Archive for January, 2010

Five Things Americans Need to Understand About How Government Works

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010


One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that so few Americans understand how our government works in the real world. Since that’s the case, most people simply aren’t capable of making an informed judgment about whether politicians can deliver on a promise. With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to go back to basics and explain what so many of us have already learned the hard way about the government.

Government can’t compete on even footing with the private sector:
Government action often creates more problems than it solves:
It’s extremely difficult to shrink government:
Our politicians lack expertise:
The first priority of our politicians isn’t solving our problems: As the great Thomas Sowell has said:

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.

“Please Try, ‘I’m Listening, People'”

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Advice He needs, whether He likes it or not:

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

Still ready to debate whether Sarah Palin is as stupid as people say?

Does it even matter?

With every resume that’s written up for anything anywhere, the phrase “excellent communication skills” becomes just a little bit more threadbare and worn-out, a little bit more outdated, a little bit more vague. It could be argued to mean a whole lot of different things.

It shouldn’t include the ability to promise one thing, deliver on an entirely different thing, and get away with it. That’s not what communicating is.

Culture of Losers

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Ah, bingo.

LoservilleIn an important book, A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character, which appeared in 1992, Charles Sykes speaks of “victim chic” and deplores its “catalog of immanent grievance and infinite self-assertion.” Sykes quotes former Assistant Education Secretary Chester Finn, who had it exactly right: “In our no-fault society, it is acceptable to be a victim but not to be held responsible for one’s own situation or for that of one’s children.” We have, Sykes argues, torn up the moral contract underwriting “shared middle-class values” and installed a “victimist” ideology in its place, eliminating social distinctions “based on individual success.” We all experience unfairness and injustice, he concludes, “but that does not mean we need to turn them into all-purpose alibis.”

The confirmation of Sykes’ thesis is all around us. It seems as if we now live in societies filled mainly with victims: victims of mainstream culture, victims of exclusionary daycare policies, victims of transfats, victims of the schoolyard game of tag where some poor child is made to feel “it,” victims of secondhand smoke, victims of the tax system, victims of anti-terror laws, victims of those who pose as victims, victims of state lotteries, victims of potentially lethal glass mugs in British pubs, victims of our genes, victims of “puritanism” (i.e., moral propriety), victims of this and victims of that — those who make up what Bruce Thornton in Plagues of the Mind has aptly called “the conga line of victimhood,” to which the nanny state materially contributes.

And this new class of victims is abundantly complemented by an army of “survivors,” cashing in on what they regard as the prestige of those who have experienced real, historical calamities. Once we were content to say, as in the title of a famous poetry collection by D.H. Lawrence, “Look! We have come through,” and leave it at that. Now we are driven to proclaim our newfound status. We are survivors of this phobia or that phobia, survivors of one or another disease, survivors of tenement life, survivors of reality TV shows, survivors of the free market and corporate industry viewed as a great and oppressive structure of domination, survivors of brutal parents, survivors of feral children, survivors of workplace humiliation, survivors of scalding cups of McDonald’s coffee, survivors of what-have-you, all clamoring for attention, recognition, sympathy, and compensation.
It gets worse. Everyone is innocent, it seems, except those who are prepared to assume responsibility not only for themselves but for their cultural patrimony as well. Despite the superficial differences, it is really the same quivering mindset, the same passion for submission, that governs our behavior in both the domestic and international realms. In the former we regard ourselves as victims of social circumstances before which we protest our helplessness, demanding that the state pay welfare retribution to those who come bandaged with grievances. In the latter, we suffer for the sins of our precursors and implore forgiveness for their evident transgressions, pleading to be shriven by our enemies. For both we and our enemies are regarded as victims of the same tainted past.
We have lulled ourselves to sleep with the fashionable tranquillizers of the day, the “facile formulations” of current social and political nonthinking which we use to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility, cultural dignity, and historical conviction. To extend Honig’s Michael Jackson analogy, we are moonwalking backward as an unforgiving future advances with determined tread.

Moonwalking backward. That’s perfect.

Going through the motions of walking forward, in reality engaged in a full retreat and damn well knowing it. And all the time, oh so much fun to watch. But not getting anywhere near where we’re supposed to be getting.

“Too Sexy For America”

Monday, January 25th, 2010

The White House photostream on Flickr has offered up this image, and it’s an interesting lesson to all of us about the grayness and squishiness of that blurry fat line that separates politics from…well, everything else.

Too SexySlobbering Obama fan JMBOwer says it very well, in my opinion. Or would, if the situation was as simple as he puts it,

I always have to laugh at the same sort of people who got steamed at any criticism of Bush as being “not respectful of the office of the president” now coming on to make gratuitous negative comments anywhere they can.

In American politics, it seems ethics are imminently situational.

The photo, on the other hand is fantastic. Politics are irrelevant to the quality of the pic.

Jenius Photography goes for a more neutral stance:

Listen, regardless of whether you like President Obama or not, the White House photostream is not about politics. It’s about the artistic aspect of the photography. The White House photographers are amazing at capturing what would have been unseen moments. They have amazing talent and the best job.

And please don’t assume that I’m “Pro-Obama” just because I said all that. I’m just tired of reading through political comments to see what people actually thought about the photograph itself.

lat54205 concurs:

FLICKR is all about the photography…….not about political opinions.

Go put your opinions in political blogs.

Please let us enjoy this wonderful photography.

Thank You.

And that’s as straight as it gets, right? Right? Simple? Reduced to atomic particles? Measurable? No ifs, ands or buts?

Not so fast. What about comments like these…

Ahhhh memories. Awesome shot.
Excellent shot. Great memories – I’m glad I was there.
I still believe.
!!!!!!!!! excellent!!!!!!
i love this portrait and this moment.
Hooray! I am still glad you are President.
great moment.
From one year ago today I’ve been able to respect the intelligence, decency and good will of the man who holds the presidency. Thank God for him!
It’s been an intense year, I hope he believes in himself as much as we believe in him.

Are those comments “political”?

You have to be delusional, certifiably nuts, or dysfunctionally unintelligent to respond in the negative. And yet…here we are. A full year later, an impressive glut of Flickr regulars, and God only knows how representative they are of Americana, is fully caught up in 1-20-2009 Hopenchange euphoria. This is how it works.

Don’t go getting all political!

“OMG He sends a tingle up my leg!!!” is apolitical.

“Erm…I seem to recall He told us things that turned out to be untrue” — that’s political, and therefore toxic. Shame on you.

“I’ve changed my middle name to Hussein!” — not political.

That’s how it works. And the Massachusetts thing doesn’t mean it’s all behind us, by any means. We’re still right in the thick of all of it.

Hat tip to The Jawa Report, where commenter d_fitz sums up the situation adroitly: “I’m too sexy for America.”

It Must Be Monday

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Hat tip to William Teach at Pirate’s Cove.

Bumper Sticker of the Year

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

From the personal observation of my fellow Webloggin contributor Bookworm Room, hat tip once again to blogger friend Gerard:


Mmm, hmmm.

Investing in Enron…giving your checking account number to that Nigerian Prince in the e-mail with sucky spelling and grammar…voting Obama/Biden ’08.

The three big dumbass moves, as the 21st century opens.

I stand by my comment:

You want to see what meaningless, vague generalities look like — as a Palin hater why they have so much hate.

You want to see what compelling, well-thought-out specifics look like, as[k] an Obama voter why he’s sorry.

