Archive for February, 2010

Ten Best Opportunities for the GOP in the Senate

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

This needs more attention. Just for starters, if the Republican party is really afraid of a splintering effect in American politics and a re-triangulation like what happened in the 1850’s that will bury it forever…and that’s a real possibility…it makes sense for the bosses to start talking about what they bring to the table as an organized party.

It’s also just plain interesting. The Senate is designed, through the writing in the Constitution itself, to be “won” through increments. That probably made more sense before the senators were popularly elected, and before partisan politics took hold. But it still makes sense: Lower chamber can go any which way every two years, the upper chamber has more inertia to it.

Just imagine the message delivered if the GOP overcomes that? Forty-one seats to fifty-one, in a single election? I still see it as comically improbable. But winning the Senate is a numbers game…and when one studies the numbers, one sees the possibility does exist.

The money I’ve already placed on it, is on the lower chamber. And I’m ready to spend it right now. San Fran Nan has exhausted her opportunity. She’s as popular as Gonorrhea.

GOP Recruiting Women

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Hotline On-Call:

[RNC co-chair Jan] Larimer has spearheaded the party’s efforts to recruit and train more women candidates. And based on the GOP’s efforts this year, the party needs the help.

Among the NRCC’s Young Guns program, just 4 of 41 candidates in one of the top 2 tiers are women. The NRSC has done a little better, quietly favoring women candidates in CO, CA and NH. Now, party officials are on the case.

“We’re working with the women in Congress … to empower the women in their states to get involved and to participate,” Larimer told Hotline OnCall in an interview at the party’s annual Winter meeting in Honolulu.

“Women sometimes need a little more handholding, or they need their friends to help them make a decision. And by our going in and talking to them and recruiting and educating and training them to either get involved in a campaign or become a candidate, we’re giving them the tools so that they can do that on their own,” Larimer added.

Some of the smart women figured out, when the democrat party came out swinging against Sarah Palin this pretty much proved the democrat party was opposed to any woman exercising too much control over anything unless it’s in the democrat party’s interests. But the trouble with women, is they’re people. The trouble with people, is that when you start talking about “the smart ones” you’ve defined an exclusive club.

And the trouble with exclusive clubs is they don’t win elections.

Omigosh! Did I just type in something unforgivably chauvinistic? Did I just say women are stupid? Ack! Actually…no. Go back and read those paragraphs again, lightweight, and spare me your preachy e-mails.

Really, I don’t know why a woman would vote for a democrat; it can only make sense if she’s using abortion as a birth control method every single month. I notice I’m hearing an awful lot about “womens’ issues” and then what comes next has something to do with managing a household or raising children…things that I don’t personally see as womans’ issues. Getting hold of foodstuffs and other supplies for a reasonable price, making some arrangements for kids who get sick without missing work yourself, raising the kids into responsible adults.

Wage gap? Don’t make me laugh. If you’re really concerned about making a living, you don’t organize to bully your boss into meeting a higher payroll than he can afford.

Am I getting a little off topic here? Maybe. But maybe not. The women I know are plenty smart enough to get it: You don’t make the people living in a society better by changing the rules under which they live. As I noted in Item #2 of my forty-two definitions of a strong society:

If thinking a certain thing is evidence that you’re a wonderful person, and then you get penalized for thinking something else, then thinking that thing is no longer evidence of your wonderfulness, now is it?

Women ought to be particularly receptive to such a message. After all, if this self-improvement-through-rulemaking actually worked worth a damn…you know what would happen? Motherhood would diminish in importance, on something of a grand scale.

Efforts like this generally don’t enjoy my support. Yes, I get the reasoning…the camera pans over a Republican convention, it’s a bunch of white male faces and so the hot air pundits get all their pot shots in.

Trouble is, a passive approach is the only one that’s really helpful. When your objective is “get more women to run [as Republicans]” then, if & when a studly young dude approaches you and says “I’d like to run, will you help me?” you have to tell him NO. So that you can do your bit to make sure that camera sweep at the next convention picks up more female faces. So that, if the party does have a problem, you can help to hide it.

That is deceptive by nature. If there’s something about the Republican message that appeals more to the masculine mindset…well, it is what it is.

