Archive for September, 2008

Need to be More Assertive?

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Then we’re here for you

Do you have feelings of inadequacy?

Do you suffer from Shyness?

Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist about Chardonnay*.

Chardonnay is the safe, natural way to feel better and more confident about yourself and your actions. Chardonnay can help ease you out of your shyness and let you tell the world that you are ready and willing to do just about anything.

You will notice the benefits of Chardonnay almost immediately and with a regimen of regular doses you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live. Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past and you will discover many talents you never knew you had. Stop hiding and start living, with Chardonnay.
The consumption of Chardonnay may make you think you are whispering when you are not…

Ah…I do love good satire. It sounds just like the commercials that come on at prime time and then again at two in the morning, y’know? Chardonnay. Heh.

This Is Why I’m a Palin Fan

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Yes, it’s probably one of the last clips you’d show someone to help bolster that, if you really wanted to be convincing. Especially around 0:50, where she is clearly over her head.

It’s abundantly obvious to me, and everyone else who watched this, that Sarah Palin lacks skill in the fine art of talking eloquently and compellingly when she doesn’t have, or doesn’t want to discuss, the most sincere answer to a question.

It comes right up to, and falls just barely short of, suggesting a lack of brainpower. It seems like such a devastating assault. Now then — complete the argument for me.

In the most powerful positions in our nation’s government, it is vitally important that we have people who possess bullshitting skills superior to Sarah Palin’s…because…?

This is exactly why I was ready to order champagne when I heard Palin got picked. “My understanding was…” may seem like a feeble thing to say, and it seems like that because that’s exactly what it is. Feeble. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge. You see, that’s what people who don’t know the answer off the top of their heads, do — if they’re honest. That’s how decent people conduct themselves. Decent people do not indulge in a bunch of spin and hyperbole and say “well the real question, Katie, is why did this administration…blah blah blah.”

Yeah, I know what that looks like. I know how good it looks. And I understand it takes some skill to deliver the act with some polish. But, like everyone else who’s been paying attention — I know what it gets us. And I’ve had quite enough of it, thank you. As Phil was pointing out a couple days ago: A good salesman is something you need if the thing you’re trying to sell is a piece of junk.

I’ll take Sarah. It’s called, sticking to what you know, and when backed into a corner about something else, just admit it instead of pulling something stupid and false out of your ass, and maybe screwing something up. Call it a moose-hunting software-designing network-administrator-engineering thing. You media types just wouldn’t understand.

Campbell Brown’s Speech…I Mean, Er, Interview

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Tucker didn’t come off this looking too good.

Nevertheless, I eagerly await someone to approach me with an argument that this was a fair, enlightening interview around the 1:48 mark, at which point Mr. Bounds directly and substantially addressed the question put before him…something I rarely see Messrs. Obama or Biden do, ever.

And it’s pretty damned embarrassing when the Los Angeles Times does a better job than you do at being impartial, even-handed, fair and educational. Good on ya, LAT. When people talk about presenting both sides, I think most would agree this is what they have in mind.

Seeking to buttress the foreign policy credentials of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Republicans have repeatedly cited the vice presidential nominee’s experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard.

As governor, Palin oversees military units whose duties include serving overseas, search-and-rescue missions across the state’s vast landscape and manning key elements of the U.S. missile defense system at Ft. Greely. But foreign deployments of Guard units and the operation of national defense assets like the Ft. Greely missile interceptors are not the responsibility of state governors. Those functions come under the regular U.S. military chain of command.
Overseeing a state Guard is a “chief executive role” with real management responsibilities, said Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the federal office that coordinates state National Guards.

“I don’t think people should think it is a casual relationship, or is like the king putting on the medals,” Allen said. “It is not that at all. But the role of the governor is to use the Guard to help the citizens of a state, as opposed to declaring war on a neighboring state.”

See, that’s called presenting both sides. Pro and con. Letting the readers decide for themselves. Campbell Brown could stand to learn something from this…but why in the world should she? She’s proven herself so adept at giving a speech and making it look like an interview.

The article goes on to point out something that hasn’t received a great deal of mention in this little tempest-in-a-teapot —

The Alaska National Guard is unusual in that its jobs include manning part of the U.S. missile defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion works on interceptor missiles designed to shoot down intercontinental missiles.

Members of the Alaska National Guard also were deployed to Iraq, and Palin visited their unit in July 2007. The McCain campaign has pointed to that experience as an example of Palin’s foreign policy background. [emphasis mine]

So it really depends on the point of comparison you’re trying to make. If you’re asking whether the Republican ticket substantially improved its foreign policy credentials the day McCain picked Gov. Palin to be his running mate, the honest answer is no, of course what she possesses in terms of this kind of experience is next to insignificant. If what’s being asked is whether the McCain/Palin ticket is superior to the Obama/Biden ticket in this area of experience, even if something should happen to President McCain on his very first day, then the answer is absolutely yes…and the responsibility as the commander of Alaska’s National Guard, is relevant to qualifying that.

Nevertheless, I do have to admit that where the conversation is going — McCain and Palin are sworn in on a Tuesday, McCain has to step down on that Wednesday, then a standoff emerges on Thursday with Achmadinijad. Can Sarah Palin negotiate with this guy? The answer is probably: Somewhat, but no better than anyone else who is somehow competent to communicate verbally, and briefed here-and-there in whatever way incoming Vice Presidents are briefed.

She has very little helpful experience here. National Guard Commander is worth mentioning elsewhere, but not quite so much here…just admit it. In fact, let’s have a national debate about just that.

But let’s follow through on this good habit, and be even-handed about it. Which means some firm, scrutinizing questions are directed toward the An Idea Bomb guys. Gone, forever, are the days of skating by with weak cliches like “we need to talk with our enemies” — please, Senators, if you could, elaborate on what would be going on in those talks. What would be asked? What would be granted? What would the goals be of such talks, exactly?

I mean, really, how many questions can you think of to ask, that are more important? It’d be only fair.

Yeah, I know. I’m dreaming. Well, back in the world of reality…we’ll be right back with the next soapbox-speech thinly disguised as an interview, after a brief word from our sponsors…

Mama’s Milk Ice Cream

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Ice CreamYummy!

PETA wants world-famous Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream to tap nursing moms, rather than cows, for the milk used in its ice cream.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking the ice cream maker to begin using breast milk in its products instead of cow’s milk, saying it would reduce the suffering of cows and calves and give ice cream lovers a healthier product.

The idea got a cool reception Thursday from Ben & Jerry’s officials, the company’s customers and even La Leche League International, the world’s oldest breast-feeding support organization, which promotes the practice — for babies, anyway.

PETA wrote a letter to company founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield on Tuesday, telling them cow’s milk is hazardous and that milking them is cruel.

“If Ben and Jerry’s replaced the cow’s milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers — and cows — would reap the benefits,” wrote Tracy Reiman, executive vice president of the animal rights advocacy group.

Wise, wise, PETA. How in the world did the rest of us have the brains to get dressed in the morning and start walkin’ around, before you came along? Please, do interfere with our lives some more. Or try to. Fun to watch, and on your end, I’m sure it beats the heck out of a real job.

H/T: The Saloon.

Covering Your Fannie

Friday, September 26th, 2008

H/T: Fellow Webloggin contributor Bookworm.

That actually didn’t make my eyes pop too much. My head was already spinning from reading an article put out by Prof. Thomas J. DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute this spring. The subject is one of my favorites: Capitalist free-enterprise markets, mixed in with wonderfully progressive anti-capitalist ideas in unsanitary laboratory conditions, with disastrous results, which are then blamed on…capitalism. And, as one might anticipate, the topic specifically under discussion was this bursting housing bubble.

“Liberal” economists are overjoyed by the bursting of the housing bubble, for it provides them with what they believe is another “market failure” story. “Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure,” Robert Gordon gleefully declared in the April 7 online edition of The American Prospect magazine, edited by Robert Kuttner.

Gordon does not define what an “analyst” is, and does not cite any survey to support his claim. One suspects that his opinion is based on an informal survey of his like-minded, left-wing friends.

The liberalism we know and love. It spends half its time making messes, the other half of its time instructing us to believe liberalism is blameless for the creation of them.

Anyway, what made my head spin was this paragraph…

The government also “streamlined” the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as “proof” of a low-income applicant’s ability to make his mortgage payments. [emphasis (bold) mine]

It’s not that it was news to me that the strong-arming was going on. It’s that I didn’t understand it was this bad, and I think most people don’t understand this.

