Why can’t the media report on the valiant volunteer efforts, the happy endings, the efforts to rebuild and reclaim life as it was? 

A Husker fan cannot help but mention the nail-biter game from this weekend.  After DOUBLE-OVERTIME, and lengthy amounts of time standing on the couch yelling at the big screen, we saw ANOTHER Husker victory - bringing our record to 4-0. 

GO BIG RED!

What happened with Hurricane Katrina is tragic - lives were lost, homes destroyed, many people were displaced.  Many states have opened their doors to evacuees needing shelter, and a fresh start.  I’ve been awed by the outpouring of support Americans have provided to their fellow citizens. 

A number of states decided it was best to do criminal background checks on evacuees coming to their state - just as a means of protecting citizens as well as other evacuees who would be housed together for what was an unknown period of time.  The ACLU, however, thinks the background checks are racially motivated.  But if you do a background check on all evacuees, how can it be perceived in this way?

I personally think states have an obligation to do criminal background checks to ensure their citizens are protected from thugs like this.  It’s natural that a criminal wanted for homicide, such as 53-year-old James Camper, would attempt to escape via the evacuee route - I’m sure as screwed up as the media made the rescue and evacuation efforts appear, the criminal mind would think it is the perfect escape.  Any smart law enforcement agency would know this as well, hence the background checks. 

ACLU - get your heads out of your asses.  You are livin’ in a dreamworld.

The ACLU is currently on a campaign to discourage the continuance of abstinence programs in junior and senior high schools.  There are 18 states specifically targeted for this campaign, called "Not in My State" (my state, Nebraska, is one of those targeted states).  Here is their position on the matter:

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today launched Not In My State, a nationwide action aimed at combating dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. In a coordinated effort, ACLU affiliates across the country are sending letters to local officials calling for careful scrutiny of health and life-skills curricula.

“Today’s action should be a wake-up call for many states,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “State officials need to ensure the health and safety of students by taking responsibility for the curricula taught in their classrooms.”

The ACLU relies on a single report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).  Said report states that "many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula used by federally funded programs contain false and misleading information and perpetuate harmful stereotypes."  It goes on to state that "the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives by vastly understating the effectiveness of condoms at protecting against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and preventing unintended pregnancy."

Here in Omaha, a well-known news anchor, Julie Cornell, took a look at the abstinence program taught in the middle schools back in May.  The program is called "WAIT" and it stands for "Why Am I Tempted?"  Here are the basic principles of the WAIT program:

The program teaches that there are various steps of intimacy, with many of those steps reserved for marriage.

Teens learn why to wait, how to wait, and they get support in the process.

"Love" has different meanings, and trainers help kids classify different relationships.

Respect is a basis for the program. Teens are told that the boy or girl they’re dating right now will be someone else’s bride or groom in the future, and to treat that date with respect, the same way you would want your future spouse to be treated.

STD facts. Kids learn that condoms are not 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and they learn in great detail about more than 20 sexually transmitted diseases and the life altering consequences of living with an STD.

Marriage training: Teens learn that they’re chances of bonding with a marriage partner greatly increase when they have fewer sex partners.

Julie Cornell’s article is good as it points out the reason Nebraska schools employed WAIT’s program versus a straight "here’s how to put a condom on" approach (emphasis mine). 

The program was formed in 2001, in response to growing numbers of sexually transmitted diseases, high teen pregnancy rates, and increasing divorce rates. Recent federal grants supporting abstinence education have made it more possible than ever before for young people to gain the courage and knowledge necessary to hold off on making adult decisions too soon.

"This is not a ‘just say no’ approach," Donahue explained to about 30 parents on a recent night at OPS headquarters.

WAIT training is a three-pronged approach, teaching teenagers "why" to wait to have sex, "how" to hold off, and giving them support in the process.

We are not about witholding information but about giving information to teens.  It is how the information is given that is important.  For instance … there are thousands of teen pregnancy prevention programs all over the country.  The problem is not teen pregnancy it is teen sex.  Teen pregnancy is a symptom of a much larger challenge.

Finally!  The news that all of you fans are waiting for!

In a ceremony in Montalcino, Italy on Saturday, September 24, 2005, Rachael Ray and John Cusimano were wed.

Here’s the word directly from Fox News:

We’re betting that Rachael Ray’s wedding cost more than $40 for the day.

