House of Eratosthenes

Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

Eliminationism

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

I subscribe via e-mail to updates from the democrat National Committee (dNC), in addition to the Republican counterpart organization and a few right-wing think tanks here and there. I think listening to both sides is part of one’s obligation as a responsible citizen, and besides it’s an educational experience. One thing I’ve noticed, going back to my earliest days of using an e-mail account at home, and it’s an unbroken pattern…

…a right-wing fundraising letter (or request for participation, for signing a petition…whatever) invariably opens with some alarming event, and dire prognostications of where this might lead. It’s almost as if it’s addressed to people who haven’t made up their minds to support conservatives. It may summarize the events crudely, perhaps even inaccurately, but in nearly all cases there’s a foundation for the argument that substantially addresses the question of why I should care.

The messages from Howard Dean, et al, do not do this. Top to bottom, they are saturated with a call-to-arms. The theme never varies, even slightly — I, Morgan Freeberg, am the drop of water that is missing from the waterfall. It’s straight out of Mao Tse-Tung’s speech in 1945 about the Foolish Old Man Who Removed The Mountains. If everybody does their part, and you do yours Mr. Freeberg…we will win!

Not a single word about what’s going to happen once that is achieved. Or, “War in Iraq” aside, what dire calamity will befall us if we fail.

There is a suggestion here, and more than a whiff of it, that conservatism exists in service of other ideals that exist outside of it, whereas liberalism exists only for its own sake (or for some other set of ideals nobody wants to discuss). I’ve opined on this before, how incredibly suspicious I find it that modern-day liberalism shows all this dogged determination to promulgate itself, to impose itself upon echelons of high power in our society — and for no other purpose whatsoever. In other words, once the elections are won, it’s all about quitting. Before those elections are won, it’s all about winning them at any cost.

So I’m finding this bundling of ruminations from left-wing blog Orcinus more than a tad interesting. I’m thinking probably, the author has been watching too many movies and not paying sufficient attention to what happens in real life:

What, really, is eliminationism?

It’s a fairly self-explanatory term: it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.
:
Rhetorically, it takes on some distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself — unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination. It often depicts its designated “enemy” as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and loves to incessantly suggest that its targets are themselves disease carriers…

And yes, it’s often voiced as crude “jokes”, the humor of which, when analyzed, is inevitably predicated on a venomous hatred. [bold emphasis mine]

This seems to me an almost perfect description of modern-day liberalism; at least the tactics of it, if not the strategy.

They want us to go away. I’m thinking, by “us,” all the usual targets. Housewives…abstinence education advocates…Christians…climate change skeptics…meat eaters…gun owners…Boy Scouts. Those groups, and many more, I’ve seen exposed to “complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.” “Unfit for participation in their vision of society.” Earlier in the piece, the author further defines eliminationism as something that “cuts the target off from the community support it might normally enjoy and leaves them feeling even more isolated.” Is it possible to jot down a more apt description for what has been done to the Boy Scouts? They were taken to court, the case went all the way up to the Supremes, and when the Boy Scouts won their opponents moved to block their funding from the United Way.

With “dialogue shunned” every single step of the way.

What a classic case of being what one calls others.

The situational difference I find most damning is this: When I have some real passion about an issue that is based on values, and I find out, say, 80% of the population feels the same way, the first thought in my head is what in the world is wrong with the other 20%. I notice a lot of the folks who agree with me on the issue have the same reaction, and when people form their opinions from their values, this is only natural — so long as we’re discussing generalized, baseline values for a civilized society, and not personally-customized nit-picky values. The Left, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be able to count up to any percentage higher than 51. It’s like Howard Dean says, they want to win. And then, I get the impression very often, whether they win by 51-49 or by 90-10, they couldn’t possibly care less which it is. So long as those who disagree with them are properly gelded, it’s all good. They don’t want us to convert, they want us to lose.

Orcinus talks about “eliminationism”; that situation with our leftists seems to me to be about as fitting a definition as can be found in modern times.

Incidentally, I learned about Orcinus’ rant by way of a wonderful and insightful essay on selective outrage by Confederate Yankee; and I learned of that essay by way of Rick.

“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” — Larry Elder

Cross-posted at Cassy.

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections | 2 Comments »

This Is Good LII

Sunday, July 27th, 2008

H/T: Flopping Aces.

Posted in Elections, Obamamania | No Comments »

He’s Tired, They’re Tired

Sunday, July 27th, 2008

Neo-Neocon is patting herself on the back for her prescience, and I think she deserves it. This is her from over a year ago:

…when Obama made his slip-up and overstated by a factor of 1000X how many died in the Kansas tornado, I’m inclined to say it’s amazing such errors don’t happen more often to all the candidates, given the circumstances. But his excuse—that he was tired and weary—doesn’t sit all that well with me, although I have no doubt that it’s both true and understandable.
:
In a larger sense—and perhaps I’m overdoing the analogy here, but what the hey—Obama’s willingness to admit to exhaustion mirrors the Democrats’ willingness to admit to being so weary of Iraq that they want it to be over, and immediately. Arguments about the pros and cons of the war aside, in strategic terms the clamor for the pullout signals a lack of stamina that can only be immensely heartening to our enemies.

And here she is yesterday:

I’m rather proud of my foresight on this one
:
I’d hardly change a word. Subsequent events have only solidified my impression.

I have found the pattern with democrats and their fatigue to be very tidy and clean. As Yoda said, hard to predict the future is; my insight was scribbled down just a week ago. But the pattern is virtually undisturbed by interruption or exception and so it must mean something.

It comes down to this: Exhaustion, faltering, failure, getting tired, wanting to quit — these are things you feel when you serve your constituents, before or after you win an election. On the winning of the election itself, that’s the time for relentlessness. The only time for it.