We hear so much, now that the time has come to pay the piper, about this stuff called “oversight.” The oversight was there from day one. If there’s one thing governments in general don’t have a problem doing, it’s overseeing things.

The issue really is — any time you oversee something, you have to have a goal in mind. Goals, I notice, are very seldom discussed when people talk about oversight. And what a good thing it is to avoid any discussion of them with regard to the government overseeing the private sector; wouldn’t it be a silly thing to say, that the private sector needs oversight from the government so it can receive all the wisdom, pointers, tips & tricks on how to turn a profit and stay liquid?

I’ve lived long enough to see a lot of “oversight” put in place, especially at the federal level. I’ve not yet seen anyone discussing oversight from a government agency for the purpose of helping a private-sector company in any industry to achieve solvency.

Nor, come to think of it, have I ever heard of anyone making an income by attending a credit counseling session.

Moonbat Money

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Moonbat MoneyMoonbattery

A company in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter is making commemorative coins for American presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

And if the Democratic candidate is elected to become the most powerful man in the world on November 4, it could open the floodgates for millions of pounds worth of business for the firm.

Winston Elizabeth & Windsor has already sold more than 300 limited edition commemorative silver coins to the Democratic Party to hand out to key members of the campaign to elect Obama.

The contract is worth about £100,000 to the company, based on Warstone Lane, Hockley.

And a spokesman for WEW said they expected thousands more coins to be bought if Obama becomes president, which could bring millions into the small firm.

WEW is producing limited edition runs of gold, silver and platinum Obama coins, and plans to produce new ones in other finishes for public consumption if the demand emerges.
The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.

Mr Obama, along with his chosen vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden is going head to head with opponent John McCain and Sarah Palin in the contest to become President later this year.

If he is elected, he will be the first black man to become President in the country’s history.

A spokesman for WEW said: “We are just a small company from Hockley. They think its hilarious that a company from England is going on the television in about 10 days.

“They’ve been looking for two years for someone to take on something like this, and this proves we can compete with the Far East.

Wait, I’m kernfyoosed here. Really kernfyoosed.

I keep hearing from democrats in general, and from The Lightworker in particular, that his policies are desperately needed so we can make the government work “for everyone.” Why, then, would you have tokens of any kind? Whether they’re a denomination of hard currency, or simply a badge of some kind of support quid pro quo…or simply a thing to display in an office, kind of a “I was in the right place at the right time” thing — wouldn’t they have to contradict that whole “for everyone” concept? Isn’t there some situation, some event, in which the bearer of a coin is treated differently from someone who doesn’t have one? There must be, otherwise what would be the point.

Not to say this is all well-thought out or anything. It seems to be instinctive. Anytime you have a revolutionary movement to get everything to work “for everyone,” it seems there’s always this sub-revolution to get people stratified, organized and ranked within that larger “for everyone” revolution.

And so we have tokens. Coins.


Customer Fails to Climax, Sues Prostitute

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

The Local, Germany’s News in English, via FARK:

The john and the prostitute agreed on the fee for the 20-minute service in an Aachen alley, but failed to pick a specific goal for their undertaking, the police report said…When the prostitute refused to cough up the cash, he called the police. However, the officers were unable to mediate the situation successfully, and the man filed charges against the woman.

Obama Explains Why the Debate’s Still On

Thursday, September 25th, 2008


…I have zero practical experience in economics or the national legislative process. My only accomplishment as a U.S. Senator has been to get nominated for a different job. Besides, and more importantly, I’ve already FedEx’d my teleprompter to Biloxi. What am I going to do, stand mute on the floor of the Senate waiting for someone to feed me lines about hope and change?


Here I Stand. I Am John Galt.

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Here you go, you so-called “Objectivists” with your goth clothes and your black lipstick and matching fingernail polish and your candles and your pentagrams. This is what it’s all about, right here. It isn’t centered around denying the existence of God or overly concerned with killing babies.

It’s about being objective. Staying true to yourself. Living your life for the sake of none other, nor asking another man to live for yours.

I have had it up to my eyeballs with the ever-growing government, the nanny-state, the collectivism, the whole world demanding more and more from the producers. I am done with the corrupt politicians, the slackers, the deadbeats, and all the looters and moochers.

I am sick of a government which has drifted from its early Constitutional foundation of limited central goverment and great individual freedom, and become a bloated behemoth consuming 40 percent of our economy and hungry for more. I am finished with out-of-control political correctness and its attendant thought police outlawing truth in order to cater to those who would destroy us.


Whether the world around me likes it or not, I will put my foot down and insist on personal responsibility and accountability. I will tell my government to take its hands off my rights, my freedom, and my wallet. If the people of other nations are content to allow their countries to devolve into Hell, that’s their business. I’m sick of financing their destruction. They can plunge into chaos on their own dime.

As for my own, I will be a call for my government to return to doing those things which are right for a legitimate government to do – to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Not to regulate the price of milk, meddle with the mortgage market, bail out failing companies, or tell me how to raise my children.


And I have a pulpit. I may not be able to stop the motor of the world, but I will stomp on the brake, and I will fight for control of the steering wheel before the motor seizes up on its own – and believe me, that motor is on its way to seizing up.

I will give Caesar his due, but I will not bow to him.

I am John Galt. Come and join me, or come and get me. Here I stand.

H/T: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.


Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Someone hit this blog — which, as we say all the time, nobody actually ever reads — from the University of Kansas Medical Center. They landed here at 10:28:17 PDT and hung around for one minute and 58 seconds, using IE7 on a Microsoft Windows NT platform.

That was our hundred-thousandth hit.

I should clarify that this is counting from our implementation of Sitemeter, in April of ’06. The blog has actually been around since a year and a half before that. But that’s alright. Nobody ever reads it.

Thanks for the traffic, nobodies. Hope you keep on not stopping by to not read anything.

Palin Scandals

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

NY Daily News has a portfolio of Sarah Palin scandals, what’s true and what’s not.

It’s really, really stupid. Be forewarned. Yeah, they’re putting some serious credibility on the tanning bed…they are.

The aptly named Common Mistakes put together the same list with a lefty-blogger’s gusto a few weeks before, and has been adding onto it since. So did Open Left, and quite a few other places.

What’s next. I peer into my crystal ball, and see:

1. Positiongate. Sarah Palin, a Republican governor, actually makes decisions that way. She won’t confiscate guns or support baby-killing like a good liberal democrat. Scandal! (Actually, they’re already trying to play up exactly that, with the mother-in-law thing.)
Desperate Search!2. Papergate. Applying the Sheryl Crowe toilet paper standard to the Palin houshold, our investigative reporters found the family to be consuming about five or six times as much teepee as would be necessary under the one-sheet-per-visit rule.
3. Dolphingate. The little thingy that holds six-packs of soda together. The Palin household doesn’t properly slit them up before throwing them in the trash; at least, at press time, we couldn’t prove that they do. Who knows how many dolphins have expired due to this family’s cruelty and neglect.
4. Dinnerforkgate. Gov. Palin was caught eating a salad with one. Or so I hear. Let her prove me wrong.
5. KKK-gate. Sarah Palin is 44. Divide that by 4, you get eleven. The eleventh letter of the alphabet is the letter K. The name “Alaska” has the letter K. Let’s see her defend against or explain-away this one. Burn any crosses on anyone’s lawn lately, Sarah?
6. Sexygate. Sarah Palin looks good. So, some female bloggers have noticed, does her husband Todd. Doesn’t she realize how bad this makes un-cute people feel? Has she no compassion?
7. Successgate. Sarah has been winning elections. Her husband Todd has been winning dog sled races. Whenever you win, someone else has to lose. And the people who never win or lose, it makes ’em feel just plain bad. Again, doesn’t she care about anybody else’s feelings?
8. Joe Biden Mind Control gate. Ever since she’s joined the ticket, Joe Biden has been engaging in one serious gaffe after another. Coincidence? I think not. Obviously, Sarah Palin has Joe Biden under some kind of mind control. Whatever it takes to win, huh Sarah?
9. Midnight-Sun gate. Experts note that ever since Sarah Palin has become Governor of Alaska, parts of the state have been gripped by summers in which the sun never sets, and winters in which there is never any daylight. More information is needed to ascertain whether this is due to global warming or some kind of witchcraft. Let the investigations begin!
10. Purity gate. For nearly a month now left-wing bloggers have been hard at work trying to find a topless photo of Sarah Palin, or for that matter even a genuine bikini photo. To date, their efforts have been frustrated. What the hell is up with that? It’s high time Palin supplied an explanation!

