Who is the genius who decided to buy a lot of ad time for a Barbara Streisand concert on conservative talk radio in Los Angeles?

Wow, are we California Republicans always so eager to shoot our wounded?  That's the difference between Democrat leadership and Republican leadership.  Democrat leaders either deny their person did anything wrong (even if it means calling the law wrong), or say things like "Yeah, but look at what this person has done well!"  I guess that is possible when the dinosaur media is your willing accomplice.

Yeah, I understand that in the past, in some parts of the country, there was a history of trying to suppress the votes of certain groups who had a legally-recognized right to vote.

But in this case, we're not talking about intimidation of people who have the right to vote in the U.S.

Only citizens can vote legally in the U.S.  So what's wrong with pointing out that it is illegal to vote if you are an immigrant (someone here legally who hasn't been naturalized) or an illegal alien (anyone here illegally)?

If anything, the letter was wrong because it said they ran the risk of getting caught.  How???  Voting is supposed to be one of our most treasured rights as citizens, and yet we're doing very little to make sure the person voting is who he/she claims to be, never mind if they are citizens or even in this country legally.

So, at the risk of getting in some sort of trouble, here goes:

ATTENTION IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVEN'T BECOME CITIZENS...  ATTENTION ILLEGAL ALIENS...  ATTENTION CITIZENS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE...

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES.  ONCE YOU BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN AND YOU PROPERLY REGISTER TO VOTE, YOU CAN.  BUT UNTIL THEN, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU VOTE.

(Edited to clean up mistakes.)

Much has been made in the last couple of days about a statistic that says households headed by married couples are now in the minority.  This no doubt garnered a lot of press due to a Leftist desire to promote the state over the family, and the Left figures that if married couples no longer form the majority of households, politicians and businesses can stop focusing on what married couples want.  They can now cater to people who want the state to be big brother or big sister.

Never mind the fact that by the same statistics, married couples still make up the largest percentage of households by far, because the rest of the pie is made up of a combination of:
1. Couples shacking up
2. Widowed people
3. Platonic roommates (divorced or never having been married)
4. Single parents living without a honey
5. Same-sex couples.

Also, how many people in the "unmarried" households either were married and would still be if they could control the matter, or are planning (or at least hoping) to get married?  Those are also people likely to support marriage-friendly policies.  Plus, a married couple represents two potential votes and more spending power in general than a single person.

Still, the statistics do show that households headed by married couples no longer outnumber all of those outer arrangements combined.

And is that any surprise?

For one thing, people are living longer in general, and that may mean widowed spouses are living longer as widows or widowers.  At the other end, people are waiting longer to get married.  Have you seen the percentages on college enrollment?  Lots of women, and many of them are staying single until after finishing school and some are waiting even longer until they've worked for a while in a career.  One of the positive effects of genuine feminism is that the days of women having to rely on their fathers, brothers, and then husbands for financial survival are long gone, so they have one less factor creating a need to get married young.

But yes, there are the other cultural reasons, too.  Divorce is more accepted.  We have separated marriage from commitment.

We have also...
Separated sex from childbearing.
Separated sex from marriage.
Separated living together from marriage.
Separated childrearing from marriage.

And now, many are actively trying to separate marriage from society (while still demanding societal sanction), making it strictly a personal matter between any two people based on criteria that can't be verified.  This counterfeiting of marriage devalues marriage while removing one of the core defining features - uniting both sexes.

And since we long ago separated sex from marriage, people can have sex without being married and without social disapproval.  They can live together...even raise kids together.  They can do all of this without being looked down upon, without even being admonished by their supposedly Christian church.  They can appear to "have it all" without having to go through a ridiculously expensive and stressful ceremony, which can also foment strife considering the ceremony is likely to draw some people who have divorced each other, there to sit near their sworn enemy as someone else they are related to promises lifelong commitment... just like they did at one time.

Of course, most women want to have that ceremony and the vast majority of women "marry up" financially and thus have a measurable incentive to get married.  Most people can understand it to be true when pro-family groups point out that women and children are better off in married households.

