Well - we sure are hearing a lot about the candidate for VP from Alaska. This "naughty librarian" - the "milf from alaska" was apparently selected after only 2 meetings and one phone call. A team of lawyers was sent to Alaska only "after" putting her on the ticket only to further discover a firing scandal and to wish well to her pregnant unwed daughter.

Age aside and experience aside (she was Mayor of a town: population 5000) and Governor of a state with fewer inhabitants than Miami, there are two things going for her....

1. She understands oil interests (being a Governor in Alaska)
2. She is - according to several TV Political commentators - kinda hot

Which leads BreederWatch to ask a question we haven't seen asked just yet by the national media. The question: "Did everyone else turn down the job?".

You have to wonder. There were several other female candidates with years of experience and national presence. There were numerous male candidates with the right pedigree - whether that be that they came from a battleground state, had great experience, or were simply younger than McCain. Younger than McCain - which basically meant anyone other than Jesse Helms.

Of course, we do have to wonder.... with the Bradley effect in play (the so named effect that occurs when leading black candidates are leading in the polls by a wide margin and still lose because the inner racist comes out of the closet within the voting booth) - there is a very real chance that McCain could win this election.

He's 70. There is a very real chance he'll go on to that great oil well in the sky. He would also be the oldest president ever elected. William Henry Harrison was 68 when elected and died in office. Ronald Reagan was 69 - and clearly sufferred from decreased mental capacity his last couple of years. Sorry Nancy - just say no to alzheimers.

So - Ms. Palin. VP of the Republican Party. Young hot chick. Little to no experience. Our future president? Shudder.

Yes dear readers...I had the opportunity to question famed Korean comedian and former meth user Margeret Cho about her haunted Vagina. Margeret was appearing on the usually unfunny Derelict and Romaine Lettuce show on Sirius OutQ radio. While the show is generally inane - if you go for that sort of pre-pubescent humor - and yes - I do, having Margeret Cho as a guest turned the broadcast into scatalogical gold.

Margaret has a new show coming out on VH1 called - "The Cho Show" - and per Ms. Cho on Derelict Romaine Lettuce - she indicated the show is entirely about her holes. You see - in an odd twist on marketing a program based on its gross out factor - the likes of which we haven't heard since say.... some of those weird challenges on Fear Factor - Margaret intends to show us all the facets of her remarkable "personality".

She even describes one episode in which we get to see her (I'm sure its stunning) - anus. Yes - she undergoes anal bleaching in the name of TV ratings. Certainly to be an all time HIGH - right up there with Katie Curic's on air proctology exam. Nothing like showing your poop shoot to drive up the viewership!

In spite of all that - and in spite of my own intellectual bent towards political and economic humor - it was with no sense of glee when my call was taken to ask Ms. Cho - who had just claimed her Vagina was haunted - to ask if she intended to explore Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation? Of course, the answer was no. Sure - she's admitted to injecting collagen into her "G" spot, bleaching her asshole, but - no - the thought of vaginal rejuvenation just wasn't hers.

Sorry - Ms. Cho - and to your question about whether my asshole needs a drawstring? Perhaps - lets just say if I wanted to ... I could surrogate your korean baby - and still go jogging afterwards.

So - given two scenario's - one will cause a drop in prices - and the other - well won't. Lets take an example. You want tickets to that sold out Madonna concert. Unfortunately, ticket scalpers whose day job it is to snatch up concert tickets have already grabbed all the seats in the house. In comes the concert promoter and says - I'll lift my construction ban and we'll add 10% more seats to the stadium - provided the city approves my plan - but they won't be available until the next Madonna concert. And secondly, a city council member proposes a law that would punish ticket scalpers by charging them a fine equal to their profits for purchasing tickets they don't use themselves?

Pretty much everyone would agree that the threat of regulation would force the speculators out of the market more than the promise of 10% more seats which would embolden them only to increase their hiring plans 17 years from now.

And this is what is happening today. The senate has held 40 hearings on oil speculators. This is where (and you'll find this funny) someone can go shopping for a hot commodity - say the WII at - say Christmas.... They can put down 5% of the price and then turn around and sell the device for a 200% markup. Woo hooo.... seems like everyone including Granny would line up for that opportunity. Say that Granny has enough cash free to purchase 1 WII at normal retail. Well - now she can buy many more - sell all but 1 and make a huge profit!