I don’t know about you, but I’m just amazed one public servant can have that much baggage. Republicans. Sheesh. Where in the world do they find these people?


Thursday, September 25th, 2008

We do not SNUL here. SNUL is an acronym for “Sorry, No Updates Lately” and it refers to the process of chewing up enormous chunks of the interwebs to help contribute to a singular message…”sorry there haven’t been any updates lately.” After porn, MySpace pages, and grandstanding screeds about President Bush being an idiot, SNUL pages account for the greatest portion of what’s out there.

Besides of which, we are The Blog That Nobody Reads…which means we have a charming lack of enthusiasm on the question of who’s reading, why they’re here, etc. We just spout our stuff. If we get hit by a bus, or kidnapped by aliens, there will be no “goodbye.” We’ll just stop posting.

So lately we’ve been getting off-line messages asking why we’re not updating. Vagaries of life. We actually have very few time slots throughout the day in which we can get our postings done — it tends to be at the extreme ends, after we roll out of bed, and just before we roll back in — and personal events have consumed those. What few cycles we can eek out there, we’ve been spending on the fascinating conversation about individualism and collectivism, over here.

Besides of which, in spite all of what’s going on, none of it is really hitting my hot button. We have the Fannie and Freddy thing, but to me that’s just a rehash of all the other trouble that’s been caused by crossing our capitalistic system with experimental portions of Marxism…and if the resulting hybrid turns out to be a Frankenstein monster, blame all the ugliness and defects on capitalism instead of on the Marxism we just got done injecting in.

We’ve done it before, and we’ll do it again.

Capitalism is supposedly to blame for the high cost of housing that comes from rent controls…which are anti-capitalistic. And the high cost of health care that results from excessive regulation, torts and price controls…which are anti-capitalistic. And for the oil and gas market, which is inherently anti-capitalistic. And for the problems with our education system — which is anti-capitalistic. Now we’re blaming it for the housing bubble. Which we made by forsaking capitalism, AGAIN, in favor of some monstrosity hybrid.

As far as how we’re screwing ourselves over this time around, I really can’t do the subject justice compared to Dr. Melissa Clouthier’s turn at it.

So. SNUL. Don’t worry, we’ll be back.

Boortz on McCain’s Suspension

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Yup, I’m pretty much gonna have to go ahead and agree with every word.

This is what bugs me about McCain. As a person, I’m sure he’s an honest, truthful fellow. But in politics, he seems to suffer from the kind of tone-deafness that only burdens those who have neglected to think out their positions according to true principles. I see it in quite a few things he does…the global warming thing…the offshore drilling flip-flop…he simply doesn’t live in a world of cause and effect, except inside the beltway. His if-then thinking isn’t quite so much “IF we increase taxes over here, THEN people will stop spending money over there” — but rather — “IF my position changes over here, THEN that guy over there will support me.”

What that all boils down to is he’s pure-bred Yang; atrophied to true if/then thinking, compensating for it by honing his skills at figuring out where the crowd’s headed, and beating ’em there. Not like just any politician. But using it as a substitute for true, critical thinking.

Well, even dedicated, energetic, intelligent Yang screw up pretty often in that department. It’s really something to watch, not unlike seeing a cat walk along the rim of a full bathtub and accidentally fall in. I think we just saw it happen. McCain’s plan is based on the notion that we’re all supposed to think a certain thing about him when we see him do this. It fails to take into account that it’s up to each man to make up his own mind in the confined space between his own ears. And, embarrassingly, it seems to fail to take into account that left-wingers will screech their talking points at us the entire time.

He really should know better.

Boortz’ comments follow…


At least that is what liberal websites like the Huffington Post are calling it. As of this morning, John McCain has suspended his presidential campaign in order to focus on the economy. Here’s a taste of the press release …

“I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.”

Obama’s reaction? “The debate is on.”

The first response from the liberal media … McCain is doing this because he doesn’t like the way his campaign is going. The Politico says, “in terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that’s changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.”

And just in case you give a flying Frisbee what I’m thinking … I think this is a campaign ploy that went wrong. McCain wanted to look presidential. He wanted to show the voters that he would put aside the frivolity of campaigning when there was honest-to-goodness work to be done in Washington. Trouble is, the Obama campaign and the media are all to eager to remind the voters that it was McCain who said that he wasn’t all that up-to-speed on matters economic. I can hear the leftist chattocracy now: “McCain knew that this debate would move into economic matters, and he didn’t feel prepared to address them.”

Sorry … but not a good move.

No More “McSame”?

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Interesting article linked by Boortz: All these shrewd strategists who’ll move mountains to get The Chosen One elected, have been monitoring the effectiveness of this talking point in which McCain would be just another term for George Bush.

And it ain’t workin’.

The biggest arrow in the Democrats’ quiver is cut from an old, wooden meme that asks Americans to transfer their visceral hatred of President George W. Bush onto John McCain. If there’s a way to link the Arizona senator to the lame duck president, you better believe the Democrats have thought of it. Voting record? Bush and McCain agree ninety percent of the time. Economic issues? Just “more of the same.” Those adoring hugs between McCain and the president? They’re the kicker of every Obama ad.

But so much for that. After four months of stagnating and ultimately drooping support for Barack Obama among the anti-Bush independents, it’s time to concede that the strategy isn’t working. More than half the country considers McCain a legitimate “agent of change,” according to a September Gallup poll. In key blocs such as independents and Americans making more than $75,000, he’s tied with Obama within the margin of error.

How can Americans consider McCain an agent of change when Democrats keep reminding them that he’s just like President Bush? To amend a line from Obama’s convention speech: It’s not because Americans don’t get it; it’s because average American doesn’t care.

By the way, it appears in that hardcore right-wing Bush-bot redneck publication — The Atlantic. Heh.

Know what I think? They’ve been burned by their own poorly worded poll questions. Do you agree with President Bush’s performance/policies. Know what? I’m among the majority in that…I’m going to answer toward the negative. That whole bit with illegal aliens doing the work Americans won’t do, will go down in history as one of the dumbest sound bites ever uttered by anyone in high office, anywhere, anytime.

But I agree with every single word blogger friend Buck wrote on 9/11:

God Bless America, and God Bless and Keep President Bush. We owe many for the fact these United States have not been attacked in the seven years since 9/11/2001, but of all those whom we owe a debt of gratitude and thanks… there are none more deserving than the president. History will vindicate him and the actions he has taken in the face of incredible opposition over these past seven years… and future generations will honor him in the manner he deserves. It can’t come soon enough, in my eyes.

He speaks for me. And yet — you ask me if the country is headed in the right direction, I’m gonna give as my answer a big fat NO. We’re not building a wall to keep the illegal aliens out, and we’re spending too much money.

But when you compare McCain to Bush, the first thing that pops into my head is truckloads of crispy fried smokin’ terrorists bodies.

I’m alone in this dichotomy? Really? Apparently not. Actually, I’m sorry the left-wingers finally caught on. Don’t know why I’m posting it here. I’m glad nobody really reads this blog.

The Chosen One’s Greg Stillson Moment

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t bother with this one, but it suddenly popped into my head how important it is that the clip is seen by as many people as possible. It may very well be Obama’s Greg Stillson moment, and I hope it has exactly the same ultimate effect on his career prospects.

What happens when you take The Messiah, and back him into a corner with a question about The Single Most Important Issue of the upcoming elections? You get this…

Since this was by no means an insignificant issue with the Bush/Kerry race of ’04, Obama’s had a long time to come up with an answer to this. It is remarkable, to the point of being surreal, that he does not have one. Remarkable and telling. I hope this is one of those things where by one week later, you can’t find anyone who doesn’t know about it yet. Shout it from the rooftops. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

H/T: Stop The ACLU, via Cassy.

Individualism and Collectivism

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Thanks to JohnJ for pointing out this excellent series to me in an off-line.

McCain More Negative Than Obama?

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

There’s been a slight turn in Obama’s favor as of last week. The hardcore left-wingers are predictably playing this up as hard as they can in hopes of producing a bandwagon effect to put The Chosen One over the top.

The blip isn’t as interesting to me as its perceived cause:

The change from a month ago may correlate with the perception among likely voters that the McCain campaign has been the more negative. Overall, 44% say McCain’s campaign has been the more negative, compared to 31% who say the same about Obama’s campaign. Among self-described political independents, 48% said they think McCain’s campaign has been more negative.