Oh, and Joe Biden, Janet Napolitano, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank all make Sarah Palin look like a genius. Not just my opinion; “middle-of-the-road” America agrees. Probably.

He Peed on the Steaks

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Fox News, reporting from Ohio:

Robert T. Jenkins, 21, of Canton, Ohio, was arrested at 1:30 a.m. local time on Friday morning, Lt. Linda Brown of the Canton Police Department told Jenkins was charged with felony vandalism and disorderly conduct.

Jenkins was arrested after police responded to a call from an employee at the Wal-Mart store telling authorities that a man walked up to the meat counter and began urinating on the steaks, police told The disorderly conduct destroyed more than $600 dollars in meat.

This calls for an update to the list of rules that would/will be handed down When I Start Running This Place. Although I must confess, I am unusually speechless about what exactly the punishment would be. Whatever I decide to do in response to this kind of crime, I’m pretty sure Red Cross International wouldn’t like it much.

Pissing in beer would be worse, of course. But only just barely. Crapping onto Hooters’ hot wings…hmm, not sure. Vomiting on fish? Uh, the sentence for salmon would be about twice as much as for Tilapia I think.

More Funny Car Commercials

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Once again, from the big thick file folder labeled “Ancient Like The Sphinx, But Damn Well Worth It”.

(Not all material suitable for a mixed audience.)

Christianity, Conservatism and “Reality TV”

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Reality teevee is starting to look like droopy butt-crack jeans to me: It appeals to morons, it looks (consequently) as stupid as all holy hell, but for reasons nobody can explain it’s just hanging around like a bad smell, year after year and decade after decade. Who thinks this looks cool? Who likes it? Someone somewhere must.

Anyway. Ryan Mauro, writing for Pajamas Media, was inspired by some vapid piece of “reality” trash, and after he distilled it for me in writing, I was inspired as well. I tried watching the clip, but the way these twenty-year-olds talk just grated on me after awhile.

Let’s go with the written summary:

The argument features Ty, an atheist; Mike, a bisexual Christian; and Ashley, a pro-Obama Christian who tries to referee…Ty is immediately angry, obviously bitter at Christians and threatened by any potential credibility of the faith. He says “everyone who is religious is so narrow-minded” and challenges Mike to say God doesn’t exist. When Mike refuses to, that is proof that he isn’t open-minded, according to Ty. For the most part, Mike stays cool throughout, reflecting a confidence in his faith and position…
Mike explains how the idea that his bisexuality means “you can’t be religious, you can’t follow the Bible, you can’t follow God … is stupid.” This may sound like a hippie version of Christianity that means there is no objective right and wrong, but he further explains.

“My church is come-as-you-are and we’ll teach you Christ and we’ll make you better and if you’re flawed, everybody’s flawed, just do what you can,” he says, and then he goes onto explain the concept of Christ’s sacrifice and God’s love. Again, this sounds like an acceptance of sin, but if you listen closely, he’s acknowledging that we’re all sinners and in need of salvation. And as all sinners require God’s mercy, this means we are all on the same plane — whether you’re a bisexual, or lie, or act selfishly, or ever step into any of the pitfalls that all of us have — unless you think you’re perfect, which is a pitfall in and of itself.

This just completely nails it. And if you’re really paying attention, you see how the American experiment fits right into this: All men are created equal, and all that. Ted Kennedy was not a wonderful demigod whose poop didn’t stink; Barack Obama isn’t one right now, nor will He ever be. We’re all just people. We make our imperfect institutions within our imperfect lives on this imperfect plane of existence, and we do the best we can.

Hit the Nail on the HeadWe sometimes embrace a spirit of community to correct mistakes for each other. Like, for example, you could confuse “health care reform” with a process of corrupt politicians washing each others’ backsides, making closed-door deals to get “The Legislation” passed. If you can fall for that, then as an individual you can make mistakes, which it’s up to the community to then correct.

We sometimes take that too far, and declare a kind of war on the individual, pronouncing the community to be the source of all that is wise and good. That, too, is a mortal mistake. Or, we revert to our primitive urges and start to align ourselves into stratified, aristocratic layers. That, also, is a mistake made by terrestrial, flawed ordinary people.

If you think this is veering off into the Supreme Court decision, you’re right.

Ben Shapiro, at Townhall, did a great job of summarizing exactly what this means:

The case, entitled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, dealt with Citizens United’s “Hillary: The Movie,” a 2008 documentary highly critical of the then-Democratic presidential candidate. The Federal Election Commission saw the documentary as a political advertisement in violation of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), and shut down Citizen United’s publicity efforts. Citizens United sued. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations no less than individuals have a right to political speech.
The unspoken rationale behind campaign finance reform has always been the equalization of access to political influence; many leftists feel that a poor man’s speech is not truly “free” unless it counts as much as a rich man’s in the public square. In this view, free speech is a commodity to be parceled out by the government in the name of equality, not an opportunity or a restriction on government interference in political action.

Because this rationale is not palatable to most Americans — we don’t want the government rationing our speech — the campaign finance reform gurus have cloaked themselves in the guise of “anti-corruption.” In Citizens United, however, the Supreme Court came out foursquare against that flimsy facade. “[T]he First Amendment,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, surprisingly lucid for once, “does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity.”

This drives home exactly what liberalism is: Like conservatism, it acknowledges that people are inherently flawed. Since we’re flawed, we are capable of doing things that are bad — once we get ahold of the resources needed to do harm. Like a gun. Or mass-communication access to voters. Or what is surely the most dangerous weapon of all: The faith in the idea that we were put here for a reason, and if are sufficiently determined, we will succeed in what we were put here to do.

Liberals have a solution for this. Although this stain of flaw is certainly on us, from somewhere deep in their nether regions they’ve pulled out this hypothesis that it’s not interwoven with our DNA; instead, it is drizzled down upon us disproportionately. Some of us are awash in it. Most of us are just spattered with a light coating, and just a few fortunate folks have missed the smearing entirely. They may not be living on a plane of perfection, but somehow, doggone it they just are.

The solution therefore is clear: Identify who among us is least tainted by this meandering paintbrush of flaw, and install these Special People into some high position in which they can deprive the most grievously flawed from the tools that could & would be used to do harm. For an example, look no further than that awesome little document put out by Janet Napolitano’s agency…remember that? How it called out targeted classes of — citizens? For special scrutiny, to make sure they don’t do anything dangerous? Liberalism in a nutshell. Argue forcefully against any kind of “profiling,” come up with a new variant of it, and then go ahead and practice it without reservation, apology, or even a hint of irony.

We therefore need to organize into Elites and Commons. There needs to be an aristocracy. These Superpeople at the top, like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, therefore, are best suited to figure out what our health care habits should be, what kinds of cars our companies should build, what magnitudes of “Executive Bonus” are alright, when we should go to bed, what kind of food we should eat. The rest of us should then just do what they say.

Oh yeah: And get extra, extra nasty toward anyone who disagrees. Raise our voices to drown them out.

Spirit of 1776The conservative viewpoint is different…and yes, it has a relationship with Christianity, even among conservatives who happen to be atheists. It says, since we’re all descended from Adam, we are all tainted. Like the reality-teevee guy said, the tainting is conceptually uniform, and places us on a unifying, level egalitarian plane. So no, this layering of Special People versus plain ordinary hoi polloi, this just isn’t going to work.

