Archive for July, 2010

I Am a Liberal – I Hate Violence – But Sometimes…

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Hat tip to blogger friend Daphne.

When liberals start to think about those who would oppose their agenda, they start to illustrate for the rest of us the things they say about conservatives.

Eighteen Surprisingly Incompetent Months

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Deroy Murdock, National Review:

As the Obama administration marks 18 months in power today, no one should be terribly surprised that it is the hardest-Left U.S. government since that of FDR. For those who paid attention, Obama’s hyperliberal U.S. Senate record pierced like a dive light through the squid ink of Hope and Change that Obama squirted at anyone who demanded programmatic specifics. (At 95.5 percent in 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama was the Senate’s No. 1 Left-liberal.)

However, after Obama’s nearly flawless campaign, the big surprise one and a half years after Obama’s momentous and truly moving inauguration is the staggering incompetence of his government. Like some Americans, I expected a nanny-state, socialist agenda from Obama & Co. However, I thought that at least they would manage things smoothly and professionally, in somewhat refreshing contrast to the general ineptitude of the detached, tongue-tied Bush-Rove years. Instead, what America and the world have witnessed is an extravaganza of frequent gaffes, blunders, and catastrophes…


Atlas Tries Yet Another Shrug

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

I’m thinking the last attempt we put out to stay up-to-date on this was here, when it was a completely different cast & production crew. Not sure what happened to that effort, but now things have been all ripped apart and pieced back together yet one more time.

If there’s a production with a longer and more colorful history behind its troubled march to the silver screen than Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” the story of that particular episode of development hell has not yet been told. Published in 1957 and a perennial bestseller ever since (the novel sold a half-million copies just last year), the struggle to realize Rand’s sprawling and epic dramatization of her theory of Objectivism as told through a dystopian tale of the world’s best and brightest, feeling they’ve been exploited by an ungrateful society, putting their talent on strike, eluded even the author herself.

SchillingThroughout the decades, stars from Barbara Stanwyck to Angelina Jolie have expressed interest in bringing the novel to life, but it’s going to be producers Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro who finally break the curse. Directed by Paul Johansson, who also stars as John Galt, and co-starring Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Matthew Marsden as James Taggart, principal photography wrapped this very day. Which means…

Yes, there will be an “Atlas Shrugged” movie. Well, at least a part one.

Pictured at right is Taylor Schilling, who is cast as Dagny Taggart. I had Dagny pegged as brunette — a studious, anal-retentive, details-oriented, sexually-repressed, Madam Librarian brunette.

Hey, when the goddamn thing is 1,100 pages long these mental images are important.

I always pegged Mel Gibson for Hank Rearden. No way in hell is that going to happen at this point.

This stopping-and-starting, so many times around the same silly loop, is disconcerting I’ll have to admit. But in all seriousness my tentative opinion is that the story is un-film-able. I’m not willing to swear to that; I’d say exactly the same thing about Lord of the Rings.

So as far as what’s possible, I’d say yes you can do a decent job with this, maybe even a job remembered fondly by most Atlas Shrugged fans. But I’ll say this much: Things would have to be dropped out, even in a trilogy. Sideplots will have to be jettisoned, ignored. Someone, somewhere, is gonna be pissed.

On that, I’ll bet some real money.

Regarding Ms. Schilling, I’m undecided. I can certainly see the potential.

Color Me Unimpressed

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

“Have you ever seen such a bunch of self-righteous, ass-covering prigs? They don’t care what we do; they care what we get photographed doing.”


So the armies of humility are lining up on the left & right of the blogosphere, as well as cable-teevee-pundit-land and Planet Newspaper, to apologize for driving Shirley Sherrod out of a job. I’ve reviewed the forty-three minutes myself, and although the seamy footage makes it clear this is still less than what actually took place, it’s undeniable that the spirit of her remarks is different than what I thought. So do I have some crow to eat?

Eating CrowPerhaps just a smidgen. A wing. A foot, maybe. Well, let’s get it choked down. Clean your plate when crow is on it, for if you leave leftovers you should expect a steady diet of it.

My words:

The wasp is dead, the nest remains.

Ms. Sherrod, according to her own words, was a Little Hitler. Check that chart; third column, fourth row, the Petty Tyrant.

Can there be any doubt we still have some petty tyrants?

The nest does remain. Sherrod’s wasp is dead, but it has been dead for a very long time now. That was the point of her speech. The edited version makes it seem that there is something very different going on. My assumption that no context could leverage the spirit into something different, was somewhat rash. Partly correct, partly incorrect. Ultimately, I have to admit I placed an excessive abundance of faith in the edited version. Got snookered. Might as well admit it.

So now Breitbart has some ‘splainin’ to do? No, not at all. In fact, his point stands, and rather solidly. The whole point to showing it in the first place was to examine this claim that the Tea Party has racism in its ranks, and needs to do a more forceful job of policing its own. It is an argument of “don’t criticize your brother for the splijter in his eye when you have a beam in your own.” This point is actually strengthened by the events of the last 48 hours. The NAACP was able to confront its accuser, release the footage, use the media to entice the public to pay attention while the iron was still hot. And as frosting on the cake, they were able get another lie out there about Fox News being responsible for Sherrod’s sacking.

Such a dizzying, dazzling assortment of privileges for the NAACP! I wonder, if the footage had been about a Tea Party member saying equally racist things, would that informal coalition have been similarly indulged? Do I even need to ask the question.

So yes, I was “snookered” about Ms. Sherrod as a person. My crow-eating begins and ends there. Her comments about her own behavior stand, monument-like, as a testament to institutionalized racism. And how reformed is she, anyway? As John Hawkins points out, this is open to question. From all the evidence we have about her, there really isn’t much to indicate she’s ready for a post-racial world. It remains an unsettled issue, one to which I do not assign much weight, but one that is besieged with suggestive noise on all sides. There is doubt, and I’m not inclined to grant her much benefit of the doubt.