Are these likely voters watching the same guy I am? Ask Chosen One what he plans to do about people not getting enough Riboflavin in their diets…he’ll make it about ten words before he is forced to use the name “Bush.” And that’s being charitable. Ask him about hurricanes, he’ll make it to global warming before the first “uh,” and under-regulated greedy corporations before the second one. And use that word “Bush” probably two or three more times.

Maybe it’s that word “hope.” People have this mental weakness — they see the H-word floating past your lips, they don’t wait for substantiation. They just presume this is what you’re all about. It is a deeply engrossing word. You say “we have to have hope…and therefore I’ll be tying a hundred girl scouts to wooden stakes on my front lawn and setting ’em ablaze while they scream like banshees, and when they’re good and roasted I’ll ripe the entrails out of the bellies while they squirm some more.” All people will remember is the “hope.” Well…maybe it’s not that bad…but you get the idea. People don’t hold your feet to the fire to say something hopeful. Just throwing the syllable out there, is enough for ’em.

How do you fight this if you’re McCain? It’s a delicate question. Putting Hitler’s picture up on the television screen, captioned with “You know who ELSE was all about hope and change?” would make a compelling point, besides of a meritorious point, and on top of that would be historically accurate. But obviously this would be one step forward and three steps back. What we have here is a double standard — Obama can campaign “negatively” to the point of toxicity; McCain can’t even offer up the notion that he’s superior to the competition, let alone explore the reasons why.

Symbiosis, John. It’ll set you free. Put out three or four thirty-second spots tied to this theme, and you might as well start rehearsing your inauguration speech and vetting people for cabinet posts right there & then.

The liberal says, enact my proposal and we’ll enter into a symbiotic relationship. Next week, the liberal will have another proposal, and offer the same pitch — he won’t admit the last proposal failed to get us into this symbiotic relationship. He won’t offer to roll back this previous failed proposal. To our discredit, nobody will call on him to do so…

The conservative says we’re already in the symbiotic relationship. You are good for me. I am good for you. We can all go on doing exactly what we’re doing. The only thing we should really change is to get those damn liberals to stop voting.

The tax thing is a fantastic example of this. Obama has a plan that would call for a net increase of our taxes…and his defense is that while he would raise taxes on the evil rich, some 95% of households (or 80%, depending on your source) would see a tax cut — with those evil rich making up the difference, plus some. Therefore, depending on your point of view, it is valid to say —

1. Sum Of Parts: Obama’s plan increases the tax burden on us.

2. Vote By Tax: Obama’s plan cuts the tax burden for us.

And here come all these allegedly balanced and centrist fact-checkers, taking the second of those two points-of-view, without so much as a glance in the rear view mirror, without a scintilla of scrutiny or question. They’re saying the McCain campaign is telling lies…even though Obama would raise the overall tax liability. Truly, this is an abomination in the eyes of The Lord.

McCain, in response to this, could adopt the Morgan K. Freeberg platform of true conservatism:

Conservatives insist that taxes…exist for the purpose of raising revenue, not to punish any particular person or class of person.
Anyone who thinks people should be punished for having too much money or for making too much money, via taxes or by some other means, is invited by all good conservatives to leave the country and go live in another. (When I Start Running This Place, Item 42.) The planet is covered with envy-inspired socialist enclaves that will be most eager to accommodate…provided they let your miserable pinko communist ass in.

Well okay, he could leave that last part out. But you get the idea.

Like the frog sitting in a pot of water gradually working up to a boil, we’ve somehow been indoctrinated to the notion that “nice” people want a tax policy that takes things away from people who are having too good of a time of it, without much regard to where the collected revenues are supposed to go or how badly they are needed. In other words, “nice” people want tax policies that destroy other people. “Mean” people, on the other hand, are the ones who say there could be something wrong with this — maybe we shouldn’t be trying to destroy other people just because they have more money than most. Part of the reason this idea has taken hold, is that it hasn’t been challenged. Try challenging it.

You’ve got to try. The situation is so bad, the prevailing viewpoint so badly diseased, that the democrat party is popularly thought to be tirelessly fighting against interclass conflict. This, when nobody who’s been paying attention can name any two classes that the democrat party thinks should already be living in harmony together! Every time they run the show, all these privileged entitlement classes end up squabbling over who has the bigger and better claim to aggrieved status, so the other entitlement classes can be denied the alms, annointments, appointments and general ass-kissing.

We saw it when Obama and Hillary got down-and-dirty fighting over the democrat party nomination. Absolutely no discussion of policy disagreements at all. None. Zero. Just…whose turn is it? The blacks, or the gals? Whose feelings are gonna be hurt? And a bunch of “superdelegates” looking on, wishing they weren’t put in the postion of choosing which coveted entitlement class would be told to go stick it where the sun don’t shine.

That’s the point — they are not the change we have been seeking, because they can only put one entitlement class on the throne at a time, and the country’s way too big for their worldview. They do not believe in symbiosis and they certainly don’t believe in “diversity.” The democrat party view is that when two classes of people are different…especially if they are cosmetically different…it’s an inevitability that they have to be sent into a cage-match somewhere, and only one can come out alive. So explain why you’re different. Talk about why you picked Sarah Palin. Point out what really interests conservatives socially: Your motto, “America first,” means an end to the hyphen. We’re all just-plain Americans, and we’re all invested in how the economy does together, including the rich people. Point out that there aren’t any rich people hoping the market tanks. Point out there aren’t any men among McCain’s supporters, now expressing reluctance to go out and vote because of his DUMB OL’ GIRL running mate.

Remind us what the word “everyone” really means. Come up with some examples — there are a lot more than a few — of how the democrat party uses that word, when “some of us” is a lot closer to what they have in mind. Start out with the above-mentioned tax policy. Obama’s plan is supposed to work for all of us, and here he is defending it saying don’t worry, it only sticks it to five percent of taxpayers, the other ninety-five are sitting pretty.

Tell us that all democrat party plans are like that. That with the democrat party in charge, every little problem that comes along has a Snidely Whiplash due for a come-uppins’, even in cases where it’s inappropriate and irrelevant. Because it’s true. If anyone doubts you, talk about the Pelosi Congress. Two years in power, they’ve solved very little…but found lots of people to blame for things.

In view of that, it is quite absurd to seriously entertain the possibility Obama can bring us the “hope” or “change” anyone has in mind…let alone start debating it.

And if that doesn’t work, then Obama’s the Commander-in-Chief we deserve. Because that would mean our minds are already made up. Some young-handsome-guy comes along and uses buzzwords, presents himself as a uniter while he’s dividing people, an agent of change while naming a lifetime beltway fixture as his running mate, tax policies that work for “everyone” while making a big show out of sacrificing a tiny subset of the most productive taxpayers — and we just scarf it down. What’s the point of trying to discuss anything with an electorate like that? That’s like your kid telling you he isn’t stealing the cookies…mumbling around a mouthful of cookie. And you believing him.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

This Is Good LV

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

Blogger friend Duffy

In an earlier post I mentioned it but only in the context of the upcoming VP debates. I completely missed something. If paying more taxes is patriotic, it stands to reason that paying less taxes is unpatriotic. Therefore, our troops in war zones who are exempt from income taxes are unpatriotic. That also means that poor people, who do not pay income tax, are unpatriotic. Obama’s efforts to exclude people from the tax roles are also unpatriotic. Joe’s deductions on his tax returns for charitable giving are unpatriotic. Any mortgage deductions are unpatriotic. Child tax credits? Unpatriotic. I could go on all day. I would really really like Joe to continue on this line.

Yes, Joe. Take these on. Babble away.

Thing I Know #164. Some ideas look serious, only because they’re never taken that way. The most devastating thing you can do to a dumb idea is to take it seriously.

I’ve noticed there is a particularly odious practice of “fact checking” about the tax plans of the prospective Obama/Biden administration — Obama/Biden is an anagram of “An Idea Bomb” — and the McCain campaign’s comments on those tax plans., to their discredit, has a wonderful example of this on their web site right now:

The ad continues McCain’s pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama’s tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama “promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family.” But that’s untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama’s actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income. [emphasis mine]

Via Karol, we have another such transgression committed by the AP:

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama’s proposals.

Classic example of gulping the liberal koolaid without knowing you’re gulping it: “Oh don’t worry, that’s a tax on super rich people, not you!”

The pattern is that if it can be categorized as a tax cut for 95% of us, then everyone should be thinking of it as a tax cut for all of us, even if the remaining five percent see their tax liabilities go shootin’ so freakin’ high that it ends up being a net increase. It all depends on your point of view: In my world, if we all end up paying more, then we all end up paying more.