This is what speculators do to the market. Now - many commentators who proffer up Mao like quotes on how speculation helps regulate the markets. None however can point to a market and a direct technical benefit to the exchanges, buyers and or industries. They just talk theory about how it "could" happen. In practice it hasn't done much good beyond Statistical Arbitrage - which isn't speculation but rather taking advantage of differences on various exchanges (we'll cover that another day). In practice, its more like what "deregulation" did to the Energy markets in California. Companies could get majority stakes and manipulate supply to their own best advantage. Want more per dollar for energy? If you own the company that controls the power plants and the supply chain - you could just send in your own speculators to buy up all that supply and demand higher dollars for it down stream. And - Voila - this is how speculation can kill a market.

So - now we have Bush versus a group of Senators in congress. The senators intend to regulate speculation. No - they cry! It isn't fair that they only need 5% of the retail price to buy up huge chunks - we are going to make them pony up much more! Suddenly speculators realize their own cash is at risk. What if all the other speculators get out of the market? They no longer stand to lose 5% of their cash - they could lose much much more. Suddenly the fundamentals of the game change. Now if you want to speculate you better be more than certain its a game you can win.

Or you have Bush come out and promise some more oil 17 years from now in a market where all the oil experts know that current oil leases haven't even been tapped yet. Chances are any expert with this knowledge would only increase speculation efforts thereby further skewing the markets.

And this - my dear readers - is why the oil prices have been falling. Fear of regulation. Demand hasn't changed dramatically ( a 1% change in demand does not a 25% change in price force...). Supply hasn't changed... same oil pumps - same output. Its fear of regulation. And this is what the markets need. Unbridled greed has shown time and again that bubbles form in various industries where speculators like sharks break into a feeding frenzy. The Oil bubble, the internet bubble, the electricity bubble. All speculators. If Bernanke and team really wanted to create smooth running markets - they'd insist that the only buyers be the actual consumers and price supply / demand economics would reign supreme.

In the - if you haven't heard this you must live in Reykjavik category: The CaliforniaSupreme Court ruled that laws excluding non-heterosexuals from marrying do not comply with the spirit of the constitution of that state.
Political activists and dichotomies abound in this ruling:

1. A popular vote in California to determine the rights of a minority landed by a margin on the side of protecting the majorities special rights in 2005
2. The legislature on two occasions following their interpretation of their electorate and the constitution voted twice to overturn that law
3. The Governor vetoed the legislature twice landing easily on the populist side of the issue


Clearly peoples opinions differ on this one. But that is not where the really bizarro world stuff happens.

1. The Supreme Court of California is - for the most part - Republican.

2. The Governor who has twice vetoed the legislative attempts to do what the Supreme Court now says would have been in keeping with the state constitution now has had an about face and will neither stand in the way of the Justices NOR support an ammedment to enshrine the special rights of heterosexuals in the constitution to the exclusion of other groups. (We guess the lack of a reelection campaign due to term limits may have something to do with this change of heart!)


And so the battle for the presidency begins. (Just google for conspiracy theories about Karl Rove somehow manipulating the justices to vote the issue - thereby electrifying the conservative Moral Fascists throughout the land).

Yes - we at BreederWatch abhor the granting of special rights to straights given their high propensity to pass on HPV causing enormous medical costs in both throat and cervical cancer, their high divorce rates, and overwhelming propensity to be found at the center of pedophilia and child abuse scandals. But our liberal neo-queer philosophies can't help leaning towards a more laissez-faire approach. This would be one where all consenting adults could just do whatever they wanted without the threat of government intervention. A tax code that treated everyone equally, and a general neutrality in the law towards race, gender, religion, or any other label you can imagine.

The oft repeated precedence that Government has a right to intervene and qualify personal relationships on the basis of religious beliefs, moral qualifications, or for the extension of benefits is frightening and far exceeds any rationale argument to protect the populace. Any law enacted which favors one group over another must bear first an almost immutable burden of proof that this is in fact, harmful to a non-consenting party. Once the precedent is set, it implies we must look to our government in order to validate our own prejudices and enshrine personal moral and religious beliefs in laws. This then allows any arbitrary popular movement to use this generally accepted practice to eliminate the need to prove or justify their own prejudices. We've seen the result of granting populist movements the right to "control" others often in history - the most known of which occurred in Germany with the rise of the Nazi power.

A pre-war Germany was a wonderful place - the center of European entertainment and prosperity. Hundreds of clubs for straight, gay, and anyone else were open and ready to greet the public. The Hirschfield institute on sexuality was performing ground breaking research. Intellectuals, writers, photographers the world over flocked to Berlin to advance their arts. Then - the populist movement took over and the clubs were closed. Gays, Gypsies, and Jews (in that order) were thrown into the concentration camps. And sadly, while the Jews had children to tell their tales - the Gays for the most part did not - further silencing them. With what must be another slap in the face, while controlling religion and the Jewish people were overturned - the paragraphs against Gays remained until the 1970's. Tragic.