And this seems to be where all the conflict emerges. The Constitution, in letter as well as in spirit, adheres to a principle of Separation of Powers. And so the debate is about — shouldn’t we just bulldoze that whole thing out of the way? These Special People need their Special Powers to make us just a little bit more perfect, like them. If we don’t give them these powers, we condemn any & all opportunity we may have to get better, and therefore it’s inevitable that we’ll get much worse! That’s just sensible, durable logic isn’t it?

And the conservatives continue to cling to this reckless and foolhardy notion of something called “freedom.”

Perhaps there is no way for these two sides to get along with each other. What we should do, is get rid of these Christian Conservatives. We should banish them somewhere; let them start their own country. They could write up some documents defining how this strange, expurgated malignancy is supposed to work…you know, dedicated to their sick, weird proposition that all men are created equal. They can go there and worship their strange little sky-fairy, maybe even include Him in their special little documents, how self-evident they hold it to be that they are endowed by their Creator with certain individual rights, that chief among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…

Hmm, where in the world should we put them, I wonder? Could there be a country somewhere on the planet that already believes in this silly stuff? What could it be called, and where is it?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Ellie Light

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

…really likes to write lots of letters to the editor. Of this paper, that paper, that other one over there.

Obama is wonderful!

This Is Good LXVI

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

RawboneIt’s got a few months of dust on it, but it’s well worth it.

Comic book artist, or inker or penciler or writer or whatever, comes up with some awful dialogue for a sex scene. I mean, this is reeking and rancid. It’s bad…really, really awful stuff. So the online mag folks scan the pages in, and hold some kind of contest to see who can do better.

Has something to do with pirates. Naughty, horny, fornicating good-looking pirates. Pirates who, in the middle of carnal desire, demonstrate a rather mysterious patience for meandering pillow talk from their entangleds in the throes of passion.

Beyond that, I don’t know much, and no I’m not going to high-tail it out to pick up a copy of this so I can find out. Got all the entertainment I need right here.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XXIX

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

ImageShack tells me it was early June when I uploaded this one:

Perhaps it was for this item over here.

Mark Steyn has been noticing the same subtle central theme that permeates throughout all the Hopenchange policies. He echoes my point, but has some hard data to back it up:

He only gave (according to CBS News’s Mark Knoller) 158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year. That’s more than any previous president — and maybe more than all of them put together. But there may still be some show out there that didn’t get its exclusive Obama interview — I believe the top-rated Grain & Livestock Prices Report — 4 a.m. Update with Herb Torpormeister on WZZZ-AM Dead Buzzard Gulch Junction’s Newstalk Leader is still waiting to hear back from the White House.

But what will the president be saying in all these extra interviews? In that interview about how he hadn’t given enough interviews, he also explained to George Stephanopoulos what that wacky Massachusetts election was all about:

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” said Obama. “People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they’re voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can’t wait for that 159th interview.

Of course it goes without saying — although it seems there’s always some pipsqueek around to say, and say & say & say & say some more — that each speech is levels of magnitude greater than the one immediately previous, which in turn is so much more wonderful than all the speeches that came before.

It is getting awfully tiresome, isn’t it?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Don’t Pick on the Girl

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Item: Daphne is digging into the root cause of what’s really wrong in Haiti. Besides/before the quake. Because nobody, anywhere, is saying before the quake hit, Haiti was some kind of Garden of Eden. They can’t say that because you’d immediately know they’re full of it. So howkumthatiz?

I pulled up a headline a little while ago that began “The scarcest commodity in Haiti…” and fully expected the answer to be fathers. Serendipity has been flashing her soft skirts at me today, pressing an incessant peak of firm, high thigh well before the sun rose and the flirt hasn’t let up yet. An incessant weave mentioning good fathers, or the clear lack of them, has been a steady theme turning up in every corner of my world today.

My ridiculous expectation wasn’t nearly as absurd as the reporter’s answer…
Communities that function with reasonable success under normal circumstances are full of solid men shouldering broad responsibilities for their children’s welfare. These widespread corners of low crime, good schools and dynamic business revenue thrive on the responsible backs of hardworking men who willingly respond to meet the everyday needs of their personal responsibilities and community infrastructure. When their neighborhoods are afflicted by catastrophic events, natural or man-made, they react with decisiveness and ingenuity to save lives, alleviate suffering and quickly rebuild. They’ve made plans for future contingencies because they have their children’s long-term welfare in mind. It’s really that simple.

And now for another item, brought to our attention by John Hawkins, something completely, or mostly, unrelated. Daphne has explored what we fellas are doing right, now let’s take a look at what the chickees are doing wrong.

15 Annoying Things Girlfriends Do (That You Have to Put Up With)

1. Random Item Relocation
2. Unwanted “Organization” of Your Stuff
3. Constant Overdressing
4. She’s Late for Everything
15. Deeming All Things Technical to be Unimportant

And what have these two things in common with each other? One points out that men do things right — or, let us be more precise, that it is important that the men do things right. The other points out that women do things wrong. One has to do with keeping a civilization going…a matter of life and death. The other has to do with the minor irritant of not being able to find your Super-Suit, and when you unleash a plaintive wail about where the damn thing might be, you’re asked why you need it.

What’ve they got in common with each other?

They are disallowed. Men important…women flawed. Neither one of those can get a fair hearing in our culture. We’ve blocked them both out. No one will ever say “women are perfect” and very few people will say “men don’t matter.” But with the black magic of the pliable, Gumby-like code of unwritten taboos, we can say those things without saying them — by stigmatizing their opposites. So you aren’t allowed to mention that men might play a pivotal role, or that some women do some tiresome, tedious things.

Check out the comments under the “15 Annoying Things” article. It really is astonishing. They pretty much fall into two categories: “You’re a pussy for even taking the time to notice/jot down this stuff,” and “If you’re dating any women at all, which I doubt, they’re not the right kind.” Read that last one as the “Yeah But All Women Aren’t Like That” stanza.

That’s the same as saying no woman ever does this? Huh. How do you explain that live-in of mine from a few years ago…during which time I had my “survival kit” packed in the trunk of my car, of the vital items she couldn’t “Randomly Relocate”? The batteries, the bandages, the tampons, the cat food. Why was that necessary if this isn’t a real problem?

Criticizing women is a funny thing. “Not All Women Are Like That” — is the same, somehow, as — “There Are No Women Like That,” which logically is a completely different thing to say. Read those comments again. What you’re seeing here is Thing I Know #58:

To insult a man says nothing about other men, but for some reason, anything said against one woman is perceived to be said against everything female who ever lived.

What we have condemned with such severity — without having the balls to out-and-out condemn it — is inter-generational transfer of knowledge. Bar Mitzvahs, taming the wild mare, the institution of marriage itself, Ten Commandments, Pan Far…these are traditions that got started for a reason. And the reason is that some requirements, some customs, some prohibitions that are needed for a society to continue to thrive, are absolutely essential. Among those are essential, even if you’re a real smart ticket it’ll take you a long time to figure out they’re helpful. Like, to age fifty or so. Well, we don’t have time for everyone to reach age fifty and figure it out. And so traditions are handed down from mother to daughter and from father to son. Rules are recorded in books, and then they’re followed. Old people are going to have to tell young people what to do, and then the young people are going to have to do it without asking questions about everything.