But I notice if you look at this through the left-wing lens, whether you know you’re doing it or not…like and the AP up there…then 95% of us pay less taxes.

And then if you look at that through the Biden lens — we’re just hemorrhaging our patriotism. Oh dear!

What’s the An Idea Bomb administration gonna do about that?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

National Education Service

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Liberalism and conservatism. Here’s the difference…right here, baby.

Let’s make the elections all about this. Because they’re all about this already.

H/T: Bookworm.

The Creative Personality

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Interesting article that defines the ten points of a creative personality, and bashes the traditional I.Q. test (under point 2).

1. Creative people have a great deal of physical energy, but they’re also often quiet and at rest.
2. Creative people tend to be smart yet naive at the same time.
3. Creative people combine playfulness and discipline, or responsibility and irresponsibility.
4. Creative people alternate between imagination and fantasy, and a rooted sense of reality.
5. Creative people trend to be both extroverted and introverted.
6. Creative people are humble and proud at the same time.
7. Creative people, to an extent, escape rigid gender role stereotyping.
8. Creative people are both rebellious and conservative.
9. Most creative people are very passionate about their work, yet they can be extremely objective about it as well.
10. Creative people’s openness and sensitivity often exposes them to suffering and pain, yet also to a great deal of enjoyment.

These things are always interesting and somewhat problematic; people, reading them and evaluating them, tend to talk up the parts that make ’em look good and look down with disdain on the parts that make ’em look bad. Me, I’m not sure what to think. Looks like I come in very strong on points #8, 9 and 10, and weak on #3. But my I.Q. has always been tested on the high end, well above the 120 that this article says is the point of diminishing returns. So I dunno. If it makes me smart, it must be true, but if it doesn’t it must be full of malarkey. I’ll read on it and think on it some more later.

Anyway. Another interesting nugget to file away. H/T: Dr. Helen.

Lightworker Guy: Some Women Are Really That Dumb

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

How dumb?

Women Heart PalinMaybe this is our simple summary, the blaring headline we should be reading in the wake of recent events. “Easily duped Palin supporters prove: Some white women are just as dumb as men.”

So they’re like assorted chocolate-covered candies, huh? Everyone shares their little secrets for avoiding the dumb ol’ orange and strawberry sherbet ones…stay away from the round ones. You have to look out for the white women? Some of them are not only dumb, but man-dumb? Dark ones are alright?

How embarrassing. How toxic. Archie Bunker, at his lowest ebb, had nothing separating him from Mark Morford other than the political-incorrectness of his reckless smearing and stereotyping. You remember Morford, don’t you…the lightworker guy.

The biggest disgrace of all — no, it isn’t that the guy just starts out with the presumption that men are stupid, and the worst thing a woman can do is to show herself to be man-dumb…when he’s a man. No, it isn’t that. It’s that you can scan, skim and scrutinize his piece from top to bottom, and back again, looking for logical, reasoned arguments about why you need to vote for The Enlightened One over McCain/Palin. Policy differences. You’re just looking in the wrong place. Nothing but a bunch of bludgeoning, cudgeling and bullying here: Vote for our guy, or you’re just a big dummy. Now for some more prose and poetry about what big dummies certain white women are.

Good job, left-wing. Trading one brand of bigotry for another. And in only 45 years or so.

Hat Tip: Jawa.

Prayer, God and War

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Via Gerard.

Yin and Yang XII

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Fey and PoehlerLost amidst all the hubbub about what a perfect-ten skit opened last weekend’s Saturday Night Live — by the way, I’d characterize it as a “well above par nine,” but who’s counting — was a far more poignant commentary about forty-five minutes in (counting commercial breaks). It was during the Weekend Update segment, when Amy Poehler was interviewing “Alaska Pete,” a clumsy caricature of the slobbering Palin fan…like me.

Not to worry, I took it in good humor. I just thought this exchange was interesting. The Manhattan crowd, you’ll be pleased to know, has finally come up with a sound bite to answer this Fred Thompson thing about field-dressing a moose. It’s a rhetorical question.

Alaska Pete: Yeah, she’s gonna be the best Vice President in history. She’s a flip! That woman can field dress a moose!

Amy Poehler: What does that have to do with being Vice President?

Awesome! That’s what the election is all about. It cuts to the very heart of Sarah Palin’s weakness as a candidate. It highlights her irrelevancy. And best of all, it can’t be answered!

Actually, it can. Ms. Poehler, I’d like to field this one if you don’t mind. Nobody ever reads my blog, of course, but over here we’ve discussed this many-a-time — here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And before that we picked it to death here, here, here and here.

It is Yin and Yang. Which could be thought of as a derivative offshoot of Carl Jung’s introverts and extraverts. Except it’s not the same thing.

Recall that an introvert is someone who is quiet, reserved, thoughtful, and self-reliant whereas the term “extravert” is used to refer to people who are are often leaders, work well in groups, and prefer being with others to being alone.

Yin and Yang is slightly different from that. The best way to describe it is in term of effort; lifetime effort. Introversion and extraversion are states — Yin and Yang are activities. They refer to the wrinkles we carve in our brains, womb-to-tomb, as we take on life’s little challenges in the manner we have conditioned ourselves to think.

You can certainly be a Yin and at the same time be an extravert. Sarah Palin herself may very well be an excellent example of this. I can’t state that for certain without getting to know the lady and spending a great deal of time around her, something that isn’t likely to happen. One of the things I’ve noticed about these people is that the more intelligent they are, the harder it is to figure out whether they’re Yin or Yang, even if their inclinations are running very strong under the surface. But from what little I’ve seen, Palin seems to be strongly extraverted.

Extravert or not, however, Sarah Palin is definitely a Yin. And the nation is hungry for Yin in their leadership positions. Field dressing a moose, to answer Poehler’s question, exemplifies the very definition of Yin because you can’t do any field dressing until you have a body to dress.

This also explains why there is so much anger at Gov. Palin for coming as far as she has as quickly as she has. What she’s done is beat super-Yang Barack Obama at his very own game. This term “natural born leader” that is so often affixed to the Yang, is actually a myth. It’s really there only to make them feel good. Leaders decide things. They do not depend on others to decide things.

And here’s the definition of the Yin. It is an individual to whom it comes as second-nature to conduct this intellectual task of translating facts into opinions about what’s goin’ on, and opinions about what’s goin’ on into other opinions about what to do. The Yang, on the other hand, possess superior aptitudes that have to do with figuring out what a roomful of people are (is) thinking…and then articulating that consensus, eloquently and with confident command, before anybody else does.

They often end up in charge of things. That’s why groups of people don’t excel at making good decisions. Too often, they are commanded by someone whose lifelong pursuits involve running to the front of this or that parade…after they figure out where it’s going. It’s a rather glittery, gaudy and empty form of leadership.

The big elephant in the room is that the Yang don’t really want to run anything. They aren’t self-sufficient. The personality of a Yang is the culmination of a lifetime spent eluding Rumspringen — this is what leads to the extraverted behavior. It isn’t so much that in solitude they are lonely, although there may be some of that; instead, it’s that in solitude they lose their cognitive ability. Their methods of deciding what to do have to do with resonating emotionally with those around them. And that includes Barack Obama. They want the identity that comes from having one’s name in a box at the head of an org chart, but getting stuck with a decision that might turn out to be rotten later on, really puts ’em off. A new “Dilbert” cartoon is born every time they figure out how to grab the credit for making one of these decisions, without being bogged down by the associated blame should it turn out to be wrong.

That, Ms. Poehler, is what field dressing a moose has to do with executive authority at the top of this nation’s government. I’m unacquainted with moose hunting myself, but it isn’t too hard to guess: Perceiving, molding, shaping and commanding a group consensus doesn’t do you an awful lot of good out there.

Palin!This is powerful, because it transcends liberal-versus-conservative. It’s even more powerful than that other issue of which party is going to elect the first woman President in our nation’s history. We need some real leadership; people who know right from wrong, not just talk a good game about it. We don’t need more “articulate” people, regardless of their skin color. We have a rich history, as it is, of confusing real leadership with gift-of-gab. Maybe, just maybe, we’re growing out of it now. Maybe we’re starting to realize that we don’t need better salesmen.

After all, a good salesman is something you need if the thing you’re trying to sell is a piece of junk.

A good thinker, on the other hand, is something you need when there are decisions to be made, and they’re important. Our ivory-tower blue-staters will go to quite a few lengths to avoid admitting this…but fishing and hunting takes real brains. Not just talk-a-good-game brains, laughey-talkey-jokey brains, but figger-out-what-to-do brains.