However, a growing number of men (and women with sons or brothers) doubt it when the pro-family groups say that men are also better off getting married.  They doubt it because most women DO marry up, and the laws of most states make that a losing partnership for the man if there is a divorce... and there is a very high chance for divorce. The divorce and child support laws in most states are such that a wife can sit at home, cheat on the man under his nose, spend up the credit cards, and give birth to his best friend's child, then divorce the man, take half of everything, even live off of his alimony payments for the rest of her life, AND get child support from him to pay for a child that isn't biologically his.  Here in California, a woman who was married to a man for ten years can live off his alimony for the rest of her life... as long as she doesn't remarry.  That is surely another factor is lowering the percentage of married households.

The fringe feminists once proclaimed that marriage is slavery (though now the lesbian ones are clamoring to make sure they can be in "slavery" to other women), and that all sex (male/female, of course) is rape.  Well, many american women bought into the first part, and even if they get married, they keep it from being "slavery" by telling their husbands "You have two hands, you cook it (or clean it, or fold it, or whatever) yourself!"  Men see their kids being raised in daycare instead of by their wives so that she can be a "liberated" woman.  (I know... some men pressure their wives to work... not talking about them here.)

And since women bought into the mantra that traditional marriage is slavery, but not that all sex is rape, they have "liberated" themselves by sleeping around.  More and more men notice this and say, "Good!  I don't want to get married either!"  As long as they have easy access to casual sex, these men do not see the benefits of getting married to women who do not cook, do not clean, will not raise their kids, become uninterested in sex with them, and will wipe them out financially if they opt to leave.

I'm sure there are also women who refrain from marrying for fear of going through a divorce.

And we wonder why the percentages have changed?

(By the way... I'm happily married... to a woman who cooks, cleans, and so very much wants to raise our kids once we have them.)

Yes, the Religious Right is such an "extremist fringe minority" that the Democrats are feverishly trying to get them NOT to vote.  If the RR was really so small and fringe, they wouldn't be trying so hard...

Looks like one of the latest Democrat tactic is a talking point that is a transparent effort to discourage the mostly-Republican "Religious Right" voter turnout.  I agree with this posting.

The Democrats and their drive-by media sycophants are saying "The GOP leaders don't really care about your agenda" and "They think you are nuts" and "They are just using you."

We all know that (major, anyway) political parties exist to get their candidates elected, and that with two major parties, they both have to be big tents.

Consider the source of these statements.  These are people who hate your values and so they do not want you to vote.

It would be folly to allow your opponent to discourage you from exercising your right to vote and thereby send more socialists and anti-Christian hedonists to get elected to office.  Even if the Religious Right has some reservations about a Republican candidate, would it really be better to allow a tax increasing, socialist, union puppet, envy-promoting, border opening, U.N.-loving, cut-and-run, marriage counterfeiting, abortion-worshipping, statist Democrat to get elected?

The GOP isn't perfect, but no organization is.

In California, Schwarzenegger is no darling of the Religious Right, but even some prominent liberals know he's better for California than the Democrat.

So, get out the vote and vote GOP!

Samantha Kallis of Sierra Madre, California writes in to the Pasadena Star-News to tell us that she really, really, really doesn't want some parents to know that their underage daughters are having abortions.  Makes me wonder what she's hiding.

I fear the effects of Proposition 85 on the sacred relationship between a doctor and a patient and the confidentiality that is required to keep America's teens healthy.

Interesting that she uses to the word "sacred".  Sounds like she's trying to impose her religion on the rest of us.  I wonder if she is also working to repeal the requirements that parental permission - not just notification, which is what Prop 85 requires - be obtained before their minor children get piercings, tattoos, Asprin, or go on field trips?

Prop. 85 seems to me to be just a small step away from a Big Brother approach to sex education.

I wonder if she realizes that most children in this country to go schools that are run by the government.  Mind you, California's Prop 85 is about parental notification, NOT permission.

Not only is Prop. 85 the first step to banning all abortions, it erodes the even more fragile idea of doctor-patient confidentially.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.  Telling parents that you're giving their children Asprin is the first step to banning all painkillers!!!

Prop. 85 is unrealistic. It does not account for teens who cannot communicate with their parents about their sexuality for fear of mental or physical abuse.