Our new taboos have torn these to shreds as well. Men don’t count, and nobody should ever demand anything out of them (except money); women never annoy anybody, or else it’s the other person’s fault for being annoyed.

The eventual result? Men in their twenties who don’t do a damn thing that’s constructive, fun as they may be to watch. Old men who are alone and purposeless, wishing like the dickens that they did something constructive when they were young. Women leapfrogging from one marriage to the next, annoying the shit out of every single husband they get, wondering why it’s taking them so long to find “love.” Children who can’t pay attention to a goddamn thing besides the latest text message that popped up on their “Hello Kitty” flipfone.

It isn’t our lack of ability to do things well, or to fix things when we aren’t doing well. It’s our lack of ability to figure out what we’re not doing well — and that’s a lack of willingness, not ability, when you get down to it. We’ve identified just a few occasional flaws that we are not ever, ever, ever willing to acknowledge should we ever run across them.

Which, in reality, actually do happen from time to time. And that is where we start to slip off the rails and become all dysfunctional. Things go gunnybags.

Saturday Bladder Abuse

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

We’re going from one to the other today. AM…PM…coffee…beer. Because we can. Just had some Mister Fixit stuff to do around the house, and it’s mostly done.

As for the mug, yes, I did order it (click to embiggen). Stole some of Mr. Adams’ intellectual property I did, but he stole some of mine first.

Arguments That Work on Left-Leaning Moderates

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

That’s probably a good headline to repeat a few times with some roman numerals after it, if ever there was one. After all, the old tried-and-not-quite-true “What the hell is the matter with you people, why do you hate America and manhood so fucking much?” hasn’t yielded much by way of results, nor is it likely to.

Here’s an argument that’s proven quite effective though:

Think back on the behavior of our democrat leaders these last few months, particularly the ones that want to nationalize our health care system. Obviously, they don’t just kinda-sorta want to nationalize our health care system; they want to do this really extra bad. If they could piss rusty nickels and that would get the job done, well, what are we waiting for and hand over that can of rusty nickels.

Now, why do they want to do this? Is it to get health care services and other resources to “the thirty million uninsured”? Or is it 37 million? Forty-to-forty-five million? Well, this is a little bit of a problem, that the number keeps changing, because last I heard they were estimating after all the dust has hit the ground this wonderful health care plan would only cover about half of those who are uncovered right now. So we’d still have tens of millions of “uninsured.” We can’t even nail down how many we have before the bill, so how do we look backward after the bill, and declare the effort a success?

Is it going to be like the Stimulus Bill, in which nobody can really nail down how many jobs were “created or saved”? But when nine pairs of shoes get sold that must represent nine jobs? Creative accounting like that?

But that’s not the point, really.

The point is that this stuff hasn’t been discussed in a very long time. I mean, like since about Labor Day. Yeah, I just got a letter from one of my hippie liberal aged wrinkly female senators, telling me what to think about health care, in response to me telling her how she should vote on health care (which is the way I think it should work). She made some vague, unenthusiastic rhetoric about providing health care to millions who don’t have it…but it was all passionless boilerplate. Probably written a year ago.

I see one of these new-age blowhards on the teevee, I don’t hear a single word about providing coverage to people. Haven’t you noticed this? I’ve mentioned it many times since Thanksgiving. It’s all about winning; beating those “other guys.”

Making sick people well hasn’t had anything to do with anything for a very long time.

And I see this right now. Scott Brown just got elected to the Senate and this scuttles, or at least body-slams, the prospect of passing anything that has been churning around under the capitol dome with regard to health care. So what do we — “we” meaning democrats — do about this?

Well, let’s see. The democrats still have 59 seats in the Senate. Here on Planet Earth, if you want to provide coverage to uninsured people and you think yet one more leviathan of a federal program is the way to get it done, you start over. And your goal will be to produce something appealing to a majority of the House, all of the democrats in the Senate, and maybe one or two Republicans in the upper chamber. Maybe three or four to be extra safe about it.

That is what you’d do if it was about health care and not about grabbing power, making the citizenry of the USA more dependent on the few anointed luminaries who happen to be sitting in elected and appointed seats. If it was really about the first of those rather than the second, that is what you’d do.

That is not what they’re doing.

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill – a move that would preserve President Barack Obama’s vision of a sweeping health reform plan.

But the move comes with political risk, because it would open Democrats up to charges that they pressed ahead with roughly the same health care bill that voters appeared to reject in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won on a pledge to try to block Obama-style health reform.

The effort also puts Reid and Pelosi on the side of giving a sweeping reform bill one more try, instead of adopting a course being floated by some Democrats in Congress and at the White House of adopting a scaled-back bill including popular reform provisions.

This is not about getting people the medicine they need, or the services they need, or “providing” any kind of a “public option.” It is about changing the tenor and tone of a country. It is about breaking the spirit of that country, as if it was a horse.

It is about quitting your day job as a representative in a constitutional republic, and taking out a sinister new job as a creepy feudal overlord. Just like an apparatchik of the old Soviet Union, or a thuggish dictator like Hugo Chavez. A master who presumes to tell his “subjects” how to eat, how to walk, when to go to the bathroom, what they like, who they hate, what their favorite color is.

It may not be an effective argument to point out that this country was started precisely to put an end to that kind of slavish dependency.

But it certainly does work, to point out the evidence that clearly indicates: This is not about providing you affordable health care.

Secret Origins of Steve Ditko’s Mr. A

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Mr. A lives by Aristotle’s code, as do we all, that reality is reality and A is A. Dial B For Blog looks into his secret origins.

Pretty fascinating read. And Spider Man, the compulsive whiner, actually fits into it. Who’d a-thought that? The web-head must have changed his character between his first appearance, and the mid-seventies when he came to my attention.

Can’t stand that guy. A thought bubble out of Superman, on average, has something to do with whether he can stop the meteor in time…whether the rocket will strike the building…whether the train has fallen off the cliff…

…Spider Man typically does a lot of worrying about whether he’s still popular. Outcome versus public-reaction. Whines like a freakin’ Skywalker. So which one is a step-cousin to Atlas Shrugged? Surprise.

Anyway, that’s what I got out of it. See what you can make out.

Hat tip to Gerard.

Jon Stewart Skewers Keith Olbermann

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment – Keith Olbermann’s Name-Calling
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Hat tip to blogger friend Rick.

Newt Gingrich Impeaches Judges

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

This is pretty damn good. Wish I knew about it when it was going down:

Hang with it to the very end.

On Endorsing McCain

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

I agree with Allahpundit. Mostly, anyway. More than I usually do.

First, he quotes from the boss, Michelle Malkin…and I have to agree with her as well.

As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, [Sen. McCain] was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.

Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations – and it is imperative that they get in the game before it’s too late.

And then he makes a prediction…

The weirdest part of this? I don’t think anyone will be swayed by Palin’s endorsement. No one seriously believes she’d be backing him if not for her personal loyalty to him, and McCain’s sufficiently infamous for his centrism that even her support won’t scrub him clean in the eyes of tea partiers. Which means this is actually a pretty shrewd move on her part: She gets credit for being a good soldier, especially in light of the sniping at her from his former campaign aides, whereas he gets maybe a few extra votes from conservatives. In fact, someone should make a video at her rally for McCain in the same mold as that now-famous video outside Obama’s rally for Coakley, where college kids babbled about getting to see The One in person while showing no enthusiasm whatsoever for the candidate. That’s what we’re going to end up with here, I think.