So with that in mind, the nation turns it’s lonely eyes to someone who’s clearly better practiced in making good decisions, than in ducking the blame after making poor ones.

Thing I Know #110. Everyone’s willing to bet an unlimited measure of resources from a company, corporation, committee, council, organization or club, that the “smartest guy in the room” really is the smartest guy in the room. Because of that, the smartest guy’s ideas usually go unopposed. I have noticed it’s extremely rare that anyone, anywhere, would bet one dime of their personal fortune that he’s really that smart. This may explain why some of the best decisions I’ve seen, were made outside of conference rooms.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Feminists and Women Cleaning Things

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Speaking of Feministing: Ever wonder what the inside of a feminist’s house or apartment looks like?

In my relatively brief lifetime thus far, I’ve seen the perimeter of “Things That Honk Off Feminists” flung outward so far and wide, that I can’t think of a single idea that incorporates both “females” and “cleaning things” that does not fall within it.

To hear them tell it, when feminists live with men they bring their bitching and pissing and moaning to an abrupt halt once they have achieved “equality” as far as “help with the household chores.” But that would imply, would it not, that the feminist of the household is mopping the floor and scrubbing the toilets fifty percent of the time. It’s been over twenty years since my last romantic relationship with a real die-hard post-modern feminist now…I’m not even sure the phrase “post-modern” can apply to days so far gone.

But the image of a self-professed feminist grabbing those Windex wipes and happily scrubbing toothpaste droplets off the bathroom mirror, cheerfully whistling to herself because she’s only doing this half the time — it’s a bit much for me to envision. The message that’s been ground into my cranium, forcefully, for decades now, is that housework and feminine things do not go together. Not even for a moment.

And in case I should forget (warning, suggestive content):

Theory A is that they’re sincere, and they just want a more equitable divide in the household labor.

Theory B is the bitches are just lazy.

It occurs to me that if I was stuck with the household labor and ready to mount a mini-revolution for a more equitable distribution, starting a blog to be read by others, constantly carping away at total strangers what they should find disgusting and reprehensible in movie tropes and everyday television commercials and other blogs — this would have very little to do with what I was trying to do. Right? I mean, I’d whack that schmuck in the back of the head to get him to help out. If he goes for it, it’s just a piece of history, and if he doesn’t, I’ve got a choice. Blogging would be a completely unrelated activity. A distraction, even.

So I’m leanin’ toward B.

Womens’ Personal Ad Dictionary

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Boortz brings us this politically incorrect glossary:

Old-fashioned…………………..No Lewinskies.

Too bad nobody ever reads this blog. Feministing would have a field day with it; oh well, maybe eventually they’ll find out about Neal and give it to ‘im with both barrels. It’s sure to be priceless.


Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Via Rachel:

She commands us to “review the cultural ideals and models of the radical rurals from the Great White Northwest and find out for sure where Gov. Palin stands.” Based on bits of apocrypha about Palin’s “pro-censorship” positions (?) and selected anecdotes across Idaho, Montana and Colorado. She defines an entire region as being — to boil her various ten-dollar words down to their bare essentials — bad. Not because of the anecdotes she manages to pick out from recent history, but because of a paucity of ethnic minorities living there.

She wrote a hatchet-piece. She is a bitter person (just read the hatchet-piece). She’s an egghead, History Department Chair at Connecticut College. She has two last names.

Gleaning some attributes of her personal favorite stereotypes from what she’s managed to observe, and simply allowing her imagination to fill in the rest. A tenured angry-woman prof with two last names, writing a poison-pen screed…did this.

Failing, apparently on an epic scale, to see the irony; let alone savor it.

Well, I grew up in the Pacific Northwest myself. I wish Ms. McNicol Stock would swing on up there and take a look for a week or so; something tells me this would be a new experience for her (she never does say anything to indicate otherwise). That strikes me as a far more productive use of her time, and a far less abusive use of her emotions and passions, compared to jotting down a bunch of directives to millions of total strangers to hold a vast region of her country in scathing contempt…said vast region probably being something completely outside of her personal experience.

It has been years since groups such as the Montana Militia, the Posse Comitatus and the Sagebrush Rebels, and individuals such as Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski have made us wonder why so many “angry white men” populated our rural regions. Many of us have forgotten the threat once posed by domestic terrorists and instead have turned our attention to foreign terrorists. But we should never forget that in the late 20th century, ultra-Christian, antistatist and white-supremacist groups flourished in the states of the Pacific Northwest – called by many the “Great White Northwest” – the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home.

Wow. That’s just some real higher-level upper-cruster ivory-tower quality thinkin’ goin’ on there. Think I’ll kill shoot me a squirrel for dinner and strike up a tune on my harmoniker while I burn a cross on my neighbor’s lawn, then try to figger out them big words one more time.

Really, I’m just so happy we have these blue-bloods around to teach us how to be more tolerant of each other. Or, at least, to point out when we’re not. Who’d have thought…an entire quarter of the United States, failing to value diversity. We know they/we are all messed up that way, because of where they live. Cool.

There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch. — Nigel Powers, Goldmember (2002).


Friday, September 19th, 2008

H/T: HotAir, via Karol.

Huh. Isn’t it funny…you make a list of things you can do, of which left-wingers approve. Make the list as long as you want (or can). Every single item on it has something to do with diminishing yourself…ever notice that?

Reduce your net carbon footprint to zero. Join the union. Stop defending the country so “the world” will like us more better. Elect people who will tax the snot out of the corporation that employs you. Force your heirs to pay even more taxes when you die, out of the estate you left them. Turn in your guns, and forget about ever teaching your kids to own or use one. Abort your baby.

And so…taxes are patriotic. Of course they are, Joe. They diminish the person paying them, whether they fall within the minimum liability or not.


Friday, September 19th, 2008

James Taranto is noticing some peculiar things about the way the Associated Press discusses the federal crime that is the hacking of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s e-mail account.

The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply.

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration’s use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago—prior to Palin’s selection as a vice presidential candidate—after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

Taranto observes:

Let’s step back for a moment and consider what this says about the press’s attitude toward privacy. A few years ago, the New York Times revealed the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, a theretofore-secret effort to prevent attacks by listening in on overseas terrorists’ phone conversations. In defense of the Times’s action, we heard a lot of pious proclamations about privacy: George Bush might want to snoop on your phone conversations or emails, and the press was merely being vigilant in protecting your privacy.

Yes, it’s still fresh in my mind. I’m hard pressed to recall a more egregious euphemism than the label of “Ordinary Americans” slapped onto terrorists who’d never been anywhere near, or held anything close to citizenship in, the America they intended to destroy. The democrat party threw it out there, over and over again, as if waiting to be called on it and questioned about it…something that never took place. Ordinary Americans, Ordinary Americans, Ordinary Americans.

Yet the AP, in reporting on its own role in the current story, tells us that it refuses to cooperate with the Secret Service’s investigation of the privacy breach. Granted, the AP probably doesn’t have that much to contribute to the investigation. But the symbolism is telling, and surely deliberate. It suggests the press places a far lower premium on privacy than on its own privileges and its adversarial attitude toward government (or perhaps toward Republicans).

Can’t remember where I saw this, but someone else was comparing this to the Watergate break-in. What a difference 37 years makes, huh? Now perhaps someone older than me and with a better-working memory, or someone with more ambition in the research department, can take on the task of figuring out what the Watergate burglars found. I haven’t got a clue. I heard it was said to be “a portrait of Harry S Truman and a stack of unpaid bills.” But I can guaran-damn-tee you this: It’s going to be mighty tough to find any AP stories that say “The disclosure raises new questions about the DNC’s use of the Watergate building to secure their sensitive records.”

But it really doesn’t matter what the Watergate burglars did or didn’t find, if you’re going to compare it to the Palin e-mail hack, for the latter of these was an epic fail. The hackers wanted to find something juicy, and they did not.

The AP’s “questions” are, therefore, rather short-lived. Go out and find something else spooky and ominous to question, AP.

Taranto continues:

Especially telling in this regard is the AP’s reference to the emails as “leaked.” (The Boston Globe uses the verb leak in its headline for the AP report.) Usually this term refers to a government agency or other organization’s failure to keep a secret. A leaker is someone who is authorized to possess information but not to disclose it.

These emails were not leaked, they were stolen. Here we have an actual invasion of an American citizen’s privacy, and what is the press’s attitude? If the AP is representative (and given its organizational structure, it should be), it is to regard “questions about the propriety” of the victim as more important than the invasion of privacy itself.