The bubbly cooking show cutie, host of three Food Network shows — "30 Minute Meals," "$40 a Day" and "Tasty Travels!" — tied the knot last Saturday with longtime squeeze John Cusimano in a ceremony held in Montalcino, Italy.

I’m sure they’ll be happy…and I bet they are enjoying the amazing cuisine over there!

Read this carefully, as there is a quiz at the end:

Hill, 56, pleaded guilty to sexually touching native kids as young as three.

His crimes began in the 1970s.

Three of the victims - two nieces and a nephew - are now in their 20s and 30s. The other three - two boys and a girl - are ages six, eight and 11.

Hill is a non-native who has been married for 32 years to a Westbank band member and has lived on the reserve for 15 years.

All the victims were native children, who were either related to Hill or were his neighbours. None of the victims can be identified.

Court heard descriptions from the three adult victims from prosecutor Martin Nadon.

The man who is now 35 was assaulted by Hill from the time he was four or five until he was 14. The assaults included anal and oral sex.

At one point, Hill used a battery charger to make sparks, warning the boy that he would administer electric shocks if the boy ever talked to anyone about the assaults..

The victim estimated he was assaulted by Hill 200 times.

A niece, now 24, said Hill had sex with her between the ages of five and 11. "She just remembered that it (intercourse) hurt a lot," said Nadon.

"She was crying because it hurt so much, but she thought it was OK because Hill was her uncle. After one episode, she was limping because of the pain, but told others she had fallen and hurt her leg."

She said Hill told her that if she ever told, her father wouldn’t love her anymore and her family would be ashamed.

Quiz:  Guess what the sentence was for this repeat offender, low life scum pedophile.

(more…)

Um.

Canning stuff.

I’m a copy cat!  In other words, I am not creative today.  I feel like crap, and generally don’t want to do anything.  So…..what would be better than to copy cat Beth?

You are a Social Conservative (28% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (80% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Republican Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

I encourage you to copy Beth today!  You’ll be glad you did!

Most everyone has read the most recent case the ACLU has inserted themselves into.  The case involves a second-grader who wants to sing “Awesome God” at a voluntary, although school endorsed, talent show.  Here’s a brief snapshot of the ACLU’s position (emphasis mine):

"There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student’s individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student, Olivia Turton, from singing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The talent show was open for anyone from first through eighth grades who wished to play solo instruments, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits so long as they were “G-rated.”

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student’s selection.

On the outside, one could think this was a favorable move by the ACLU.  One may actually believe that the ACLU is doing what we expect and encourage the ACLU to do - stand up for the civil liberties of an American.  Perhaps this is the case, but do you recall the position that the ACLU has on Boy Scouts chartered via public schools? (emphasis, again is mine)

The Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter sent to the BSA last month, the ACLU vowed to take legal action against public schools and other taxpayer-funded governmental agencies that charter Scout groups, claiming their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU specifically takes issue with the Scouts’ pledge of allegiance to God and country and the organization’s prohibition of homosexuals as scout masters.

What, my friends, is truly the difference between the two and why does the ACLU have completely different positions in these cases?

1. Both take place in the public school building
2. Both are "endorsed" by a public school
3. Both are voluntary
4. Both take place outside of school hours
5. Both have religious components

No one is obligated to participate in the talent show and no one is obligated to show up to watch the talent show.  Boy Scouts - if you don’t want to belong, you certainly don’t need to show up after hours at a school to participate.  In both the case of the second-grader’s song and in the tradition of the Boy Scouts, clearly there are religious components.  Why is it that the ACLU would come to the defense of the second grader under the disguise of "freedom of religious expression" and comes out fighting against the boy Scouts under the umbrella of "religious discrimination" and violating "separation of church and state?"  Aren’t we dealing with cross-purposes here?  Whoops….I probably shouldn’t use the word "cross" huh?  …and, again, this quote:

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student’s selection.

Whether or not the school picked the songs for the students, it is a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT and a natural conclusion can be drawn that the school was aware of what the students were doing - heck, they even established guidelines for them, right?  So, according to the ACLU, the school should allow her to sing religious songs at a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT but does not feel that schools should endorse a group that has religious beliefs?

…and then they wonder why their organization has lost credibility on both sides of the proverbial fence.