But let’s grant it all anyway. She realized she was being a horse’s ass, cleaned up her act, and that’s what happens to all the racists in these agencies? The entire story is kaput because of Ms. Sherrod’s Scrooge-like conversion? I don’t think so.

And this gets into the actual point that I don’t see anyone making anywhere. It has to do with the two halves of that part of humanity that thinks about these things.

My half says that individuals have rights, and these rights are regularly violated by institutions like the NAACP.

The other half, which has all of the voice, all of the time, says the institutions are the ones with the rights. People just gum things up. The institutions are perfect, or can be made that way by means of identifying the contaminating people and tossing ’em overboard. Let’s call this the Vilsack Doctrine.

This is why I’m being somewhat stingy with my apology. To me, it was never about Shirley Sherrod. Firing her was just a bizarre, wrong-headed move, and it would remain that even if the footage was exactly what it appeared to be. Adam and Eve bit into the apple, humanity has been corrupted and corruptible ever since, and institutions that are made out of humanity are no better than the people who build them and work in them.

If I’ve got a terrible problem with keeping my farm, and I’m describing my plight to some pencil-pushing bureaucrat who decides I’m acting superior to him just because my skin is white — that black bureaucrat is well within his rights to think such a thing. You get to think mistaken things. We don’t have a government that regulates that.

So President Jealous of the NAACP can grandstand and spread more lies, and Vilsack and Obama can apologize…all they want. These fine gentlemen still miss the point. The point is that the “Could Be Construed As” standard is unattainable and irrelevant. It is not impropriety, it is not the appearance of impropriety — we’re never going to solve a single problem by ending the careers of people who become tainted by it, no matter what the color of their skin happens to be.

I am thankful that the heyday of this risible ritual has now passed, or at least I think it has. Today, if you asked most people about it and had an honest discussion about it, a consensus would emerge that agrees with my notion: You don’t fire bigots. You prove them wrong. Even if they have supervisory authority; we do not sentence people to losing their livelihoods and becoming wards of the state because of the appearance of the thoughts in their heads — this is not the way America was supposed to work. If you find your career is heading into a cul de sac because you happen to be working for a sexist or a bigot or a homophobe, that means you have a boss that hates you. It’s unfortunate, but welcome to the real world. It’s gonna happen to you again. It’s happened to me. It happens to everyone. Go work for someone else.

I’m not trying to be insensitive with that remark. What I’m pointing out is that we’ve tried the other method…the Vilsack method. Gave it a good go for a few decades. It has been a net loss, a failed experiment. It’s made people fearful for their jobs and their careers, and this has given them motivation to do all kinds of whacky, stupid, free-market-killing stuff.

Know how bad that can get? Last “sexual harassment training” I was forced to attend, they said something I found interesting and it’s probably the same thing they said at yours: The intent of the offender doesn’t matter, it’s the perception of the accuser that decides everything — and “these rules are put in place to provide a workplace that is comfortable for everyone.” SAME BREATH.

So a whack-job paranoid stranger with a random vendetta can end your career at any second. By bitching, the easiest thing in the world to do. Boy that really makes me feel comfortable. How ’bout you?

Worst of all, people don’t worry too much anymore about getting fired for genuinely screwing things up.

It’s called political correctness. And future generations will look back on it, I’m convinced, the same way we see fourteenth-century bedside-bloodletting.

Update: Andrew Breibart’s comment on it:

All I’m seeing is people right now seeing blood in the water and coming after me. And the amount of half-truths and falsehoods that are out there in the pursuit of taking me down because they perceive that I’m a threat, it’s astounding.
I believe that I’m held to a higher standard. If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.

Say what you want about the man, but he’s right about this. All of it; every word.

And it isn’t defensible.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XXXI

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

As the Hopenchange Presidential administration was still new, and impressing and bewildering us all as they unleashed one wild scheme after another, I struggled to find a way to comprehend what was happening. Who are these people who believe in “stimulus”? And do they, really? How come our new President continues to campaign for a job He’s already got?

And then I figured it out: They have an “underpants gnome” mentality. I suppose all good salesmen do. Step One, we make you do what I want you to do, or I do what I would ordinarily do anyway; Step Two, ??? — and Step Three Profit.

I have not looked back on this theory of mine with any regret or doubt. In the one-year-plus since I wrote that, pretty much everything Obama and His apologists have done, falls into this. Step One, pass a health care plan that puts Obama’s buddies in charge of all the decisions…Step Two, ??? — Step Three Profit. Step One, pass cap and trade, Step Two ??? — Step Three, the damn hole will somehow be plugged.

Now, I don’t know if James Taranto reads my blog. I’ve always operated from the assumption that hardly anybody ever does. But how then do you explain this gem which appeared in the “Best of the Web” column yesterday:

The vice president’s description of the administration’s political strategy reminds us of the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes from “South Park”:

Phase 1: Legislation
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Victory

I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.

Of course, today the administration has been ensconced for exactly a year and a half, and it has become cumulatively difficult to figure out what might be the best example of Underpants Gnome thinking in the eighteen months.

It’s a tough call, but I think I’d nominate the beer summit.

1 – The three of us sit down at a table and drink beer together
2 – ?
3 – Racial animosity healed forever throughout the land

“Back to Europe!”

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.

“Airplane!” 30th Anniversary: Pick Your Favorite Quote

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Huffington Post:

It’s the 30th anniversary of the comedy classic “Airplane!”. So why not spend the holiday weekend celebrating the quotable lines that influenced generations of comedies and filmmakers. We admit it — there are plenty of great lines that didn’t make the cut. But the overabundance of amazing lines actually overloaded my brain and knocked me out. Hell, when I came to, I thought I was Ethel Merman. Anyway, pick your favorite quote and feel free to leave any forgotten quotes in the comments!