This is no different than blaming Sarah Palin for walking around the Memorial Pool after dark wearing a bikini and getting raped.

Actually, to make that analogy work, the rapist would have to suffer a sudden attack of erectile dysfunction. But the point stands. Liberal democrats demand the status of aggrieved victim, with truckloads of authority and little or no responsibility — nobody else really knows what to say in response to that, so our tendency is to go ahead and let ’em have it. Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, are treated as aggressors (or practitioners of negligence) in situations in which they really are victims. And that’s not whining, there’s really just no other way to describe it. You can mutter from sun-up to sundown how Palin’s use of Yahoo “raises questions” but if these hackers were so obviously interested in finding dirt while they were snooping around in violation of federal law, and never did find anything, then it simply isn’t a valid concern.

Palin ankle-biters, you are now finishing up your third week trying to find some good dirt. When you finished up your first week, you already looked like the coyote trying to cath the road runner. Now, it’s just getting monotonous. Meep, meep.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Memo For File LXXIV

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

Quoting myself over at Cassy’s place, as usual, nurturing my bad software-developer’s habit of leaving absolutely nothing unsaid. The subject is this weird article written up by some asshole by the name of Nicholas Provenzo, who is “troubled by…[Gov. Palin]’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome.”

I do not know how Mr. Provenzo feels about other issues we are debating hotly, nor do I very much care. For he is in some very impressive company on the “should’ve aborted Trig” platform, and that platform splices into some other platforms in a way that can no longer be denied by anyone honestly studying the polling and demographics. Elaborating further, I radiate my wisdom thusly…

It’s really damned peculiar when you start looking at other issues: The people who support these kinds of eugenics — that’s exactly what this guy is talking about — are the same ones who are constantly working at making people as expensive as possible, once they are here.

The minimum wage has to be automatically boosted. Everything’s gotta be a union shop. The “workers” deserve more vacation time, more medical benefits. Welfare benefits aren’t extended enough. You have the RIGHT…to family and medical leave, to sue your employer for looking at you funny, to sue him for not firing someone else who looked at you funny, to sue that guy who owns the house you were breaking into when you hurt yourself, to inspect the coins jingling around in your pocket and not see those horrible letters G, O, D.

Wouldn’t it be more logical if we were divided according to — make this enormous smorgasbord of rights available to every baby from the moment of conception…versus…people cost too much, so let’s cut these rights to the bone *and* institute a draconian code of eugenics. That kind of a divide would make a lot more sense. But instead, it’s flip-flopped. And these lefties are all twisty like a Mobeus strip; they say you have this enormous buffet of “rights” legislated in, a handful at a time, in response to random populist rage. But only if you make it across that vaginal finish line. Until then, you don’t get your vacation time, you don’t get annual bonuses, you don’t get the Bill of Rights, you don’t get to live and you aren’t even entitled to a humane demise…because you don’t exist.

It’s like they know. Their enormous accumulations of artificial “rights” are so expensive, that after awhile they can only be afforded if strict controls are put in place regarding who’s entitled to live in the precious utopia they’re trying to construct. Abortion is like the turnstyle to their precious little domed city.

It fascinates me endlessly that the same people who want the tree we call “humanity” to suck away at water and nutrients at an excessive rate through this exploding nanny-state, are the same people who want said vegetation…properly trimmed. Quality over quantity. There has to be something tying these oppositional motivations together. And they themselves cannot explain what it is, so it has to be something psychological.

Update: Provenzo himself replies, again, over at Cassy’s place. He says we’ve misstated his position — but then, every time he refers to the situation at hand, he’s careful to couch it in terms of a woman who would choose to abort the baby, and is perhaps about to be forced to carry it to term by some thuggish masculine martinet.

As a mother, Gov. Sarah Palin chose to carry Trig to term. This is not only the point Cassy was trying to make — although it is that — it renders Mr. Provenzo’s various summaries of the situation utterly invalid.

Provenzo clarifies himself in this follow-up:

In affirming a woman’s absolute right to abort an unwanted fetus, it seems I have triggered the wrath of the anti-abortion lynch mob if the recent death threats in my inbox are any indication. Such is life when confronting the morally ignorant with their irrationality, yet all their “pro-life” death threats aside, the fact remains: a woman has the unqualified moral right to abort a fetus she carries inside her in accordance with her own judgment.

What is the basis for this claim? What facts of reality demand that a woman enjoy the freedom to exercise her discretion in such a manner? At root, it is the simple fact that until the fetus is born and exists as a separate, physically independent human entity, the fetus is potential life and the actual life of the woman grants her interests and wishes primacy. As an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree, a fetus is not the same thing as an independent human being. In the case of the fetus, its location matters: inside the woman and attached to her via the umbilical cord, its position in relation to the woman subordinates its status to her wishes; outside the woman, welcome to life in the human race.

But why is biological independence the defining factor of personhood in both morality and under the law? Why isn’t it the moment of conception, or the first instance of fetal heartbeat, or the first instance of fetal brain wave activity (just to name a few of the benchmarks often put forward by anti-abortion activists)? Again, it is the nature of the direct physical connection between the fetus and the mother. Physically attached to a woman in the manner a fetus is, the woman’s right to regulate the processes of her own body is controlling. Unattached and physically independent, the fetus is thus transformed; it is a person no different from anyone else and enjoys all the individual rights of personhood.

Needless, to say, this truth offends the sensibilities of some. They cannot fathom that something like the physical presence of the fetus inside a woman grants a woman power to control it as she controls the affairs of her own body. In a more just world, such people would simply choose not to have abortions, which is their every right. And leave it at that. Yet justice is not the aim of the anti-abortion mob. They simply seek to sacrifice unwilling women upon their altar of the unborn, reducing a woman to a mere birthing vessel the second a fetus exists in her body.

Here’s the flaw with Provenzo’s argument: It depends on the breezy conflation with moral sensibilities and facts. Now granted, perhaps he is so conflating so that he can stand atop the dais of intellectual superiority over his antagonists, as well as ethical superiority. It seems his ego gets a great charge when he does this. But it’s quite a simple truth that the two concepts he is so conflating, are quite different, so the conflation is a rather egregious abuse of logic and common sense.

Whatever you might make of the matter at hand — whether the mother’s right to choose supersedes the right of the “fetus” to live, or the right of the baby to live supersedes momma’s right to choose — this is a conclusion you have drawn, and it’s not a conclusion solely of logic. In using words like “truth” and “fact” Provenzo is essentially confessing to not sticking to the plane of reality and common sense, but rather departing from it. He’s arrived at his own moral code, and as icing on the cake has insisted, with no rational justification whatsoever, that whoever doesn’t agree with him is in possession of an inferior command of the facts.

Additionally, Provenzo has outlined his argument as the very definition of an invalid logical shortcut. It boils down to “babies are not babies until they have matured to the point they can exist outside of the mother; it is so, for I have decide that it is.” It’s fine fodder for those who already agree with Provenzo, who sympathize with him in the desire to feel superior to those who disagree! But it fails the most rudimentary test of a logical argument, for it isn’t even a compelling one. It has absolutely zero potential for winning reasoned converts.

There are a lot of people running around with this idea in their heads. I think what’s going on, is they’re just starting to understand why the Declaration of Independence was written the way it was; they’re just barely grasping the concept that rights can come from something, and of necessity, must come from something. They understand people can have “rights” that may offend those around them.

But they don’t know where to take that thought, because they won’t permit themselve to think of a Higher Power to whom the human race is accountable. That would interfere, you see, with this sacrosanct Right To Choose. I’ve hit on a favorite way to trip them up, and so far, not a single one of them has found a way out of the netting, in spite of their much self-professed intellectual horsepower.

It’s a simple question.

If a woman has an absolute right to abort a pregnancy at any instant in the term, and it’s non-negotiable, but some “mistaken” referendum pops up on my ballot in November that would criminalize abortions, do I have the “right” to vote yes on such a bill?

They don’t know how to answer that. About the most coherent answer I’ve ever gotten to that one is “yes, provided it doesn’t actually pass” or some such…yeah, you got it. At some point I have to stop challenging them, because I’m not sure their brains can think on this too long without melting down.

But the lesson here is, rights have to come from someplace. That’s how God does, after all, get involved in politics. If rights just come from people because there’s no God…then our rights are simply products of self-important snots like Nicholas Provenzo, jotting down words that say “this person has a right to do this, that person has a right to do that.” And this is the opinion of — whom, exactly? Provenzo? A majority? A minority that should be a majority? How long do we have these rights? Forever? Until next week? Until someone gets really, really grumpy and upset that these people have these rights? Until it costs someone some money?