For those who find the passive approach to work too slowly, perhaps fearing that the “average” woman isn’t bright enough to figure out the democrats are anything but helpful — I have a suggestion. If you want to take a more active approach, seek out some of the women who have already made the decision to support the conservative cause, and give them some attention. Find out what they have to say about why they chose the path they chose. They are, for the most part, articulate, intelligent, erudite, compelling and they have fascinating stories to tell. They know what they know, as well as what they want to do and why they want to do it.

Just find out what they have to say, and pass the word along. Stop just automatically handing the microphone over to the termagants. Thatisall.

Next problem.

Speechwriters…

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

…for Chris Matthews? Keith Olbermann? Joe Biden? Or maybe…ew, I don’t know if I wanna say that.

It really wouldn’t take too much human intellect to respond to constituents’ letters the way my two dimwit hippy female senators do. Maybe the scene is captured from their office, and the “staff” is busily matching up subject matters to the letters so the boilerplate can be sent back. Could be a bunch of liberal bloggers bitching away about how stupid Sarah Palin is. Or…or…or…

The mind fairly explodes with ideas. Maybe we should have a caption contest.

Hat tip to Trip. Great stuff. I can see right now it’ll come in handy.

Rocket Sled Gone Wrong

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Meep, meep. Drinking party, Motorcycle muffler, gunpowder, gasoline, the now-traditional “Hey y’all, hold my beer and watch this.”

Witnesses said the man strapped the device on his back, donned a makeshift helmet and got on a sled, asking someone to light a wick attached to the device.

Part of the way down the hill, the device exploded, resulting in second-degree burns to the victim’s face. One of his eyes was damaged.

He is currently getting treatment at a local hospital.

Sheriff’s deputies continue to investigate the incident pending possible criminal charges.

Ballad of Ricky Bobby meets Wiley Coyote.

Megyn Kelly Schools Gloria Allred

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Two issues are involved here, they’re both important and one of them doesn’t even have to do with abortion. The first one — abortion-related — is all these nihilists, eugenicists and other assorted crackpots walking around claiming to champion a woman’s “right to choose to abort or to carry to term,” either which way so long as the decision is hers. And in reality, that is absolutely, positively not what they want. They like abortions. They want more of them.



The second issue is just as invasive and insidious. For over forty years now, it has been a tactic of the world communist movement to infiltrate our government and our society through this sneaky tactic of “oh I’m for free speech, but I’m also against misleading speech, and I don’t want to restrict your speech but if you’re going to say this thing over here you also have to say that thing over there.”

What Allred is arguing is the essence of the Red Lion vs. FCC decision of 1969 which says exactly this. Americans need to start rejecting this because we really have no excuse not to. We’ve seen a few rounds of this; we know how the game is played. It is exactly as Ms. Kelly has described it. You want to say A, A happens to be completely true but here comes this arbitrary authority to say you can say A only if you include B. Saying B happens to be costly and unworkable, but it’s an unfunded mandate and it’s all your problem. If you choose to pay the costs of saying B, there will be a C, D, E, F and G…because we wouldn’t want to “mislead” anybody.

Finally you throw in the towel, and the arbitrary authority says “Oh well. Just remember, we didn’t restrict your free speech!”

Smile. Wink.

Just disgusting.

You know what our problem is? We’re way too cynical in some ways, and not nearly cynical enough in others.

Gloria All<<RED>>. Somethin’ else. You know, if she was a character in a work of fiction, I’d say the author should have put a little more work into choosing her name. The metaphor is too obvious. And her tactics are, too.

Yeah, it’s just crazy old white guys in the late stages of dementia who babble away about “the commies are taking over!” Maybe I’m turning into one, I dunno. One thing is making me crazy like a fox over this stuff, faster than any other: facts. The more I learn about what really went down, the clearer it is that communism is not a hard, tangible organization from a dead empire, like the KGB. It’s a way of looking at the world, a jaundiced spirit. It is invasive; it did invade; it’s still invading. It’s an ideological prybar, with a great wealth of proven techniques and tactics behind it for sticking its nose where it isn’t welcome. It is recognizable by these tactics.

It is the enemy of human dignity itself. Keep saying no.

Thanks to Danny Glover at Hot Air, who blogs at The Enlightened Redneck.