Yeah, I’m thinking slide #3 is gonna take this one.

The Rich Have Everything They Need For Now, Thank You Very Much

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Yahoo Finance:

The economic recovery has been helped in large part by the spending of the most affluent. Now, even the rich appear to be tightening their belts.

Late last year, the highest-income households started spending more confidently, while other consumers held back. But their confidence has since ebbed, according to retail sales reports and some economic analysis.

“One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics.

That cautious attitude stems in part from concerns about global instability, especially in Europe, and in part from the volatility of the stock market in recent months. Major stock indexes fell sharply on Friday, after several big companies announced disappointing earnings. Bank stocks were the biggest losers as investors wrestled with the twin issues of lower trading profits from Citibank and Bank of America and the prospect that new financial regulation would further crimp their businesses.

Though stock performance has a bigger psychological and financial impact on high-income households, consumers of all income levels are fretting more about their financial future, perhaps bracing for the possibility of another economic contraction. Consumer confidence slumped in July to its lowest point since August 2009 in the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan index released on Friday.

The Dow Jones industrial average slipped 261.41 points to 10,097.9 on Friday, for a loss of 2.52 percent. For the year, broad-based stock indexes in the United States all show losses of more than 3 percent.

Huh, well maybe the poor people will get us over the hump.

Picked up any paychecks from poor people lately?

NAACP Bigotry

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Here are the two videos. From Breitbart. I have nothing to add and I’m almost certain you’ve seen them before; just doing my bit to get ’em out there. It’s important.

But by all means, continue to make the unceasing demands for the Tea Party people to purge racism from their ranks. </sarcasm>

Update: Via Cassy, just returned from her vacation, we see over at Hot Air that Ms. Sherrod has resigned over the comments. The wasp is dead, the nest remains.

Is President Obama going to get started sometime soon on healing America’s racial divide and starting this glorious, post-racial-animosity period of our nation’s history? Like, any week now? Or is that still a ways off? Because lately, the people in positions of power don’t seem to be very much dedicated to the vision.

“Being Liked is Not the Same as Being Told You Are Doing a Good Job”

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Every now and then I’ll get a compliment on blogging that is something to the effect of “I’ve been trying to find the words to express something and I haven’t been able to find them, but you managed to find them and string ’em together for me.”

Well, I have that reaction to some things, too. Scott Payne, writing in the Washington Examiner, speaks for my optimistic side in predicting that we are nearing “The End of the Popularity Contest” in national politics.

This is one of two good things about the presidency of Barack Obama. They’re both lessons for young people: One, you can achieve power and authority by speaking as if you are worthy of it; and two, “fun” people tend to make wretched decisions. The second of those two lessons requires repetition before people will really get it, but we have over nine hundred more days for it to be repeated. My belief is that it’s going to get learned, but good.

…[T]here is this pervasive notion within the Washington bubble, a notion that is particularly strong in the White House, is that the opposition to the administration’s agenda is merely a matter of confusion and that all it will take to flip voters is to have the President explain the measures and reassure Americans that he has everything well in hand. That notion is rapidly coming to and end…

It’s not so much that Americans don’t understand the President’s legislative victories, as it is that those victories are, almost by design, destined to disappoint a majority of voters.
No amount of glad handing and photo oping will overcome real and sincere divisions of opinion on public policy. And that is the road block against which the Obama administration is starting to bump up — with a vengeance.

This has been going on for over a year by now: Barack Obama’s popularity rating is drastically different from His approval rating. In poll after poll after poll, respondents assert that they really “like Him as a person” but “disapprove of His policies” and think we as a nation are “heading in the wrong direction.”

Recent blogroll addition Stephen Browne, writing about something else altogether, has nailed it I believe. And the fault doesn’t go to Obama, it goes to the people who voted for Him and are so slow to catch on to what’s happening:

So how does a reasonably intelligent person guard against the temptations of self-deception? The insidious desire to bend our perception of reality to what is comfortable, rather than what is needed to cope with an often uncomfortable reality?

A number of things have been recommended by the wise: studying logic and in particular the informal fallacies, studying rhetoric to learn to recognize the tropes of persuasion, and studying history — which is, after all, the record of other people’s experience.

What I came up with was a series of questions, to try and keep myself intellectually honest:

1. How often have you changed or abandoned a deeply held belief because of either 
(a) personal experience or (b) a persuasive argument backed by compelling evidence?

2. How often have you, after examining the evidence reached a conclusion that was uncomfortable, unsettling, or profoundly disturbing to you, i.e., reached a conclusion you did not like and wished weren’t true?

3. How often have you admitted honest confusion about an issue that was important to you and decided to defer judgment — or simply live with the uncertainty?

4. How often have you realized while listening to someone speak for a position you agreed with, that it was nonetheless being supported by a weak or invalid argument?

5. How often have you listened to two sides of an issue and concluded that you agreed with someone you disliked and disagreed with someone you liked?

If you answered “never” to all or most of them, you might ask yourself whether you are thinking at all. You almost certainly won’t, though.

Now, my ego is about as bloated and tender as anybody else’s, and perhaps if my life’s circumstances allowed me to I could’ve answered “never” to all five of these questions. As it happens, my answer is “Where the hell do you want me to start listing them Mr. Browne?” for all of them…but this is not a testament to my wisdom or my saintly Spock-like handling of logic. I just don’t have the luxury of straying too far from reality. If I believe in a whole bunch of bullshit, I can’t fix stuff, and then I have no skills I can bring to market. If you’re any kind of a farmer, you’re in the same boat. Or an architect or a construction worker or a surgeon.

But most people aren’t kept on this kind of a leash. Most people can believe in silly false things, and never meet up with any consequences for having wrong opinions. If they want to be able to answer in the affirmative about Mr. Browne’s questions, they must rely on their own internal discipline in order to do so, and most people do not have this discipline. I would not so quickly count myself among the ones who do, either, let’s be clear on that. I like to think I’m perfect in every conceivable way just like anybody else does. But I know I’m mortal and flawed.