That's a lie.  Prop 85 has a very liberal provision for girls in such a position.  Your solution, Samantha, is to get the girl an abortion and SEND HER RIGHT BACK INTO THE ABUSIVE HOME!  Prop 85 makes it more likely that such girls can escape such a toxic environment, while still getting an abortion if she so chooses.

As an 18-year-old with a healthy relationship with her parents, I can tell you neither my family nor I want to see the right to privacy that is implicated (even if it is not directly written) in the Constitution eroded.

Then I hope you are also working to repeal all of those other instances, medical or otherwise, where parental notification and permission are required.

Please help protect teens' right to choose as well as all of our right to a confidential health care system by voting "no" on Prop. 85.

Sorry, Sam, we're talking minor children who are still living with and relying on their parents.  Their parents should know if they are undergoing medical treatment, surgery, or getting pharmeceuticals, whether we're talking abortion or otherwise, especially if their girls are getting pregnant through statutory rape.  Their parents are going to have to deal with the possible physical and emotional side-effects, and it is better for all involved if they're informed.  Sam, girls have gone home from having an abortion and HAVE DIED, because their parents didn't know to be looking out for the complications.  Yes, Samantha, girls have died from "safe and legal" abortions, and I'm not talking about the girls in the womb.

Speaking of abortion... how about that MS "I had an abortion" list?  Almost any woman who is on that list is declaring "Despite the numerous forms of contraception, the most effective of which is keeping the knees together, I allowed myself to get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant!"  Congratulations, genius!  What would you think of a list of deadbeat dads with the title "I refuse to pay child support, because I never wanted to be a father in the first place!"?  The difference, of course, is that your victims aren't around to read the list.

As Schwarznegger, who appeals to a broad majority of Californians with his relative fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, trounces the Democrat candidate for Governor, the reconquistadors, socialists, and yellow-dog Democrats grasp at straws.

The latest attempt to gain traction agains the Governator involves the immigrant saying that immigrants should <gasp> assimilate and become part of the mainstream in the U.S.  Shocking!

Let's look at the "unbiased" coverage presented by the ABC station in the San Francisco area:

Headline: Activists Find Governor's Comments Offensive

Do they really?  Are the really offended, or are they just raising a stink because they are losing the election?

More questionable remarks from Governor Schwarzennegger today about Latinos, saying Mexican immigrants do not always assimilate quickly into American culture.

"Questionable", huh?  Thanks for being so nonjudgemental.

For the second time in as many months, Governor Schwarzenegger finds himself in hot water with Latinos, saying today that Mexicans have not tried hard enough to assimilate.

First of all, I can't recall him being in hot water with any "Latinos" aside from the ones officially part of the Angelides campaign.  It was a non-story.  Secondly, there needs to be the qualifier "some" before "Mexicans".  Surely Schwarzenegger wasn't talking about the Mexicans who still live in Mexico, or the Mexicans who immigrate to California and assimilate.

"They are so close to their country here, so they try to stay Mexican, but try to be in America. So there is this back and forth."

What is wrong with that statement?  It is true.  With it being so easy to travel back and forth to Mexico and with a whole Mexican subculture, complete with media and language and ghettos, some people are not assimilating into the larger culture of the U.S.  If you have moved here from, say, South America or Egypt, or Denmark, it is more difficult to head back home for every holiday or vacation. 

Luis Arteaga, Latino Issues Forum: "I'm offended because once again, this governor is making these blanket generalizations about the Mexican community that comes in so many different shapes, sizes and beliefs. And yet he wants to couch us all as un-American."

Really... he said "all"?  Hmmmm, I wonder who the Latino Issues Forum generally supports?

Last month, aides to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides somehow accessed a server in the governor's office that houses private tapes.

"Somehow".  You mean hacked?

Prof. Melissa Michelson, Ph.D., California State University East Bay: "I think he put his foot, his ankle and his entire lower leg in his mouth. He really seems to have a misunderstanding about how Mexican immigrants see themselves and their place in this country."

Now who is making blanket statements?  If you're talking about the Mexican immigrants who are making a big deal about this, you're probably talking about people who see California as a part of Mexico... history, war, treaties, and purchases be damned.

Our buddy Ray Sherman of Duarte, California strikes again with another letter to the Pasadena Star-News about Wal-Mart.