Sickest Commercial

Monday, February 1st, 2010

I came up with an idea for a regular (or not) award of the Sickest Commercial I’ve Watched Or Heard Lately…or SCIWOHL. I had two inspirations for this, and unfortunately the GooglGodz are frowning upon my efforts to locate video or audio of either one. But they’re both sick.

And no, that one about the woman saying a product was “so simple even my husband can use it!” didn’t make the cut. Generic abuse heaped upon the time-honored Doofus Dad is just too humdrum and mundane by this point. Haven’t got time to do a search on that. Haven’t even got time to try to recall what the product was.

No, the first thing was a bank card commercial. Daughter calls her daddy on the flip-phone to tell him she’s at the mall. But don’t worry, she stole his debit card out of his wallet! A few minutes later, daddy gets a phone call from an automated computer lady telling him a transaction in an amount exceeding twenty dollars was made against his checking account. He goes on line and gets darling on the flip-phone, and asks her what she bought at…uh…”Teen Hottie?” Oh, don’t worry daddykins! I saw a bunch of my friends wearing that crap at the food court so I took it back. T.H. is so yesterday!.

Where to begin. Let’s start with the obvious.

First of all, if she’s too young to get her own goddamn bank card, she’s too young to go wearing “hottie” things and then telling daddy all about it. Who the hell is this guy, Hulk Hogan? This is sick. Second problem: I get that, if you receive your alerts you can lengthen her leash a little bit, let her make some decisions for herself. This is to be applauded. Or it would. But — if that’s what it’s all about, why give her a debit card? What happened to a strict limit, in the form of a cash allowance? What’s this product all about, anyway. Princess just shouldn’t have to worry about spending limits? If it’s over $20 the poppa is gonna rag all over her, and that’s what she has to worry about?

That’s no limit. You’re not going to buy anything at a mall for less than $20. If everything goes over the line, then nothing does.

Third problem: Exactly what bullet is being dodged, here? The commercial does not say. Daddy knew Princess was traipsing off to the mall with his borrowed debit card…Princess picked up something for more than $20 that made her look like a trollop. Daddy made an inquiry and it turned out the item had already been returned. The marketing department, it seems, is being deliberately vague. The problem was that Princess was overly materialistic? The product failed to solve that problem. Princess wants to dress like a tart? The product doesn’t solve that either. Everything that makes your daughter look like a hooker costs more than twenty — NOT TRUE. Belly-button studs, for example. Four bucks and change maybe.

Fourth problem: The daughter is, of course, doomed to a life of unhappiness as are so many adults. She bought her item (it’s never specified what the damn thing was) at Teen Hottie…and I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts she got it “because all the kids are wearing it.” She returns it the instant she finds out everybody’s wearing it. She’s suffering the classic confusion of wanting to be better than anybody else while she’s trying to be identical to everyone else. Can’t be done.

It’s just sick. Period.

The other entry is from the 2010 Census. Little girl asks her mommy what the census is about, and momma gives her this big ol’ speech about how this is the only way they can make it known to Washington that they’re out here, needing their goods and supplies, that they have needs — and get what’s theirs. Get their fair share.

Pure communism. That used to be an evil thing, remember that?

Besides of which, there isn’t a dad mentioned anywhere. Come to think of it, ditto for the other situation involving the pervert, his tarted-up daughter, and any kind of mom. Where’s she?

Believe it or not, I think the Census ad offends me more. The idea that we’re all just out here in the wild frontier…suckling away at a Washington momma-piggy’s teats, fighting over each other for the sustenance. Have to tell our Washington overlords that our tummies are empty, so they can use their infinite wisdom to figure out whether it’s time to raise taxes on the evil rich people again.

What the hell is this? Castro’s Cuba?

Hope I don’t hear of any sick commercials like these ever again. I hope that, but I don’t have too much faith about it.

Now it Can Be Told: Who is Mr. Sanders?

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Ah hah! The itch can finally be scratched.

In response to — How come it is that Winnie the Pooh lives underneath a sign that says “Mr. Sanders”? The answer may surprise you.

The “Sanders” Question

Hello. I have a dilemma. I was discussing Winnie the Pooh with a friend the other day. (Don’t ask me why, we’re both grown adults). And he INSISTS that because it says “Sanders” above the door, that it is Winnie the Pooh’s last name. As in Winnie the Pooh Sanders. I told him this is not true, and showed him your web page where it states “It means he had the name (Sanders) over the door in gold letters and pooh lived under it”.