This is why Breederwatch editors, recently married, are not concerned about the recent ruling in California. We do not look to our Government or neighbors for approval on our lives. While the benefits would be nice - the only silver lining we see in this vote is that while making all laws gender neutral would be the more enlightened path - this is unlikely within a country looks to its government to enforce their own prejudices.

Of course, you may find all of this rather boring - as a straight colleague in SF remarked "This has to be the greatest example of a court enforcing the obvious in the history of our country" - so for you - we recommend reading about the Icelandic Penis Museum which is hunting for a Human Penis to add to their collection. If your straight - this could be a way of preventing cervical cancer in your sexual partners!

July 18, 2007. Another bad day for NY? A still unexplained mishap? By now everyone knows of the steam pipe explosion that left 1 dead and several injured. But you may not know the rest of the story? It seems Starbucks could care less about their clients when it comes down to an emergency.
You see, Starbucks is right across the street from where the explosion took place. In the aftermath and confusion, numerous scared and frightened citizens of NY sought to find refuge in any enclosed space. Just not Starbucks. Why? Their staff manned and locked the doors not allowing the fleeing citizenry to escape.

Starbucks management responds with a typical idiotic statement that shows as much compassion as an SS guard in Auschwitz. It is corporate policy in such events to lock the doors and thus protect the till. Money. And at $4.50 for a Grande Skim Non-Fat Decaf Sugar Free Vanilla Latte - it appears there is a lot of cash on hand.

AAA. Stranded on a highway? Need your battery charged - how about assistance with that flat? We all know the company and its services.... including their travel division. But who knew they were so into "special rights".

Triple A offers discounted memberships for married heterosexuals. No rtationale is given but you could argue - hey - they probably drive places together - share a vehicle - etc. Or is it because with a Man in the house - Triple A feels they will be called 1/2 as much seeing as his machismo will shame him into doing those fixes himself?

So - to Triple A your membership costs you $64 a year - but if you happen to get married it now costs only 96 per year for 2. Forget those folks living together - elderly couples for whom marriage would mean doubling their health care costs - or even those folks for whom marriage is an antiquated and outdated form of ownership... they don't get a discount. They pay $128 a year.

Seems strange doesn't it? A business who makes decisions not for business reasons but purely on the basis of religious beliefs? Seems like their logo should say "Show your Marriage License and Save". Sure - its their right. We at BreederWatch completely agree that firms should be able to be as disgustingly discriminatory as they like. Competitors will then have an easy mark on the field.

Breederwatch editors also have a life - as you can see from the lack of recent posts. But in that life, one of our editors happen to meet with a powerful local lobbyist who let us know that a video is coming out showing Crist in a compromising situation. Is this bad? Good?

Well lets see, he opposes Gay Adoption in spite of all scientific evidence that its no problem.. and he opposes Gay Marriage. So - if it turns out that he is gay - then it certainly looks like another republican hypocrite pandering to a religious right wing voting public in order to get personal gain. And that is what bothers BreederWatch. Sycophants. Folks that gain power by creating divisions between people in order to get personal gain.

Then there is the other slant. A gay man running for office in a conservative party... a gay man who isn't out... is at risk of political blackmail. Imagine an insurance company lobbying for something that clearly goes against Florida Citizen Interests? All they'd have to do is trot out a video of Crist, make a few suggestive comments about publishing it - and whammo - the vote goes there way. Its either that or fall victim to the very same homophobic environment he helped set up. Which would be fine by us - if he set that environment up for himself. Unfortunately we all suffer under it - gays and straights alike - when our relationships and lives are devalued by a government that was never given the rights to do so in the first place.

Thats right - never given the rights. You see, we in the United States had some very intelligent founding fathers who setup a so called "negative" constitution. The general philosophy of which was - the people have ALL rights and the Government is only given limited powers to infringe on those rights. The founding fathers knew that any powers given to the government will eventually be abused and therefore sought to restrict those dramatically. And - with past experience on religious intolerance - they knew that a government with power was one that would abuse that power - hence the checks and balances.

Well - we've gone way past abuse into pure corporatism and pandering... our elections look more like an MTV reality show than a method to inform the populace on positions of importance.

Of course, we are actively seeking a copy of the "alleged" compromising video - so if anyone knows where we can find it - let us know.

John Edwards out - our favorite Ken Doll
Guiliani - We loved him - but it seemed too strange from the start

Now lets just hope Huckabee leaves.

Ok - just a note on the file.

Fred Thompson - Out for the count. It appears the red truck and TV appeal didn't help.

Bill Richardson - Out for the count. Looks like another Clinton appointment in his future. Remember - we called him "The Sombrero" - looks like its time for his Campaign Siesta.

Next out?

The Candidates