I think I like Questions #4 and #5 the best. Combine those together, really, and you can dispense with the other three and administer a single test: A person for whom you have positive feelings, on a personal level, and want to please — articulates a position with which you happen to agree, but arrives there by means of a logical process you know is flawed. Does the flaw make an impression on you or does it not?

This is the sin that was committed by young Obama voters two years ago. Holy Man made an impression on them as warm, friendly, personable, and He said a lot of stuff that seemed to be agreeable. They lowered their guard. Now the rest of us have to pay the consequences for it.

Don’t blame me. I voted for the non-lawyers.

Women of the Nazi War Machine

Monday, July 19th, 2010

New York Times:

Amid the horrors of the Holocaust, the atrocities perpetrated by a few brutal women have always stood out, like aberrations of nature.

Nazi WomenThere were notorious camp guards like Ilse Koch and Irma Grese. And lesser known killers like Erna Petri, the wife of an SS officer and a mother who was convicted of shooting to death six Jewish children in Nazi-occupied Poland; or Johanna Altvater Zelle, a German secretary accused of child murder in the Volodymyr-Volynskyy ghetto in Nazi-occupied Ukraine.

The Nazi killing machine was undoubtedly a male-dominated affair. But according to new research, the participation of German women in the genocide, as perpetrators, accomplices or passive witnesses, was far greater than previously thought.

The researcher, Wendy Lower, an American historian now living in Munich, has drawn attention to the number of seemingly ordinary German women who willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories as part of the war effort, to areas where genocide was openly occurring.

“Thousands would be a conservative estimate,” Ms. Lower said in an interview in Jerusalem last week.
Only 1 or 2 percent of the perpetrators were women, according to Ms. Lower. But in many cases where genocide was taking place, German women were very close by. Several witnesses have described festive banquets near mass shooting sites in the Ukrainian forests, with German women providing refreshments for the shooting squads whose work often went on for days.

Ms. Petri was married to an SS officer who ran an agricultural estate, complete with a colonial-style manor house and slave laborers, in Galicia, in occupied Poland. She later confessed to having murdered six Jewish children, aged 6 to 12. She came across them while out riding in her carriage. She was the mother of two young children, and was 25 at the time. Near naked, the Jewish children had apparently escaped from a railroad car bound for the Sobibor camp. She took them home, fed them, then led them into the woods and shot them one by one.

She told her interrogators that she had done so, in part, because she wanted to prove herself to the men.

She was tried in East Germany and served a life sentence.

Just wow. Insane times. I can see why people would show some reticence about writing it down.

Obama/Biden B.S. Remover

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Thanks to blogger friend Daniel J. Summers for his link up at the Hello Kitty of Bloggin’.

D’JEver Notice? LIX

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

I’m seeing over at the Hello-Kitty-of-Bloggin’ (FaceBook) there’s someone who knows someone I know who’s having a tough time with her computer, which is a Mac. This is rather interesting because The Lady and I just had dinner last night with a former co-worker of hers…whose husband, in turn…is having a tough time with his computer. Which is a Mac.

What is it they say about those Macs? All together now, I know you know the words by heart: “They don’t give you confusing error messages and you don’t need to install stuff, they just work!!” Except — no, they don’t. They break, they seize up, they overheat, they wear out, they are designed badly and manufactured badly just like anything else.

Bad MacBut I do not wish to criticize the machinery. Machinery breaks. My words of criticism are for people. Consider the interesting psychological differences here.

A PC computer gives you a perplexing error message because something wore out or something wasn’t configured right. And what’s our reaction? Those fucking PC’s, you’re never done twiddling around with them, they’re built for geeks who like to replace stuff.

It’s kind of like a Republican politician lying. It reflects badly on all Republicans when that happens. Cold-hearted bastards. PC’s give you confusing error messages and Republicans lie.

What happens when a Mac goes gunnybags? Same thing that happens when a democrat is caught lying: We go generic. Computers suck. Politicians can’t be trusted.

The advantage enjoyed by liberal politicians and pleasingly-pastel fruity computers is the same. Of this I am certain. What I’m not quite sure of, is how do they come to benefit from this seemingly magic spell in the first place. How’s that work? What makes people forget about all your faults so automatically and make up stories so they can blame it all on your competition? As if you were paying them money — when, in actuality, they are your customers (or your voters)?? What gets this chain reaction started?

If I could figure out how to bottle it, I’d make millions.

Meanwhile — no, Macs do not “just work.” That’s a lie. Or they do, until such time as they don’t.

Adam Serwer Says Move Along There’s Nothing to See Here

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

Here’s a fascinating paradox of liberalism, one that affects not only them but anybody who lives where they have influence. Who you are determines truth. Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd drop dead, and if Fox News says that’s what happened then it hasn’t really happened yet. Vice President Joe Biden says the Recovery & Reinvestment Act has saved-or-created a bunch of jobs, and it must be so because Joe Biden has done something to advance the progressive agenda. Thurgood Marshall was a deity, don’t say a word against his judicial philosophy or you’ll be the opposite. Identity determines everything.

And yet, as Adam Serwer apparently understands, if all the opportunities line up just so and you say just the right thing, there’s no ladder of promotion to be ascended. You can leap up near the top in one fell swoop. Jot down a sentence at just the perfect moment that inflicts sufficient damage on conservatism, or offers a sufficient boost to liberalism, and you can join Mount Olympus and anything that comes out of your pie-hole from then on also becomes true.

So Serwer declares the Black Panther scandal to be unofficially over. Maybe it’ll work. All for the team, eh Adam?

So, a number of things have happened in the past few hours that should really discredit the entire conservative conspiracy theory behind the New Black Panther Party case.