Yes, Palin has an excuse, yes Palin is caught between a rock and a hard place. Suppose she endorsed Hayworth or Simcox. Or simply didn’t say anything at all. Oh dear God, can you imagine. She could survive it, but only just barely. I think what’s going on is, in that scenario she’d lose the “salt of the earth” types — those who don’t give a rat’s ass whether McCain sinks or swims over in Arizona, but dammit, want to see some good old-fashioned character in whoever’s taking charge. Right or wrong, she’d lose them. And without them, her movement loses definition.

No, I don’t think this is shrewd on her part. I think it’s necessary. Even so, I’m not altogether sure I agree. Malkin’s right, and I hope McCain loses.

The democrats are saying two and two are five. The Republicans, last time they were in charge, said two and two are four but it doesn’t really matter let’s spend the money anyway. McCain’s all about saying it adds up to four-and-a-half.

We’re getting fed up with all the nonsense — I think Arizonians are too — and McCain isn’t doing his bit to bring it all to the inglorious end it so richly deserves. Depending on the issue, four-and-a-half is every bit as wrong an answer as five.

Bloodletting Will Continue

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Peggy Noonan makes some sense, more than she’s made for quite awhile now:

President Obama carried Massachusetts by 26 points on Nov. 4, 2008. Fifteen months later, on Jan. 19, 2010, the eve of the first anniversary of his inauguration, his party’s candidate lost Massachusetts by five points. That’s a 31-point shift. Mr. Obama won Virginia by six points in 2008. A year later, on Nov. 2, 2009, his party’s candidate for governor lost by 18 points—a 25 point shift. Mr. Obama won New Jersey in 2008 by 16 points. In 2009 his party’s incumbent governor lost re-election by four points—a 20-point shift.

In each race, the president’s party lost independent voters, who in 2008 voted like Democrats and in 2010 voted like Republicans.

Is it a backlash? It seems cooler than that, a considered and considerable rejection that appears to be signaling a conservative resurgence based on issues and policies, most obviously opposition to increased government spending, fear of higher taxes, and rejection of the idea that expansion of government can or will solve our economic challenges.

Yes, The People are upset, The People are grumpy. Peggy reads a lot into emotion: “It seems cooler than that.” Perhaps it seems cooler than that because there’s no evidence of actual anger, at least no more than there always is. Certainly no more than there was two years ago. After emotions — or perhaps before — there is evidence. The evidence says, the people of Massachusetts were asked if the current policies were working, and it was like asking a competent eighth-grader if two and two add up to nine. In other words, it is what it is; getting mad at someone doesn’t have to enter into the process.

Harold Ford says moderation is the answer:

“The lesson from last night is to reset the priorities in Washington,” said Mr. Ford…”The next elections are in November, so the president and the Democrats have a few months to get this right. But we will forfeit our majorities in Congress in November if the American people don’t feel more economically secure six months from now than they do today. And Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is just the latest indicator.”
To address the anxiety Americans are feeling, Mr. Ford thinks that the White House needs to focus squarely on the economy. “First we need to cut taxes for businesses in the country, small and large,” he says. “We ought to provide a six-month exemption from the payroll tax for all firms less than five years old. We ought to extend the current capital gains and dividend tax rates through 2012. We ought to make permanent all the research and development tax credits for businesses making those investments. And we ought to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.”

It all echoes a recurrent tone in the online-front-pages this weekend: Half a loaf is better than none, moderation this, moderation that, blah blah blah.

Prediction: That which the public most loathes — now that the public has been forced to pull its head out of its ass — will be the last to be pitched overboard. You know what I mean. The anti-American, anti-capitalist bullshit.

How did I describe it in my letter to my two oh-so-full-of-themselves wrinkled-up hippie liberal female senators? Ah, yes: “Our approach to any problem that comes up, is to make sure no one can make a profit from solving it.”

Sorry, Harold. The good ship Liberal doesn’t see that as ballast, it sees that as the hull of the boat. It won’t be pitched. It’ll go down, and the crew along with it, from Captain to deckhand’s-apprentice’s-apprentice.

Victor Davis Hanson says the bloodletting will continue, and I agree.

Says It All

1) A new poll revealing a vast majority of investors see Obama as anti-business.

2) Obama declaiming on what he has done and what he will do to create jobs.

3) After a year Obama still has not yet figured out that his promiscuous talk of higher income, payroll, health care, and inheritance taxes, serial demonization of finance and business, and all sorts of new regulations, create a psychological climate in which the employer pulls in his horns and decides to ride things out — and this individual reaction is being repeated millions of times over, energized by the pique at everything trivial from Van Jones to apologies abroad to “Bush did it.”

Harold Ford says take the corporate tax rate down from 35% to 25%. Won’t happen. It shows far too much promise of actually solving something.

The election slogan for the midterms is going to be “Well then, how would you like a teaspoon of the stuff you and we know damn well isn’t going to fix anything?” And the voters will say “but it doesn’t fix anything.” The democrats will say “but it’s a teaspoon.” The voters will say “we’ve tried it, it’s actually toxic.” The democrats will say “but it’s a teaspoon.” The voters will vote, and then the late night comedians and so-called “news” anchors will villify, denigrate, ridicule and excoriate the voters because, hey, that was only a teaspoon, what was the big deal? You must all be afraid of a black man. Guess racism is still with us after all.

What the country really needs is an honest, open debate about the petulant, festering, bubbling, anti-business bile. It will be a very long time before we debate that honestly. Those who embrace it and continue to vent it, will see to it the debate always shifts to something else, so that the bile can continue to bubble away without being discussed too much.

This Is Good LXV

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Supreme Court Ends Shut-Uppery

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Or some of it, at least.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is rejoicing.

The New York Times editorial board is crying in their beer. They don’t explain the foundation of their opinion very much, or very well. When they give it a go for a paragraph or two…

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.
This issue should never have been before the court. The justices overreached and seized on a case involving a narrower, technical question involving the broadcast of a movie that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation.

Those are the two beefiest paragraphs in the entire editorial, with regard to the issue of why corporations should be treated any differently from individuals. The founders were worried about the corporations, but didn’t write down anything to that effect; and the Supreme Court heard the arguments during a vacation.

The editorial betrays an addled mindset that thinks inflammatory rhetoric is a good path to a decent decision, and this somehow justifies throwing lots of red herrings in the space where one would expect to find a coherent, rational argument. This is not the first occasion on which I’ve read a NYT editorial and noticed this. This is rather childish of them; adults know full well that, if it’s possible to make a good decision on a vacation, there is little to be gained from proscription against deciding things on a vacation. Adults also know that corporations are people. Sure, there’s a corrupt corporation here and there; just like there are corrupt people. And hey, NYT editorial board, there are corrupt labor unions too.

The other editorial board has it right. Corporations, mostly due to made-for-teevee and big-screen movies featuring bad guys who wear nice three-piece suits at all hours of the day & night — have soiled reputations, and the public is not terribly sympathetic with them. They have not always conducted themselves admirably. Just like some people.

But the case has not been made, that they should enjoy any fewer rights than an individual. It’s just generational squawking, the same stuff we see with regard to “Net Neutrality,” “Public Option,” “Privatize Social Security.” There are vast multitudes walking around, somehow, laboring under the delusion that you and I are all right until we start working for a corporation and then suddenly we’re terrible creatures, and then everything we want must be anathema to the welfare of “everyone.”