He still INSISTS that this means that is his last name. Would you PLEASE clear this up for us. We need to know which one is correct because we now have a bet riding on this. (We are very immature). Also, if it isn’t his last name, why does it say Mr. Sanders over his door? That’s just out of curiosity. Thank you.
:
Another answer comes from author Ann Thwaite in her biography, A.A. Milne: The Man Behind Winnie-the-Pooh (Random House, 1990). In her Notes (page 522, referring to page 262) we read: “under the name of Sanders The Sanders referred to was Frank Sanders, who had a printing works in the Snow Hill area of London.” This firm apparently printed some of A.A. Milne’s work, although all four children’s books are printed by Jarrold of Norwich. Information comes from Douglas Sanders, Frank’s nephew, 1989. Frank Sanders was certainly a friend of illustrator E.H. Shepard, but there is no reference to him by A.A. Milne that would confirm this private joke.

I always figured Pooh’s friends moved into the hundred-acre wood first, and Pooh wanted to follow them, but there was no room available after the other animals got all their houses built. Poor Mr. Sanders just got in the way. So Pooh, being a psychopath, butchered him with an ax and buried him under the floorboards. Sort of an “eminent domain” kinda thing.

That could be because I never really gave the “Mr. Sanders” sign too much of a thought, until after I’d read this some fifteen years ago (naughty language behind the link).

Robert Gibbs on FNS

Monday, February 1st, 2010

It’s clear, from this, that if I ever want to sell a big ‘ol plate of bullshit to somebody, Bagdad Bob Gibbs is my guy.

If I ever want to figure out what’s going on…he isn’t.

Hat tip to Boortz, who has quite a bit more to add:

I was sitting there in paradise watching Chris Wallace interview Obama’s doughboy Robert Gibbs. The questioning was about the decision to read the PantyBomber his Miranda rights. Chris Wallace wanted a simple answer to one question: Was President Obama notified before the decision was made – by whoever made the decision – to give Abdulmutallab his Miranda warning. Does that sound like a trick question to anyone? Either Obama knew that the CrotchBomber was going to get his Miranda rights, or Obama didn’t know.

So … here’s the transcript:

WALLACE: Minute left. Our top intelligence and homeland security officials told Congress this week that none of them were consulted beforehand on the decision to charge the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab, as a criminal defendant.

And we’ve now learned that he was read his Miranda rights on the day he was arrested, on Christmas Day, after just 50 minutes of interrogation. You said this week that it was Attorney General Holder who made that decision. Was the president informed before or after the decision was implemented?

GIBBS: Which decision?

WALLACE: The decision to charge Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant and not treat him as an enemy combatant.

GIBBS: Well, Chris, the charges didn’t happen until several days later, and everybody…

WALLACE: Well, he was read his Miranda rights. Was the decision — was the president…

GIBBS: Right.

WALLACE: … told before or after…

GIBBS: That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators. But understand this, Chris. Make no mistake. Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation.

Wallace pressed the issue, but Gibbs just flatly refused to answer the question. Sadly, Wallace didn’t demand an answer. Perhaps Wallace was afraid that if he pushed the issue any further he would never get the President’s spokesman on the show again.

My girlfriend has a pet peeve that reads very much like one of mine: Men who say “to be honest…” This is one of the reasons, I think, that we get along well. Her logic is completely durable: If, after those three words, you’re going to start being honest — what in the hell have you been doing the rest of the time? And how long are you going to be honest? How do I know when you’re going to go back to being dishonest again?

I, For One, Welcome Our New Overlords From…Tampa??

Monday, February 1st, 2010

We really do need a “Bein’ President for Dummies” book. Now, more than we ever did under Mister Wonderful’s predecessor.

He just doesn’t get it.

Hat tip to NoisyRoom.Net, via Rick.

Sweatin’ to the Socialists

Monday, February 1st, 2010

I was somewhat surprised when I saw the date on the video…

“Change” would be rooting for America once in awhile…making it easier to revitalize the economy, rather than harder.

Hat tip to Harvey.