Earlier today, I reported that J. Christian Adams, in his testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said that there was no indication of pressure from outside the Civil Rights Division to dismiss the civil complaint against the other two plaintiffs named in the original complaint–meaning that even Adams admits there’s no evidence Barack Obama or Eric Holder had anything to do with deciding to narrow the case.

Ben Smith reported this evening that Abigail Thernstrom, a conservative voting rights expert and one of George W. Bush’s appointees to the commission, says that the conservative bloc explicitly discussed a “wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president.” This was clear from the beginning, but it’s the first time anyone on the commission has said with first hand knowledge that the conservatives on the commission had deliberately decided to do this to damage the administration.

Finally, Adams has been claiming that the Justice Department, by refusing to reject a Section 5 preclearance request from Ike Brown, the defendant in the last Section 11(b) case filed by the Voting Section, was proving his claim that the Voting Section has no interest in protecting white voters. Brown filed a submission to the Justice Department seeking to create a closed Democratic primary in Noxbuee County, Mississippi. In fact, as Jeremy Holden reports, the Justice Department didn’t reject Brown’s request because he is not the “proper submitting official under Section 5” and he is still prohibited under the terms of a 2007 injunction from making any changes to the election rules that make them not “equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens.” The DoJ then filed a motion requesting that the court move to “prohibit Brown from moving forward with plans to create a closed primary, to prohibit Brown from making any future official filings seeking to change the electoral process, and to extend the 2007 order an additional 2 years,” in part because of his prior efforts to “reduce white voter participation.”
This story should now be over. It won’t be, but it should.

Okay, so let’s review this thing from the opposite logical direction. In order for a scandal to develop and endure, which will bring harm to the progressive cause, we know from Mr. Serwer’s comments that a whole bunch of conditions must exist for if they do not exist, Serwer will come along and declare the scandal dead.

It’s gotta go all the way to the top or it doesn’t count. The buck doesn’t really stop there and maybe it doesn’t make it that far in the first place.

Nobody can be politically motivated against enemies, anywhere. If anybody’s out to get anybody, then nothing happened. (Such behavior is not to be encouraged, this is Washington DC after all.)

All claims of wrongdoing, even legitimate ones, must be filed according to proper protocol. If they aren’t filed by the “proper submitting official under Section 5” then they didn’t happen.

I find these “Serwer Rules” to be, to say the very least, convenient and I’m choosing the most charitable adjective there I can.

I cannot help but wonder how many conservatives, or for that matter non-conservative people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time in conservative administrations, would be interested in knowing about these rules. Maybe someone who was distantly connected to the Abu Ghraib scandal a few years back? Wonder what they’d think of all this.

I like your rules Mr. Serwer. Can you imagine what would happen if all liberals who were hyper-agendized against conservatives, were suddenly deprived of a voice? Michael Moore would be in the poorhouse, and the civility of our nation’s discourse — a constant subject of complaint among any, for a solid decade or more by now — would improve mightily. Your rules should apply equally in both directions. They won’t, but they should.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place and at Right Wing News.

Picking on Movie Titles

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

Cracked was wondering: What if movie titles told us what we needed to know before we watched the movie? They came up with thirty different ways to improve what’s already come out.

Hat tip to Linkiest.

Movie Series

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

For the last couple of years my girlfriend and I have been going through all the rigors of school with my thirteen-year-old son, while his mother gets him for the summer & does the fun stuff with him. This upcoming year it’s getting switched around, so the other household can yell at him about P.E. clothes in the laundry & homework & grades & what-not and I’ll be geocaching with him and hiking out in the mountains. I’m really looking forward to this.

He and I have been coming up with this list, which has just been shared between our two noggins. Thought I’d finally jot it down. He’s coming back over next weekend, so this may be subject to some revision.

The list is a list of patterns that are taken on when films come out in installments. The film series take on one out of a narrow selection of quality curves, and there aren’t too many of these. That’s what the list tries to capture. It is a list, of curves, of film franchises.

See if this matches your perception.


The first installment makes history; the second one is almost as good. And then there’s a huge shake-up, lots of new faces, and when the third installment comes out the quality takes an enormous step down. This brings another shake-up, followed by a fourth installment which can only be described as toxic. The franchise is effectively killed.

Star Wars/Godfather:

The first installment is mind-blowing and the second one is even better. Someone gets the idea that all the money in the world will be free for the taking, if only the series can be made more kid-friendly. And so there’s a third installment that is supposed to appeal to a whole new generation. The messages are shallow, the characters are more doe-eyed and sympathetic, the dialogue is contrived. People buy the trilogy on disc but they only watch the first two.

Indiana Jones/Die Hard:

The first installment revolutionizes film-making but the second one is gawdawful. The third one is somewhere in between the two, kinda fun but stretches credibility with the audience. Everything is put on hold for a generation or so, and then a fourth installment comes out that’s great summer fun, but not very believable, and of course the central figure is kinda old.

Star Trek/Star Wars Prequels:

Something happened previously that brings a whole lot of breathless anticipation for the first episode. The producers take advantage of this pre-built audience and release a first installment that is a load of crap. Fans bubble forth with a fiery acidic rage, and purely out of necessity the writers come up with a stronger story arc that saves the day.

The Mummy/Poltergeist/Zorro/Cannonball Run/Creepshow/Darkman/Porky’s/Spiderman:

The first installment is decent enough but the second one gets a little bit silly and the third one is sillier. Somehow, people just feel it in the air that each successive installment is going to be worse than the one that came before. The higher and higher Roman numerals are just a way of thumbing one’s nose at the audience, and by the time it gets up to “IX” the subtitle is going to be “Look, We’re Just Wasting Your Time and Money Okay??”

(Insert Name of Video Game Here):

All the movies are made out of some kind of video game, and they all suck.

I Made a New Word XXXVIII

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Cheesecake Nazi (n.)