They are overly enamored of various methods and techniques of shut-uppery. They seem to figure, since the public overall isn’t sympathetic toward corporations, that means any protections the Constitution would ordinarily provide to them, should be bulldozed because those protections are getting in the way of something the New York Times calls “democracy.” Said democracy seems to have something to do with benefits extended to whoever the NYT finds to be adorable, cute, sweet, doe-eyed and fluffy.

Well, since when has the Constitution had to provide protection to those who are appealing? Bambi’s Mom already has protection in public sentiment, and the legislators who represent that sentiment; the Constitution is for the hunter.

Hitler Learns Things

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

So blogger friend Buck noticed a Hitler video that struck his funny bone just the right way…and embedded it, although the “Hitler Learns” meme, in his words, “gets old after a bit.” I’ve noticed this about the rare occasions on which Mr. Portales and I disagree on something: More often than not, the undertone that creates the divide has something to do with variety. It’s in our human makeup that we want some and crave some.

But the “Hitler Learns” theme, I maintain, doesn’t really work this way. Yes, there is a parabola. I suppose everything has that parabola; even when Ian Fleming wrote about James Bond’s testicles being whacked with a carpet beater, he described explicitly the “parabola of pain,” in which one loses one’s sensitivities after crossing the zenith. Humor is certainly that way.

But to lots of folk out there, “Hitler Learns” just gets funnier and funnier. It must be the case at least some of the time, right? The goddamn things are multiplying like tribbles.

My collection follows. I make no claim to have the longest list, it seems I’ve just barely scratched the surface. And I can’t even claim to have watched past the 0:30 mark on most of them, because who in the world has that much time? The point is, as you skim over some of these titles, you can’t help but wonder what’s going on behind that link. Most people will eventually click something. There aren’t too many things more worthy of parody, at the moment, than the next man’s obsession with whatever.

Hitler Learns of the Dragonball-Z Movie

Hitler Gets Deleted From Facebook

Hitler Learns the Avatar Trailer Sucks

Hitler Learns of TO Going to the Buffalo Bills

Hitler Learns There’s No Camera in the iPod Touch

Hitler Banned From Mconalds

Hitler Gets Banned from XBox Live

Hitler Gets Banned from Runescape

Hitler’s Aggie Football Rant

Cowboys Fan Until I Die

Hitler Loved Brett Favre

Hitler’s Reaction to the Plaxico Shooting

Hitler Reacts to McCain’s VP Pick – reminds me of more than a few people I know, not all of them Nazis or registered dems

Hitler Learns That Palin Resigns – ditto

Hitler Learns of the Detroit Lions’ Loss

Somebody Stole Hitler’s Car

Hitler Learns of Leno Moving to Late Night

Hitler Gets Scammed on eBay

Hitler vs. Hannah Montana

Hitler Wants a Burger King

Hitler Gets H1N1

Hitler Learns He’s Not Really Hitler

Hitler Learns Texas Longhorns Not in BCS Title Game

Hitler Learns the Halloween Phish Album for Festival 8

Hitler Learns Balloon Boy was a Hoax

Hitler Learns That Kanye West Dissed Taylor Swift

Hitler Learns that Star Trek Online Closed Beta

Hitler’s Reaction to the 2 Girls 1 Cup Video

Hitler Hates Lifetime Subscriptions

Hitler’s Mother is Coming to Visit

Hitler Reacts to the New Star Trek Movie

Hitler Finds Out He’s Really Dead

Hitler Calls YouTube’s CEO

Hitler Cannot Turn Off the Subtitles

Hitler Learns Megan Fox Has Rejected Him

Hitler Rants About George W. Bush

Hitler Wants a Mac

Hitler Learns His Torrent Hasn’t Finished

Hitler Learns There’s No Such Thing as Santa Claus

Hitler Breaks His TV With the Wii Remote

Hitler Learns Obama Won

Hitler Learns the Gays Are Getting Married

Hitler Learns Barack Obama is Not a US Citizen

Hitler Reacts to Michael Jackson’s Death

Hitler Reacts to Twilight the Movie

Which brings us to…oh, don’t look at me like you didn’t know this was coming…

Hitler Rants About the Hitler Parodies

Yeah. Uh huh, there’s a post I’ll never have to update again. Riiiiight…

Your New Boyfriend Might Be an Egomaniac

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Watch out, ladies. Look for these tell-tale signs.

1. He can’t take an innocent joke at his expense.
2. He works in advertising, has an M.D., or is the lead singer and/or most good-looking member of a band.
3. He tells you about the assorted girls who hit on him. Or worse, the ones who looked at him and thus OBVIOUSLY wanted to hit on him.
4. He gives you a verbal resume on a first date. Even if it sounds impressive, run.
5. He begins 75 percent of sentences with I.

Begins three-quarters of his sentences with “I”? Last time I was on the market, I dated a lot of women who did that. Or let’s just say a lot of the women I dated, did that…makes me sound a bit more chaste. I didn’t (whoops!) keep a record of them or the sentences that came out of them…but it was easy to form the impression that nowadays this is just how available young ladies talk. I said this, I said that, and then I said…blah blah blah.

I remember noticing this about my ex-wife, way back in the early days, when there were still a few more months before she started looking like a future-ex. The story would start out “she said to me” — just telling me what happened to her at work that day. And then the remaining 99% of the story was “so then I said.” I remember teasing her about it and asking “so after that point, didn’t the other person say anything, or was it all just you talking?” Hmm, now that I think on it maybe that’s when she started being a future-ex.

Anyway, it really comes as news to me that guys aren’t supposed to do this. I suppose it’s not very chivalrous. Then again, I wonder how a gentleman comes off on a first date if he makes too much of a point of not doing it. Can’t you just hear the BFF’s debriefing afterward in the inevitable “So Tell Me What He’s Like” chit-chat? “It was so hard to get anything out of him…it’s like whatever he’s got going on, he didn’t want me to know anything about it. Really creepy.”

Oh well. In the end, for the most part, I’m convinced it’s physical. At least with the younger ladies it is; if you look like Casper Van Dien, you can say whatever you want to say and be as egomaniacal as you please, she’ll find a way to get past it and the litmus tests won’t even be applied. The few that wanted to hang on to me, before the one I eventually snagged, really didn’t have anything else good to say about me besides that I was “handsome.” Whatever was positive that could be said about the brains, was uttered dismissively by those who chucked me to the curb, in the middle of the “someday you’ll find someone” speech. Those who wanted to keep me, catalog’d it alongside all the other things that made me an overall pain-in-the-ass.

In the end, men and women are exactly alike: If they’re available for very long, they’re available for a reason. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But it’s certainly true.

They Already Know What They Want to Know

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Ann Coulter puts the big reveal on the flawed extreme-leftists’ mind, as only she can:

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: “A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.”

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she’s being hung out to dry so that Democrats don’t have to face the possibility that Obama’s left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown’s colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying “no” generally, but not to anything in particular.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

This is the trouble: Liberals never, ever learn anything because they never, ever lose elections. When they win, of course The People Have Spoken — when they lose, it must have been Diebold tampering with the machines. Fear. Bigotry. Latent traces of racism. Angry voters having a temper tantrum.