One of the reasons letters on Wal-Mart are getting printed in the Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley papers is that there was a recently failed attempt to recall some members of a city council who approved a Wal-Mart, which recently opened.  But on to Mr. Sherman's latest letter.  Here's the only quote I need:

You should be telling Wal-Mart shoppers that the low prices they're gaining are at the expense of their fellow workers.

As I've said before, Wal-Mart's employees are there voluntarily, Mr. Sherman, getting compensated at a rate to which they've previously agreed.  If they don't like the conditions there - if they think the pay is too low, or they aren't getting the benefits they want, or the conditions aren't safe and pleasant enough, they can quit!

In employment compensation, people deserve only what they have agreed to - nothing more.  What if a heart surgeon you knew to be the best told you she'd fix a problem with your heart for a grand total $300?  Are you going to insist that she take more?

Everyone has something to offer their follow man from one or more of the following - time, physical strength, a smile, beauty, charm, leadership, conversation, company, knowledge, skill, talent, money, land... you get the idea.  Sure, some people have more to offer than others, or something that's in higher demand, including ambition.  But that's the way life is, and no union or government is going to be able to completely change that, no matter how much they interfere.  It is up to each individual to trade what he or she has for what he or she lacks and needs or wants.  In this case, a Wal-Mart employee has time and the ability to perform certain tasks, and Wal-Mart has money.  They make a voluntary exchange.  It is up to each person to ask for what he or she needs.  It isn't up to Wal-Mart to decide what a person needs.  It is up to Wal-Mart to decide if the company should part with a certain amount of money for that person's labor.

The beauty of this is that people can get what they need or want by serving their fellow man.

I've worked a low-paying hourly job.  Why?  Because I liked the perks, it gave me experiences that I needed, and the hours fit my lifestyle. The pay was low despite the fact that I had to pay a union a good chunk of "change" every month, and that was on top of high initiation
fees.

Eventually, I was more experienced and more educated, working a higher paying professional job, and lower paying job was no longer a fit for me.  I quit.  That employer no longer owed me anything, and I no longer owed that employer my time and energy.

This thinking that someone who lands a job - any job - should have all of their needs automatically taken care of by their employer for the rest of their lives, regardless of ambition or effectiveness, is not natural.  You have something to offer, and so does your employer.  You agree to swap those goods/services upon certain conditions.  That's it.  That's all there should be.  No government agency should interfere and mandate that your employer offer you more if you were unable to negotiate more.

This November, Californians will vote on a "parental notification" proposition.  It is simply notification, NOT permission, and there are a many safeguards written into it - so many that Leftist judges will probably work around the law very easily and girls will be able to keep getting abortions without their parents knowing.

A Karen Wilson of Los Angeles, doing a fine job speaking up for statutory rapists and people who make money by chopping up babies, wrote in to the Pasadena Star-News:
 
I am a mother to a toddler boy and a stepmother to three beautiful young African-American girls.

You found it necessary to mention that your stepdaughters are "African-American" but didn't label your toddler boy.  Interesting.  Not sure why it is relevant to your letter, though.  Maybe the editor cut something out?

I'm voting "no" on Proposition 85.

That's your right, if you are a citizen who is legally registered to vote.

As a mother, I hope I've created a level of communication where my girls could confide in me if they found themselves pregnant.

Yeah, and as a mother, I'm sure you hope you've created a level of responsibility high enough that your girls will obey traffic laws, too, but you'd still want the cops to stop them from driving unsafely, right?  You'd hope they'd tell you if they wanted to get a body piercing or tattoo, I'm sure, but there's still a law mandating it.  It's disgusting that you'd insinuate that people must be bad parents for wanting to eliminate an arbitrary exemption.  Parents need to be officially notified about just about everything their minor children get involved in, and certainly need consent for medical treatment, and yet you oppose a measure that would merely inform a parent that their daughter is going to undergo medical treatment that will kill at least one of their grandchildren, a procedure that might result in physical and emotional complications that the parents will have to deal with.  And you don't want them to even know.

But what if a young scared girl doesn't have that option? What if telling her parents could be harmful?

Read the Proposition... there's provisions for those situations.  Unlike you, who would, say, get a girl who was raped by her father an abortion and send her right back into that abusive home, this measure would actually protect the girl, and she can still get the abortion.