Best Sentence LXXXI

Monday, February 1st, 2010

The eighty-first award for the Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) is hereby bestowed upon His Majesty Misha I at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler…

…for this entry:

We’ve spent decades wondering how anybody with an IQ above that of a turnip would ever vote for somebody (a liberal) who actually believes that expanding government and spending tax funds to “stimulate” the economy would ever work better, or even as well as just keeping them out of the equation.

Doesn’t ramble on too long — and yet, it says it all. The essentials are all covered.

But what follows is good too. Go read it all.

Glenn Beck Absolutely Destroys Chris Matthews

Monday, February 1st, 2010

And the funny thing is, Beck does not demand Matthews be taken off the air, see his career brought to a sudden, inglorious end. Quite the opposite.

But he does make the point rather brilliantly, that this comment of Matthews’, before any & all others, m-u-s-t be considered to be what we are supposed to mean when we use that word “racist.” If Chris Matthews is not one, then there are none.

“He views everything with race in the glasses.”

Like I said before. Matthews is a libby, he’ll survive it just fine. Being a left-winger is sort of a license.

Hat tip to Good Lieutenant.

“Darker Side of Mother Teresa”

Monday, February 1st, 2010

The atheists who purport to speak for all other atheists, absolutely, positively, do not want her on a stamp. It trashes our freedoms or something.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the “darker side” of Mother Teresa.
:
“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did,” Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

But…but…but Rev. Martin Luther King got a stamp. And Malcom X got a stamp. And Father Flanagan got a stamp. And Fox put up a whole slide show of other religious/controversial persons & events that were stamp-worthy. What about them?

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure,” she said.

“And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific.”

Accepting their arguments most charitably, one must conclude the urge to protest comes not quite so much from the prospect of establishment of a government-sponsored religion, quite so much as the prospect of diminishing the probability that the typical child might grow up to become an atheist. And that, of course, is a subtly different motivation.

Now how can that be, if the objective is to preserve our freedoms, and not to indoctrinate the next generation into a secularist worldview? Is it really quite so illegitimate to portend that the no-mention-of-God-anywhere crowd, in fact, is the one trying to establish an “official” religion? Is “Atheism Is A Religion Like Bald Is A Hair Color” really a valid argument?

Maybe I’m reading too much into this. I just fail to see how the blockade against Mother Teresa’s face being on a stamp, enhances or preserves our religious freedoms. I can’t help but pick up a whiff of “All you folks doing something wonderful, you’d better not be religious or you can fucking forget about ever being immortalized on a stamp.” It looks like intimidation, it walks like intimidation, it quacks like intimidation…and you know what that means.

Hat tip to Cassy Fiano.

The Curtain Has Fallen

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Wow…it’s turned into a tired theme by now, but this one is still worth running. It’s just so dirge-o-matic.

The curtain has come down on what can best be described as a brief un-American moment in our history. That moment began in the fall of 2008, with the great financial panic, and gave rise to the Barack Obama phenomenon.

The nation’s faith in institutions and time-honored ways had cracked. In a little-known senator from Illinois millions of Americans came to see a savior who would deliver the nation out of its troubles. Gone was the empiricism in political life that had marked the American temper in politics. A charismatic leader had risen in a manner akin to the way politics plays out in distressed and Third World societies.

There is nothing surprising about where Mr. Obama finds himself today. He had been made by charisma, and political magic, and has been felled by it. If his rise had been spectacular, so, too, has been his fall. The speed with which some of his devotees have turned on him—and their unwillingness to own up to what their infatuation had wrought—is nothing short of astounding. But this is the bargain Mr. Obama had made with political fortune.

Obama? Un-American? Who’d a-thought it? I mean, other than by His use of the word “we.”

I notice when “we” have done something really great, in that context “we” means Him and His administration; when “we” have done something morally questionable “for far too long,” that’s when “we” can be taken to mean the rest of the country. Other than that, I can’t think of too many indicators that Obama is anti-American.

Although I suppose when you think about it, that’s plenty. Over the course of several hundreds of speeches, our President has had a lot of opportunity to deviate from the pattern. And never once, to the best I can recall, has.

Apart from that, I’m just completely bowled over by this realization that charisma alone can’t solve everything!

Eh, no I’m not. I’ve often been heard to say that “charismatic” people, people with “excellent communication skills,” probably lose corporate America up to a trillion dollars every quarter if not more. So it failed yet again. I’m not even overwhelmed. Just kinda…whelmed.