When a liberal is wealthier than a conservative it’s the just reward of the liberal’s superior worldview; it just goes to show the conservative cannot make it in the “real world,” anywhere outside his dilapidated single-wide. When it’s the conservative who is better off, it means he’s greedy and surely he must have cheated it out of someone who was better entitled to it.

Because of this, they end up with this natural hostility toward truth, logic and fact, and it hangs around them like a bad smell from one year to the next because they are (seemingly) ignorant of it. Some “convenient” truth comes along, and they get to act scholarly: Aha! George W. Bush unemployment rate never went below five-point-something! And don’t you say a word about it soaring to twice that much under Obama…because it went way up in the early 1980’s under Reagan! And the year 1998 was the warmest on record! Iraq didn’t attack us! Great Depression ended after FDR got the New Deal going…post hoc ergo propter hoc. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. See, I can quote fact, I are smart.

Ignorance is BlissThings like this are just embarrassing to follow. They think they’re keeping up with the big boys. Tighty-righty guy supplies some statistics friendly to his argument, lefty-loosey guy does the same; it’s all finished except the cherry-picking, you just shout the lefty-fact from the highest hilltop, and put your hands over your ears and go “la la la!” when someone alludes to the righty-fact. Trouble is, this reveals that they live in a special universe, one in which cause-and-effect do not apply. They can’t see the tighty-righty guy, reciting his facts, is also able to supply solid reasons why things are this way. Let’s see…Obama is making it generally a pain-in-the-ass to live, for anyone who starts a business…or hires anyone…or for that matter, buys something requiring a long-term financial commitment, out in plain view, out of the black markets. Result: Nobody wants to do it, and the economic indicators demonstrate the eventual results of this business-hostile climate. Gee! Who’d a-thought it? So that is why, when you get a hardcore-lefty type in a seat of power, the job climate suffers…because those who create jobs, really don’t know what the next best move is, if they want their businesses to survive. Cause, effect. Now then, Mister Lefty arguer guy…you say raising the minimum wage brings unemployment down? America will become more prosperous, if we can make it really expensive to run a business and create jobs? We’ll all end up with more money in our pockets if the regulations are made thicker, less workable, more cumbersome? Health care will become more abundant when the government makes decisions about rationing it? Gasoline and drugs will become cheaper after your favored candidates have made it much more expensive for businesses to bring these products to us? And this works how?

Woopsie! Time for a subject change! So whoddaya thinks gonna get thrown off American Idol?

We’ve got quite a few people walking around, as free as you & me, who can’t see this because they think the “fact” is where an argument ends, rather than where it begins. They learn very little because the need for genuine learning, as we see in the case of the Brown-Coakley match-up, just isn’t there. You just blame Martha Coakley. Stupid girl. Hey, let’s all take a break from bashing Palin for the next week or two, we have a new outlet for our misogynist energies — a new lightning rod for our vitriol, since nothing bad can happen to anyone due to Barack Obama’s liberal policies. He’s still the change we’ve been waiting for, isn’t He?

You see, they just aren’t very curious, because there is no necessity for curiosity. They already know what they want to know. They don’t believe things that happen cause other things to happen; they’ve somehow managed to get through life without having to become aware that this is how the laws of the universe work. And this is proof, in their warped little minds, that they exist as superior Darwinist genomes. Everything’s just easier for them because they are stronger — “fittest.” The hardcore cases really do seem to see themselves as the next evolutionary step, and say so out loud.

One cannot help but wonder how many of them cling to precisely the same self-image and are quiet about it.

Which would mean, necessarily, that humanity’s evolutionary destiny is for us to believe the very first thing we hear out of the public school system and the alphabet-soup “news” networks, and never question any of it. Just scan the horizon of whatever reality manages to present itself to us, looking for little nuggets that validate what we have been told, rejecting whatever might challenge it even a little bit.

So you see, the whole Massachusetts thing is “overrated.” It never actually happened. It is to be bowdlerized from reality itself according to our new-age, East Anglia way of thinking about things. Certainly, there’s no need to inspect it any further, we already know what we want to know.

Why democrats Can’t Stand Fox

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

You knew all along, somewhere there was a simple explanation, just waiting for someone to come along, measure and document it.

(Click the pic to view the story.)

“Let’s Play the Blame Game!”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010


Amidst the innumerable excuses we’re bound to hear for Martha Coakley’s defeat, credit Keith Olbermann with likely the most loathsome. The Countdown host would explain away the Scott Brown victory by accusing his supporters of . . . racism.

Olbermann floated his despicable theory to Howard Fineman: “the Republicans and the Tea Partiers will tell you what happens with Scott Brown tonight whether he wins or comes close is a repudiation of Obama policies. And surely one of Obama’s policies from the viewpoint of his opponents is it’s OK to have this sea-change in American history—to have an African-American president. Is this vote to any degree just another euphemism the way ‘states rights’ was in the ’60s?”


It took more than half a decade, countless American and Iraqi deaths in a war based on lies, a sinking economy and the drowning of an American city to finally kill Bush-Cheney-Rove’s dream of a conservative realignment.

Democrats, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, have managed to kill their own dream of dominance in 12 months.

How did it happen?

Theories abound, but two diametrically opposed narratives have taken hold:

The first, promulgated by conservatives, is that the new administration has moved too far to the left and alienated a large swath of independent and moderate voters.

The second, pushed by progressive activists and bloggers, is that the administration hasn’t been true enough to fundamental Democratic principles, has embraced some of Bush’s worst excesses on civil liberties, and has ditched popular ideas (like the public option) in favor of watered down centrist policies, thus looking weak and ineffectual.

Five Thirty-Eight:

When a Democrat loses a federal race in Massachusetts, the default assumption ought to be that several factors are to blame.

Clearly the national environment has gotten worse for the Democrats since Barack Obama’s inauguration one year ago. This has been obvious from Congressional generic ballot polling, Presidential approval polling, early polling of 2010 senate races, the number of Democratic retirements, the outcomes of New Jersey and Virginia, the tenor of the political discourse in the country, and so forth. But perhaps it is somewhat more bad than we had previously realized.

Clearly also, the quality of the candidates and the campaign matters a lot, especially in open seat races. Although it might seem strange to have a Republican Senator from Massachusetts, it is not dramatically more strange than having a Democratic Senator from Alaska or Nebraska, or a Republican Representative from New Orleans, all of which our Congress already had before tonight. Martha Coakley, needless to say, was not a good candidate and did not run a good campaign.

Finally, there is a third category: contingencies specific to Massachusetts, but not specific to Coakley. This was a state in which Democrats had twice changed the rules governing Senate succession, first in 2004 to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to take John Kerry’s seat (should he have been elected President), and then again last year to allow Deval Patrick to appoint an interim appointee. Moreover, because it was a special election, the time frame of the campaign was dramatically compressed, making it harder to define the Republican opponent or to recover from any initial missteps in the campaign. Lastly, Massachusetts is unusual in that it already has universal health care and the Democratic health care plan would not do it much good, which allowed the Republican to promise to oppose it without looking like a typical partisan hack.


Message of the day to all Dems, Coakley, Rahm, Celinda Lake, national Dem committees, Axelrod, whoever, whatever: Shut the *$%& Up! I don’t know how else to say it. I’m watching MSNBC and hearing all the key players dumping on each other. As I’ve said, the Coakley campaign seems to have been run just terribly. And that’s just the beginning of it. But really, with all that’s at stake, the White House political office left this to Coakley, unsupervised? Really? I just have very little patience hearing all the people who are by definition all to blame have an argument about who’s most to blame.