It’s a fair question to ask. Because rights aren’t really rights, if you can only hang onto them so long as it makes someone happy that you’ve got ’em.

Perhaps, in the sitaution where a “fetus” continues living only in contravention to the wishes of the mother, what we are seeing is the very most emotionally jarring test possible of these things we call “rights,” and that attribute they have of enduring against the desires of others. And some of us have what it takes to continue a rational discussion past the point of realizing this, while some others do not.

Update: Cassy Fiano responds to Nick.

Nick’s argument seems to be that all he was saying is that it’s a legitimate choice to abort a child with severe retardation. But poor Nick seems to forget that we can still access what he wrote. And that wasn’t his argument. His argument was never simply about whether or not a woman had the right to choose. Nick’s original argument was that it was morally wrong and selfish for a woman to carry a disabled child to term, not to mention sheer disgust and condescension towards people with disabilities. You can see him saying that here:

Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

And there’s more. You should go read it all, really. I can’t do it justice.

Cassy lives in a somewhat different world from me. This “what the liberal meant to say” stuff requires empathy, something I don’t have. So when I say “nurturing my bad software-developer’s habit of leaving absolutely nothing unsaid,” I mean leaving nothing unsaid regarding the subject at hand, according to the text of what the offender (Nicholas) actually wrote. Being empathy-challenged I’m unable to engage in a discourse about what he meant to say, should he so challenge…and, obviously, that is his game. “I never meant that.” Having talent in this area that I lack, Cassy is ready, willing and able to nail his ass to the wall.

I live in a universe that is much more about cause and effect. Nicholas’ argument boils down to one of — as I’ve said — “this right exists because I have decided that it exists.” It is the ultimate weak argument, because it is the ultimate non-argument; it purports to prove exactly what it presumes.

Without being able to empathize with Mr. Provenzo, however, I do believe I can define exactly where he has confused himself. When he says “inside the woman and attached to her via the umbilical cord, its position in relation to the woman subordinates its status to her wishes,” he is not so much stating a fact or a conclusion of sound logic, as announcing a personal value system for the purpose of accumulating a fellowship. If you agree, he’s ready to be your friend, if not, then move on.

That’s not truth. That’s not fact. It’s a belief, nothing more and nothing less.

No, in my world when we debate “rights,” we discuss the ramifications from all sides. Once a right is proposed for a specific class, obviously there is an interest held by the membership of that class in having the right. If there is a debate about the right at all, there’s probably another class that has an interest in the right not being granted. Here’s a great example — freedom of speech. I can think of all kinds of speech I’d like to have suppressed. What speech Mr. Provenzo would like suppressed, should be obvious. But if society is to work that way, it has to be a society with regulated speech. We sit down and vote on who gets to decide what, and whoever is in the minority has to just lump it and shut up.

You have the right not to be beaten up, and not to be killed. This is uncontested (or mostly so). Does that mean it’s impossible to find someone who would have an interest in you not having this right? Ah, no. Normal people, every week if not every day, feel that irrational impulse to clock somebody now and then. But we respect the rights of people not to be abused, not because that is the law, but because intelligent people know that’s what is needed to have even the beginnings of a civilized society.

Here we come to the central handicap of Provenzo’s argument(s). Most rights are accorded after some deliberation regarding whose desires are going to be thwarted. Provenzo sidesteps this deliberation and debate with the prized tactic of the forensically weak: You identify whoever would have an interest in not-granting the right Provenzo wants granted, and you define them out of existence.

In the 1700’s, the “negro” didn’t count.

In the 1800’s, the “injuns” didn’t count.

Post-Roe-v.-Wade, the “fetus” doesn’t count. It’s not a person. It’s tissue. Just like the people with black and red skin in centuries past…they didn’t count.

Provenzo’s argument(s): It sounds good, to a significant number of people, to say this stuff. Therefore, it must be so.

We do not want rights decided this way. In my cause-and-effect universe, if that’s the way they are parceled out then none of us really have ’em.

Update 9/20/08: This radio interview is a good one, by no means a softball session. Provenzo is confused, he says, about why he is being criticized. If he’s sincere in this, then he possesses a stunning apathy and ignorance about the concept of “choice,” such that I find it surprising he’d choose to write an article that’s supposed to be all about this.

The point of the opening line in the first essay, was to criticize a choice someone made. The opening line. Contextless. I really don’t see what else has to be deliberated about it, or why Provenzo finds it appealing to spin it the way he’s trying to.

Good interview. I recommend a listen or two…although it didn’t change my mind much.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

AN IDEA BOMB to Lindsay Lohan: Thanks But No Thanks

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

Obama/Biden, which is an anagram of “An Idea Bomb,” just avoided a real idea bomb. Someone who works there and grapples with the real responsibility of making decisions that matter…must have been sick that day. Pity.

Lindsay Lohan wanted to stump for Barack Obama, but was turned down with a polite ”thanks, but no thanks,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The trouble-prone actress offered to host a series of events aimed at younger voters, but the Democratic presidential candidate’s camp wasn’t interested, the paper says.

Lohan ”is not exactly the kind of high-profile star who would be a positive for us,” a top source on the Obama team told the paper.

Well, that’s okay. We know Lindsay Lohan is the kind of Hollywood starlet who exemplifies all that hopey-changey goodness An Idea Bomb has in mind for the country.

Lohan and her all-but-confirmed girlfriend Samantha Ronson recently bashed Republican vice presidential hopeful Gov. Sarah Palin on Lohan’s MySpace blog.

“I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin,” Lohan wrote, urging people to vote for Obama. “Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?”

Click here to read the blog post

Oh…goodie…yes, let’s lower our I.Q. by a few points. Click that link. Must…stop…mousey clickey finger of doom…oh no, can’t hold it. ++Click++

I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin.

I couldn’t be more supportive of a woman in office, but let’s face it, it comes down to the person, and their beliefs, male or female.

Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?

I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be… Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she’s FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land…. Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country.

Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play…

Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?

I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice… I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the “lipstick on a pig” comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president…

Palin’s Desire to “save and convert the gays”-really??

According to this Associated Press story, the church of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is hosting a kind of conference devoted to the “conversion of Gays” — no kidding.

Here’s the AP text:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) ? Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,” according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed since she was a child.

Palin’s conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain’s candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

I feel it’s necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman.

Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that.

Oh, and…Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don’t pose for anymore tabloid covers, you’re not a celebrity, you’re running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!

And in the words of Pamela Anderson, “She can suck it”..

Lindsay- “I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!”

Samantha- “I love this country- however i wasn’t born here and don’t have the right to vote- so i beg of you all to really do your research and be educated when you cast your vote this coming november…. and if you’re in doubt- vote for obama! Mainly because if she gets elected my green card probably won’t get renewed!!!”

Lindsay and Samantha

Same brain-dead pap we get from all the other intellectual lightweights in Tinseltown.

Palin is not on record, so far as I know, wanting to lock up homosexuals. Or to parade them in a town square in stocks and chains. Or even to poke jokes at them. Or to force them to convert, or hold them as a captive audience for some religious ceremony intended to so convert them.

She has private views about whether homosexuality is normal or not, and she has an opinion about what to do with this marriage-definition question. And, if she is indeed tied into this “Pray Away The Gay” thing as it’s sometimes called — which, I notice, is not substantiated anywhere — is willing to pray for it. And by the way, that is a right she has as a private citizen, guaranteed over and over again in the writings of the Founding Fathers, and added to our Constitution through the First Amendment.

People like Lohan aren’t willing to tolerate it. They think, in order to be a tolerant society, we have to lock down the people who have these beliefs. Or, not just the people who have ’em, but the ones who are associated with them as well. Keep them from running for higher office, or saying anything. After all…+++chuckle+++…they see it as “intolerant.” +++snicker+++

Daddy Lohan fights back:

For Barack Obama to condemn my daughter for past indiscretions when he admitted to the exact same himself is indicative of what kind of president he would be.
His visions of a positive future for this country should be representative of a positive future for people as well. It is looking beyond the difficult times and letting go of the past…Obviously, Obama can do this for himself and not others, when in fact a good president should have hope for all.

Silly starlet-daddy. Liberals never mean “everyone” when they run around using words like “everyone.” You’re just figuring that out?

Tough break on the An Idea Bomb people, Lindsay. Try calling back a different day and getting hold of a different operator. Maybe you’ll get a different answer. I hope so. Can’t wait to see you on the campaign trail. Just wipe your nose first.