What if a young girl would rather do something desperate than admit her condition to her parents?

I'm voting "no" on Prop. 85, because, as an African-American woman, I know the value of choice.

What if?  Is that how we're going decide things?  If a girl isn't mature enough to tell her parents, how can she be mature enough to decide to have surgery?  If she is so afraid of her parents, perhaps that means she feels pressured into the abortion so that her parents won't know she got pregnant, and how can that be "choice"?

We're talking minors.  They are the responsibility of their parents, unless those parents are so abusive that they lose those rights.  People aren't allowed to choose to murder their children once they are born.  Men (your little boy will be one someday, hopefully) aren't allowed to choose whether or not they will be fathers and have to support a child once one has been conceived, no matter how much they've said they don't want children, so don't talk to me about "choice".  Regardless, this is not about choice... this is about parental notification.  The girl can still go right ahead and get the abortion so that her 30-year-old "boyfriend" can avoid being prosecuted.

Let's find other ways to encourage communication between families, because this isn't the way.

It's one way, and I don't see what the problem with it is.  Again, why should abortion be the only medical treatment or surgical procedure a minor can get without a parent even being notified?

http://www.yeson85.net/

Yesterday, I heard that there was a kind of conference of Muslims in the Middle East who announced that the Roman Catholic Church should replace the current Pope.

Although it is infinitely more trivial, Muslims telling Catholics they need a new pope is like Burger King telling McDonald's they should replace the Big Mac.

WHY SHOULD ROMAN CATHOLICS TAKE MUSLIM ADVICE ABOUT LEADERSHIP?!?  Sorry, Muslims, you don't get a vote in that matter!  You know what?  I don't either.  I'm not a Cardinal.  In fact, I'm not even Roman Catholic.  I'm what most people would call Protestant, but that still falls under the category of "infidel" to Muslims.

This group also challenged the Pope to a debate about whether Islam or Christianity is the true religion.  Now, that's refreshing.  That is certainly better than blowing up civilians with suicidal youngsters loaded with explosives.

Debating is good.  Because I can tell you with absolute certainty that I will never, ever, convert to any form of Islam as a result of you:
Demonstrating in the streets like you really, really need to urinate.
Rioting
Destroying or attempting to destroy Israel
Praying to Allah
Getting Leftist Leadership elected into control of our Presidency and Congress
Hijacking airplanes, cruise ships, busses, CNN, tricycles, or anything else
Committing various acts of terrorism including "suicide" bombings
Kidnapping... me or anybody else
Holding a gun or blade to my head
Decapitating people
Oppressing women
Waging war, holy or otherwise
Destroying copies of the Bible

The only way I would ever choose Islam is if you could demonstrate to me, using a combination of sound reasoning, logic, and facts and Godly behavior that the Koran is a more reliable and authoritative as a message from God than the Bible, and therefore that Mohammed is a true prophet of God and Jesus Christ is not Lord and Savior, and thereby reveal my relationship and fellowship that I enjoy with Jesus to be a figment of my body chemistry and imagination or demonic influence.

If Jesus Christ was executed through crucifixion and then rose from the dead, and therefore was who He claimed to be, then Mohammed was a liar, the Koran is simply literature at best.  My allegiance to Christ is more important than my very life, and threatening to kill me is never going to get me to turn my back on Him.

So, debates are good, especially if you really mean a true debate and not a shouting and shooting match.

What has happened to the world?  Those corrupt, power-hungry envy-filled appeasers in the U.N. cheering low-class slander by a socialist creep?

Senator Harry criticizes the bill to build (with no funding yet) a border wall by saying there needs to be other immigration reform.  So what?!?  That's like saying you won't let a stop sign go in at an intersection unless the house on the corner is painted.  We need a wall!  We can worry about the other stuff later.

The Democrats are opposing efforts to make sure the people who are voting are the people they claim to be.  This means that the Democrats are 1) admitting they benefit from illegal votes; 2) don't want to thwart such voter fraud, thereby admitting they care more about winning than democracy.  Democrats... the Party of Vote Fraud... yeah, that sounds like something be proud of, right?