What I’m seeing — and this isn’t just based on public comments but our reporting behind the scenes — is that there’s a lot more energy going into dodging blame for this unforced error of galactic proportions than there is going into the real issue: closing the loop on the health care bill. Which is the only issue in policy terms and political terms. That’s it. Everything else is water under the bridge.

I’m loving that last one: “The American People detest our plan. Let’s stop trying to figure out who’s at fault, and get it passed.”

Their vision of humanity is not fundamentally incompatible with the human race, but it damn sure is fundamentally incompatible with America. And they’ll never, ever see it. Ever. The idea that The American People figured it out for themselves, and showed sufficient independence to make up their own minds…it’s just inconceivable. Must be Coakley. She must have screwed up. Or maybe it’s Axelrod, or Emmanuel, or the Massachusetts democrat Party, or…or…or. Couldn’t be the riff-raff out there, they obviously can’t think for themselves.

Palin to Hit 2010 Campaign Trail

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

“4. Speaking of Palin, she will stump for five GOP candidates, four of them will win, everyone will talk about the one who didn’t.”

— from Morgan’s predictions for 2010.

Behold, it is coming to pass:

Former Gov. Sarah Palin will announce today that she’s hitting the campaign trail for Republicans — including her former running mate John McCain.

Palin, who did not campaign in last year’s governor’s races or in yesterday’s Senate race in Massachusetts, has committed to contests in three states, including two Republican primaries, an aide said.

She’ll campaign in Texas for Gov. Rick Perry, who faces a primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; she’ll appear in Arizona for Senator John McCain, who faces a challenge from the right; and she’ll appear in Minnesota for Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a conservative firebrand who has emerged as a national figure.

In a statement set to appear on her Facebook page, Palin promises to campaign “FOR the people and AGAINST politics as usual.”

Everyone tremble in fear and awe at the amazing prescience of The Blog That Nobody Reads. (Insert Dr. Evil laugh here.)

“Can’t Win Them All”

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Great Scott.

State Sen. Scott Brown has pulled a Bay State bombshell by upsetting his Democratic rival to capture the open U.S. Senate seat by a 5-point margin.

Brown, 50, of Wrentham, will roll into Washington as Congress wrestles with health-care reform. But Brown has vowed to be “the 41st Senator” who will defeat the measure and bust up the Democratic supermajority.

Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has gone down in a stunning defeat. Brown has won 52-47 percent, with 94 percent of the precincts reporting. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy finished way back with 1 precent of the vote.

In her concession speech, Coakley said President Obama called her to say, “We can’t win them all.”

It’s history. And every time it’s mentioned, I’m going to immediately think of Daphne’s comment:


Obama takes one right in the nads!!!!!

Way to go Massachusetts!

Drinks are on me, boys.

I Told You SoWhat happens from here on out? Frank has some predictions.

* The Democrats will try to rush their Obamacare bill through the House, not even checking it for errors, and we’ll all wind up with free halth care.

* Obama locking himself in his office, and when he’s told the people want to hear from him, he’ll say, “I’m too awesome for the American people! They don’t deserve me!” This will be followed by loud weeping.

* Left-wing blogs will break down into even more rage and incoherence such that posts will just be made by the bloggers angrily bashing their keyboards with their tiny fists.

Guess I can stop writing posts with the recurring headline “Twilight of Honeymoon.” It’s freakin’ pitch black now, and the honeymoon’s over. Undeniably. In less than a year.

Update: When my optimism of the human condition gets to be a little bit too high, I hit FARK. Cures me every time.

In fact, while I can always predict the outcome, sometimes I cannot predict the means. Case in point — you’ll never guess what they’re doing tonight. Never in a million years. If your very first exposure to the site was through this thread, you’d swear on your grandmother’s bones that the place was an underground bulletin board for lifelong Republicans. “Take that, you stinking democrats!” seems to be the prevailing theme. “Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes!”

You FARK people…who in the blue fuck do you think you’re kidding. You’d have to cross-reference the names to find out for sure: Are these people changing their tune, now that York has overthrown Lancaster…or is it one crowd of people, previously overbearing, now shutting up; and another one, previously silent, letting loose? Which one is it?

Does it really matter?

People are jackals. Cowardly jackals. Fucking hyenas. Scavengers of the first order. Well…you read it here first, folks. FARK is now a hard-right Republican news site. Obama? Aw, they could never stand the guy, nope.

Well, whatever. Tomorrow, we start following the saga surrounding the “halth care” bill. It should be in terminal decline. I won’t stop worrying about it until the dirt is hitting the coffin lid.

Bury it with Ted’s rancid carcas, and dump nine feet of wet cement on the whole stinking mess. You want a nanny state to manage your aches and pains and treat you like a five-year-old with a tummy ache, there’s a hundred other countries you can go. I’ll help you pack. One-way ticket.

Obama Will Be Combative

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

There’s something glaringly missing from this story which speculates on the response from democrats in general, and the White House in particular, should the Massachusetts race not go their way. Can you spot it? Read top to bottom. Go on, I’ll wait. It starts out like this…

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”

A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.

A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president’s first year in office.

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.

There won’t be any grand proclamation that “the era of Big Government is over” — the words President Bill Clinton uttered after Republicans won the Congress in the 1990s and he was forced to trim a once-ambitious agenda.

“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’”

That last one kind of got close to what I was trying to find…not quite there. What I’m looking for, you don’t find anywhere in it. Not a single mention.

And this is really, really remarkable.

It is the reason democrats are going to fight so hard after being handed this plate of shut-the-fuck-uppery. The ostensible reason. Our poor, our disenfranchised, the uninsured, the homeless people the Republicans keep stepping on when they walk down the street. The little old ladies being forced to choose between proper treatment of their malignant hangnails and another tin of cat food for them to take home for supper now that they’ve eaten the cat.

The ritual snow-job that, supposedly, what the democrats want is only what’s good for “all of us.” Something about, no matter how many Republicans are in the Senate, there are still some decent folks out there who can’t get health care, and dammit they’re entitled to it! (Slam fist down on table here.)

You don’t hear that quite so often the last few days, do you? It’s all about how awesomesauce the democrat party is, and how they win even when they lose.

Not that this proves anything. Sure, it’s logically impossible for them to have the country’s interests at heart when they behave this way…but that isn’t news to you if you think critically about this stuff. Nevertheless, there are seasons to this. On even numbered years right before Election Day, it is clearly to their benefit to take the sad-sack approach and talk about “workers” being forced to lick the mud off their boss’ boots because our labor laws aren’t up to snuff, or “undocumented workers” who are being overworked just so they can send a few piddly dollars back home to their fifteen kids who all have leprosy, or the guy who is willingly selling his last kidney so his daughter can get a bone marrow transplant because she used up all her benefits…whatever.

During “special” elections all that shit goes away. It becomes more like a coach’s speech in a locker room. Minus the sportsmanship. We’re so awesome, those other guys suck so much. In this particular case it’s supposed to be about health care. And saving the planet. Not a single peep about the supposedly awful ramifications in store for “all of us,” or “the least among us,” should they fail. Nothing about who stands to get hurt. Even snail darters and spotted owls…something like those…nowhere to be found.

Very, very, very strange. What exactly does it mean? Wish I knew.