No, it has nothing to do with No Cheesecake For You! It refers to someone who siezes control of an entire conversation, so that no politics may be discussed and for that matter nothing of any intellectual depth may be discussed either. Stop it! Time for dessert! There’s cheesecake!

The Cheesecake Nazi turns the conversation toward intellectual sherbet, because this is what everybody wants…whether they want it or not.

The Cheesecake Nazi is a dictator who dictates from a position of apathy. The Cheesecake Nazi doesn’t care about politics. He/she detests any talk whatsoever about authoritarians/libertarians, Republicans/democrats, liberals/conservatives. Therefore, the Cheesecake Nazi requests a cessation of any such talk since there’s been plenty enough of it already. Except, oddly, the cessation is requested when the talk has barely just begun, often at the Cheesecake Nazi’s prodding in the first place. And it isn’t a request. It’s a command. Cheesecake Nazi presumes to speak on behalf of everyone in the room. Everyone is sick to death of the contention…everyone who counts, that is.

The Cheesecake Nazi, for someone who doesn’t give a fig about liberals or conservatives, shows an oddly consistent predilection toward bringing the conversation to a sudden halt at the moment when it most benefits the liberal and causes the greatest injury to the conservative.

Liberal accuses conservative of being a racist; conservative defends himself — Stop it! Everyone’s sick of this! Let’s move on, there’s yummy cheesecake.

Based on my comments over here.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place.

Rove: My Biggest Mistake at the White House

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me…

…and what a delightful present. Although I’m sure it gives the man no joy to be writing it.

Don’t be too hard on yourself Karl. Lots of blame to go ’round.

Seven years ago today, in a speech on the Iraq war, Sen. Ted Kennedy fired the first shot in an all-out assault on President George W. Bush’s integrity. “All the evidence points to the conclusion,” Kennedy said, that the Bush administration “put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth.” Later that day Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Mr. Bush needed “to be forthcoming” about the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.

The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, “It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth.” Mr. Edwards chimed in, “The administration has a problem with the truth.”

The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn’t keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam’s “biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status,” and enhanced by “longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush’s impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD.

On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham’s fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration “at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war.” But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that “Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America.”

Even Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam’s “pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated.” But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator “may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists.”
We know President Bush did not intentionally mislead the nation. Saddam Hussein was deposed and eventually hung for his crimes. Iraq is a democracy and an ally instead of an enemy of America. Al Qaeda suffered tremendous blows in the “land between the two rivers.” But Democrats lost more than the election in 2004. In telling lie after lie, week after week, many lost their honor and blackened their reputations.

History will eventually be cleaning up the mess here, I think. When Ted Kennedy expressed something, there was always this illusion hanging in the air that The Lion of the Senate was speaking for “everybody.” Change the personalities involved, change the voices, wait awhile, and then make the decision…it turns out all different. Because people aren’t too hung up on what was fashionable a handful of years before.

By the way, congratulations once again on your victory, Republican Senator Scott Brown.

But there won’t be any passionate, widespread rage — that’s the thing. Some purveyors of thought are hated and vilified. Like Titus Oates, Joe McCarthy and Susan Smith. They don’t have to affix their names to outright falsehoods — what they say can be technically true, and once it falls out of fashion they’ll still be excoriated. Crucified by a public enraged at themselves. This is what happened Bush & crew.

Being a left-winger means you never have to worry about it. You get to lie, and when the lie is discovered the hole thing just quietly slips down the memory hole. Al Sharpton can push his lies about Tawana Brawley as much as he wants, Mike Nifong can do the same thing with Crystal Gail Mangum. The courts & commissions & boards of review may impose consequences, but there will be no hate-fest, no burning of effigies.

The public’s funny that way.

But in this one, eventually we’re going to have to admit to what’s true and what isn’t.

Here’s something that is rather peculiar to me: People like me have been ignored consistently here. I say “like me” to refer to my own opinion, which can best be summed up as “pop Saddam like a zit, WMD or no, then get ready to bust a whole lot more.”

I’m not alone in thinking this. But there are a lot of other people who expressed support for the war on the mistaken assumption that these weapons were there. Okay, I get that. So it’s all about what motivates people to make the decisions they make, is that it? That’s what the anger is all about?

Then what about these foreign powers that sat on the United Nations Security Council, some with veto power, who were found after the invasion to be up to their eyebrows in Oil For Food money? Where’s the outrage about that?

It’s a legitimate question. Mr. Rove makes legitimate points. If the time hasn’t come to re-think all this by now, fine, someday it will be unavoidable. And the force involved is only going to increase with time, as we learn the hard way that war cannot be ended by legislation. It is a natural albeit tragic consequence of human interaction, it will always be around, and to affix it to the neck of some public figure in recent memory, as if this one individual is the only reason we have it, is patently absurd.

Although I suppose if you are looking for a singular scapegoat, Saddam Hussein would make just as much sense as anybody else.

About Those “Bush Tax Cuts”…

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

Brian Riedl, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts caused the deficits” narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:

&nbull; The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade’s budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see.” That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.

The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I’ve analyzed CBO’s 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits.

The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. [bold emphasis mine]

Hat tip to Boortz.

Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Kristin Powers

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

I measure the weakness of a liberal argument according to how quickly the person who offers it, abandons it and lapses back into “Yeah, but those OTHER guys…”

According to that, I rate Ms. Powers’ rebuttal two minutes and three seconds. Cut that in half because they were talking over each other the whole time. One minute, one and a half seconds.

That’s a weak argument. I’ll bet if I built my own garbage bag out of newspapers, it might not make the trip but it’ll be more than a minute before that thing gives way. I can hold my breath for a minute. I can’t make a pot of coffee in a minute.

There is nothing you can say against the Obama administration, now, that won’t paint its apologists into that sad pathetic corner in a matter of seconds. Nothing. Everything leads to that, because there’s noplace else for it to go. “Yeah maybe, but what did you have to say when BUSH…”

“Obama” is an ancient Kenyan word that roughly translates to “indefensible.”


Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

If you aren’t talking like eddiebear, or at least feeling a powerful compulsion to, you’re not paying attention.

Fucking dinofuck that shit with the fuckingly flaming fucklog of fuck and financial fuckitude. Fuck it so hard, its asshole gets ripped through its throat and jackfucked. And fuck it forever, just because I am fucking pissed.

Oh, and fuck anybody and everybody who helped foster this yodelfucking of the American Dream and future by piling up fucking debt on programs we don’t need, the people don’t want, and are less popular outside of the newsroom at MSNBC than getting the unwanted Glamour Goatse Giveaway from Gigafuck the Great.

This is fucking why November cannot come fast enough for me. Fuck these people for sentencing my daughter to a shittier future than I had at her age by sentencing her to be a financial ward of the state, and all of the restrictions that accompany such designation. Fuck these people for weakening our country. Fuck them for making all of our lives more shitty in order to push through some fucking bullshit agenda. And fuck them for claiming that wanting something better for my child is somehow analogous to the original sin of our nation.

Any fuckmink who helps foster this bullshit through needs to get their fucking bloated ass voted out post haste and replaced with people who will do something to try to stop this shit. Fuck anybody with a fetid bag of fuck who thinks compromise with the left in order to weaken a bad bill is better than getting tut-tutted by Chris Matthews if they say, “Fuck No!” to bad legislation. And fuck anybody who dares to fucking call me a bigot for opposing this shit.

Fuck you, anybody who helped fuck everything over. And get the fuck out of the way, so that us “bad” people can save the country and the future.

Aw c’mon, bear. Let them call you a racist anus-wart if it makes them happy. Let it hang over your head like a bad smell. There’s cheesecake!

Glasses for Geek Chicks

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Ten designs. The Frisky.

Yes, weak eyes do not always mean a strong mind. But if you’re shipwrecked with a hundred four-eyed women, you’ll probably see an average I.Q. much higher than you’d find in a hundred women who require no such adornment…and you’ll probably not want to be rescued too quickly.

Cheerleader of the Week

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

It’s Jordan.

Pelosi Rips Gibbs

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Politico. File under “Feeding on their own”:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

The fusillade from Pelosi and other Democrats at a closed-door meeting escalated an already fiery clash between the White House and its own party in Congress. During the tense evening meeting, the speaker grilled the top White House aide in attendance, senior legislative affairs staffer Dan Turton, about the impact of Gibbs’ comments.

“How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night. “Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House.”

Then she turned to Turton and asked him to acknowledge that Gibbs’ comments had been damaging to the Democratic cause, Democratic insiders said. Gibbs was not in the room for this meeting.

Ah…really, when you think about it, it’s impossible for Gibbs’ comments to have been “damaging to the democrat cause.” Unless, that is, the democrats have been marketing themselves — and some have suggested for quite awhile that this is the case — to people who are unintelligent and/or are altogether missing any kind of working memory.

The democrat party loses favor with voters here and there, now & then. In 2000, 1980, 1968, 1952, 1920. We fire them when we figure out their policies don’t work. The same thing happens with the GOP.

If they were simply able to separate themselves from this “People’s Revolution” nonsense, it wouldn’t be so damaging. But they can’t separate themselves from it. Every single campaign has to return to the same kids’ fantasy:

America has been held hostage because of the dirty ol’ so-and-so’s who get erections over the idea of war, want to give tax breaks to the wealthy, build more prisons and guns, turn American into a theocracy, and — worst of all — remind brittle hostile women with daddy issues of their dads. We have an election, the democrat party wins, and the streets turn to gold and candy and marshallows and the unicorns are freed and the chains and leg irons melt off our bodies and sunbeams trickle on down and gas is free and…and…and…Puppies. Kittens. Rainbows.

If they’d just tear themselves away from the “Our Election Is The Beginning of Nirvana” craze, they wouldn’t have to answer that most awkward of questions: If they fix everything and make life all perfect, how come we keep getting sick of ’em?

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place.

“Making Up Stories”

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Stephen W. Browne, writing in Atlasphere. He’s been noticing what I’ve been noticing:

I have noticed something about how some people treat beliefs which are personally important to them. When faced with uncomfortable facts, they do what I call “making up stories.”

I don’t mean they lie. Or rather they do, but they’re lying to themselves, and in a very particular way.

Some examples: About seven years ago, I was taking a course in the Polish city of Wroclaw. While there, I shared an apartment with an Englishman who had a bachelor’s degree in philosophy.

This fellow was convinced of every fashionable environmental catastrophe, including, of course, global warming.

I am skeptical about man-caused global warming for reasons not relevant here. In the course of our discussions, I mentioned that when I was working to launch a new college of science in Poland, I had come to know quite a few members of the Polish Academy of Science in the departments of chemistry, physics, paleobiology, etc.

I told him that not one of these world-class scientists believed in man-caused global warming.

He replied, “That’s because their jobs depend on defending the oil companies and denying global warming.”

To begin with, that’s not true. On the contrary, the Polish government at the time had no concerns about global warming. They had too many real problems to deal with. And he was a stranger to Poland who couldn’t have known one way or the other.
In my newsroom not long ago, I brought up on my computer screen a picture of President Obama shaking the Emperor of Japan’s hand and bowing low.

I showed this to a colleague and said that our president had really stepped in it again, after the flap about bowing submissively to the King of Saudi Arabia, then and treating the Queen of England with undiplomatic familiarity.

“What’s wrong with that?” she asked.

I pointed out that American presidents — heck, American citizens — do not bow in submission to any foreign monarchs. There are long-established diplomatic courtesies appropriate for citizens of a free country, which show respect for but not submission to foreign monarchs — courtesies our president entirely omitted when meeting Queen Elizabeth II.