In the People's Republic of Mexifornia, the Attorney General has decided to sue the auto industry over global warming.  Yeah, let's kick the automakers while they are down, drive down choices for consumers, drive up costs for consumers, hurt American industry and do it the name of something we probably can't even control.  Hey, Bill, how about suing Mexico for what a significant percentage of Mexican citizens are doing while illegally in California?  I mean, what if all the cars were taken out of California.  What about the rest of the world?

Frequent Pasadena Star-News letter-writer Ray Sherman says:
 
George Will asks (Their View, Sept. 14): "What's the matter with Wal-Mart?"
That's easy - they exploit their workers.

Oh really, Mr. Sherman?  Did someone put a gun to their head, kidnap them, and force them to work at Wal-Mart in chains?  Didn't these people APPLY to work at Wal-Mart?  Don't they CHOOSE to show up to work every day?  You don't have to be a member of a socialist labor union - and pay hundreds of dollars a year in dues to support Leftist candidates whether or not you like it - to be happy with your job.

If you don't like it, start your OWN business and treat the employees the way YOU think is right.  Otherwise, butt out of voluntary, legal transactions between employees and employers.

 

What's with these protesting Muslims?  They look for any excuse to take to the streets and make idiots of themselves.  Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of other Muslims go about their day being productive members of society.

I'm no Roman Catholic, but the Pope is.  I'm Protestant.  Either way, by definition that means we both think Islam is wrong, that the Koran and Mohammed are not completely true.  Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  Do Christians take to the streets to protest just because a Muslim leader says something we disagree with?  Muslims do not believe that Jesus was and is Divine.  So what?  That's human freedom at work.  I believe Jesus to be both fully man and fully G-d.  I believe the Bible is more truthful about the human condition and how to be reconciled to G-d than the Koran.  These are not surprises!  That's what makes our faiths different.

The Pope should not cater to these people.  Instead, he should invite them to research for themselves the truth about the historical Jesus and what He accomplished.

We cannot pretend that Jesus, as described in the Bible, and Mohammed, as discribed in the Koran, are buddies.  The G-d of the Bible is not the same being as Allah of the Koran.  Christians and Muslims can both be wrong, or one side can be right... they can't both be right about this.

So stop protesting in the streets.  Stop your suicide bombings.  Stop kidnapping people and cutting off their heads.  Settle down and be productive members of society.

When is President Bush going to pull us out of the quagmire of public schooling?  This year's school session has been going on for a couple of weeks now and there's no indication that all of the students have learned everything!  How long is this going to take?  How many billions of dollars are we going to waste on this?  How many more of our children are going to sacrifice themselves as un-thanked teachers?  Every day, teachers and staff are coming home with injuries and some are getting shot.  There's no way to beat the insurgency, so I say we pull out now and focus on the real War on Ignorance.  After all, the public schools had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center.

I blame Margaret Spellings and her schoolmongering.  I mean, she should have been able to wrap this all up by now, right?  Hmmm, maybe I can fool with a movie poster to make her look like Darth Vader.

We're never going to get the gangs to stop fighting each other.  We're never going to get the Catholics, the Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Mormons, the Orthodox Jews, the Reform Jews, the Hindus, and the Atheists to all get along.  Their divisions are ancient and they're always going to fight!  It's a civil war!

Bush must announce a date to pull out of all public schools.

There are Improvised Ignorance Devices everywhere.  Students are getting hazed.  Some teachers are abusing students.  I think the U.N. should investigate.  The world hates us now.  Public school never solved anything!!!

Rong-Gong Lin II and Ted Rohrlich play us the sad violin music in the Los Angeles Times, covering a demonstration by a bunch of whiny criminals who complain that Americans are actually trying to enforce the law.

More than 1,000 marchers took to the streets of downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to call for a general amnesty for illegal immigrants and highlight the troubles of women facing deportation.

Why are those women forcing deportation?  Oh yeah... THEY INVADED OUR COUNTRY.  They're stealing our public services.  They're committing fraud and perjury.  They're committing identity theft and forgery.

It's really easy to reunite with your loved ones.  GO WHERE THEY ARE.

Americans (the ones born here to citizens or legal residents, or naturalized), and legal residents are fed up with these criminals and their attitude.

Profit at Heinz Climbs 23%

How dare those greedy condiment company executives live it up on the backs of working people!

;-)