Furthermore, I said, in Japan bowing has gradations and subtleties indicating relative status, that non-Japanese seldom get right. Foreigners doing business in the country are generally advised not to try.

She replied, “Well maybe he’s creating a new custom, blending the customs of America and Japan.”

And when we go to the movies, we see they’re chock full of ninety-pound women karate chopping three hundred pound men through brick walls. It defies lots of laws of physics, but it makes (certain) people feel good.

Funny thing is though, that reality is what makes you feel good — if, and only if, reality is connected in some way to your continuing survival. If you’re about to crawl under a car, nothing will make you feel good short of solid evidence that the jack is going to hold it up. We conflate reality with fantasy when we’re able to. When we can afford it.

And this is, in a nutshell, why progressive politics become more popular as communication becomes more efficient and technology becomes more advanced. It isn’t because the human race is evolving into a species of brilliant thinkers. It is because we become more comfortable, and with that comfort comes a capacity for tolerating nonsense.

And an ability to, should the need arise, manufacture some of it.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place.

Racism Test

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Received via e-mail earlier today. Short and sweet. Logic unassailable, indisputable and unanswerable.

Do You Like Him Any Better Now?


Then You’re Not A Racist.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place.

Update 7/26/10: Welcome, fellow readers of Nealz Nuze.

“Not Much Changed”

Monday, July 12th, 2010

So I’m debugging code or doing a review or running regression tests or whatever…and on my desk I’ve got this little electronic photo frame. I’ve managed to press nearly three thousand images on this 1GB chip, you see, so it takes awhile to cycle through them all. This picture my girlfriend took on one of our vacations came up, from last year, and I realized I saw it somewhere before. And not recently. A very long, long time ago.

At lunch, I tracked down the picture and attached it to an e-mail to my Dad, which read in part:

Seems to me there is a picture of Grandpa Freeberg, identical in activity, profile angle, mood, et al, from a few decades previous. It would be interesting to see the two of them side by side.

Dad came through, and the result had me just howling with laughter.

On the left: Albin “Big Al” Freeberg, 9/1898-6/1975    On the right: The blogger dude, b. 7/1966, still kickin’

Although I must say, since I’m approaching the tender age of 44 this week, I am chagrined at the resulting comparison in the old-man-nose department. It almost looks to me like the gentleman in the color photo has the more impressive schozz, which is not where my expectations were going and not at all in keeping with my memories. Must have picked something up from Mom’s side of the tree. The males in her family always seemed to have noses like sides of beef hanging in a locker.

Other than that, there’s not much difference is there?

Update: Just remembered, Bessie was retired from service to the mobility needs of Yours Truly in early ’08. I’m reasonably sure I put more miles on the old girl than Grandpa put on the Packard, but that isn’t the point. I consult the JPEG header of the image and see it came from the girlfriend’s last camera, 10/2/06 11:51 a.m. This is among the first of many trips to Mendocino by way of Clear Lake. We have been nurturing an old dream, all but abandoned, to leap out of bed at oh-dark-hundred and whittle through that leg quickly. We are geographically wiser now — ya wanna get there early, just leave early. I think our record for speed on this trip is something altogether syrupy and unimpressive, seven hours one-way or something in that neighborhood.

The next shot is 19 minutes later and it shows us approaching Williams which is where the turn-off is. So this must be headed North on I-5 between Woodland and Zamora. No idea where Grandpa is. Ask Dad.

Twenty-Four Little Hitlers

Monday, July 12th, 2010

While we’re waiting to see what blogger pal Gerard has planned for August, he still has lots of good stuff scrolling up every day on Ka-Ching! Like, for example, this — and I know you can relate to it, don’t pretend otherwise.

Freakin’ awesome.

If it were mine, I’d add on a few things. For most of these, I can envision a corresponding “li’l Hitler” who works by making his opposition look like that “li’l Hitler.” I’m thinking here specifically of column 1 row 2, column 4 row 2, column 2 row 3, column 2 row 4 and column 1 row 5.

Remember right after the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act got passed we had all these liberals who were suddenly fond of Benjamin Franklin? Sacrificing liberty, temporary safety, deserve neither, blah blah blah…et cetera. Seems like a distant memory now, doesn’t it?

I gotta wonder what our first Postmaster General would have thought of it. The man was plenty sharp enough to spot a fair-weather friend from a mile off.

Another little-Hitler: The “pleasant dinner” little-Hitler. You know — “Oh, let’s keep things pleasant! There’s cheesecake!”

How familiar is the following exchange:

McGovern-voting Granduncle: Let the immigrants in! We’re a nation of immigrants! You fucking bigot!

You: Actually I’m not concerned about race, I’m concerned about why someone would choose to circumvent our immigration laws. How come I have to follow laws while we’re defining a whole class of people who don’t have to, and we don’t even know who they are?

Hostess: Oh, stop fighting you two! Here we are having a lovely dinner and you have to bring politics into it. Just let him call you a reprehensible, cross-burning scum-sucking douchebag asshole xenophobe and then let’s move on! There’s cheesecake!

And then there’s the “whoever’s fun must be right” little Hitlers. They get their news out of the Daily Show, and they’re fond of bragging about it, but if you’re the one who points that out they’ll say you’re just making things up because you’re a liar.

Right now they’re telling us if we have a shred of decency we’ll support the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. They just have to. She’s really funny.

Must Disclose Race(s)

Monday, July 12th, 2010

The Bastidge was required, if you read things literally, to disclose his race.

Thought this was still America. Maybe I was mistaken.

I thought his solution was most creative. It’s still unsatisfactory.

The Founding Fathers shot the British for levying new taxes all willy-nilly, claiming the colonials were represented “virtually.” Shot them. Blew ’em up. Sank their ships. I wonder what they’d do about shenanigans like these. Seriously, are we human beings or jelly beans?

Mario: Game Over

Sunday, July 11th, 2010