In 2008 we find ourselves grappling with an ideological flesh-eating parasite in modern liberalism. It champions determination, drive, resourcefulness, grit and plain old-fashioned ballz — only in promulgating itself, and for no other purpose. In that singular endeavor of self-reproduction, it never wanes, fumbles or retreats. Holding high the banner of itself, it shows all the “patriotism” for which it shows theatrical horror elsewhere, including the resolve to seek out, interrogate and punish the desultory and apathetic.

It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

All the energy and heat of an erupting volcano.

All the single-minded determination of any wild, starving predator.

All the stamina of water wearing away on a rock.

The power of a tidal wave.

All these forces of nature reserved for simple reproduction of the idea. And only for that, for the idea is nihilism. We are not good, we don’t belong where we are, and nothing is worth anything, for we are undeserving of whatever it is.
:
Wouldn’t it be nice if they worked up one-tenth as much anger toward radical terrorists as what they have in reserve for conservatives, “neocons,” and other ideological opponents?

They’re on their way to the White House, and nothing will stop them.

When the time comes to perform some actual public service…get the facts straight…begin with the end in mind in Iraq…drill for oil…it seems not only does fatigue get in the way, but everything else does as well. Regain our “standing in the world”…can’t “drill our way out of this problem”…carbon footprint…tired. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Al Gore can’t quite take Florida, and they pull out all the stops. Lawyers descend on Tallahassee like buzzards on roadkill and we have a national month-long debate about pregnant chads. Get voted in no matter what! Everything else they try to do, well, they’ll take their best crack at it after their afternoon nap. Maybe. Unless there’s a reason not to. Can’t endanger that precious environment, ya know.

The conclusion is unmistakable and unavoidable:

They want to do something once they get into office, that is well outside of anything they want to discuss. Especially when they’re trying to get voted in.

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections | No Comments »

The Rules for democrats and Republicans

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Great stuff…

During his days doing stand-up in the 1960s, Bill Cosby recorded a track for one of his comedy albums about the American Revolution. As only Cosby could tell it, he spun a hilarious version of “the rules” for how the war for American independence was to be fought. The British, Cosby said, had to wear red and march in slow, straight lines, making them targets for the colonists, who were allowed to wear drab clothing that blended into the landscape and who could hide behind hills, trees and rocks as they took aim. It is a bit like this year’s presidential race, with Republicans playing by the British rules and Democrats in the role of the colonists.
:
The Rules for Democrats

Democrats (and liberals in general) are allowed to say, write and publish anything they want, regardless of how offensive it is or how much it degrades our political discourse…

Barack Obama is allowed to take both sides of any issue. As a new type of candidate for president of the United States, he is allowed to talk movingly about “change” and “hope” while offering no specifics of any kind…

Obama is allowed to make outrageous claims about the racist tendencies and tactics of his opponent and his opponent’s surrogates. Because he is half black, he does not have to justify these comments in any way.

The Rules for Republicans
:
Any criticism – in fact any negative mention – of Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name will be considered racist.

I suppose whether things are really working that way, might be up for some kind of debate. If, that is, you have your head stuck in a hole.

The obvious question is, how did things get like this? And I think the answer has more to do with human nature than with democrats or Republicans. One of the advantages of repeatedly presenting people with the products of your thinking, without revealing how said thinking works, is that after awhile people begin to absorb it. I’m referring here specifically to judgments about what’s acceptable and what is not. “That’s allowed”; “That’s over the line.” The democrat party, and in particular Sen. Ted Kennedy, have all been particularly energetic for the last several decades about casually tossing around the phrase beyond the pale. I do not know if the senior Senator from Massachusetts has ever been able to spell it, but boy he’s sure used it a lot.

The paling fence is significant as the term pale became to mean the area enclosed by such a fence and later just the figurative meaning of ‘the area that is enclosed and safe’. So, to be ‘beyond the pale’ was to be outside the area accepted as ‘home’.

Catherine the Great created a ‘Pale of Settlement’ in Russia in 1791. This was a western border region of the country in which Jews were allowed to live. The motivation behind this was to restrict trade between Jews and native Russians. Some Jews were allowed to live, as a concession, beyond the pale.

So “beyond the pale” means to tether a class of people to a shorter leash for the purpose of deliberately diminishing them. Heh. Why, how appropriate.

Anyway, I think that’s how things work this way. Like a dog becoming accustomed to commands from its master. When we hear the same voices intone what we are & are not allowed to do, over and over again, our resident dimbulbs stop questioning it after awhile.

This is probably why, over the longest presidential election campaign in American history, I don’t recall hearing too much out of democrats in general that didn’t have something to do with expressing outrage about something. It’s really hard to criticize them for doing it, once you objectively inspect the eventual and inevitable results. This nonsense works. Sooner rather than later, millions of people are doing exactly what you want…and then, a Savior rises in Barack Hussein Obama.

How best to illustrate the eventual result of it, than via this video clip I found via blogger friend Rick.

HOPENCHANGE!!! And do what you’re told.

Posted in Elections, Obamamania | No Comments »

Let’s Make the 2008 Elections About THIS…

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

H/T: Hot Air, via Cas, who bottom-lines the issue expertly, in a way we’ll be able to decide it in November.

This sums up, in a nutshell, the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans usually believe that Americans are smart enough to run their own lives; Democrats don’t. Republicans usually think that Americans deserve to keep their own money; Democrats don’t. Republicans usually think that Americans will lead their lives perfectly fine without government intervention; Democrats don’t.

Liberals just can’t seem to grasp the fact that people don’t need their all-knowing wisdom-filled genius to live happy and full lives. When President Bush said that it was presumptuous to tell Americans how to live their own lives, I wanted to cheer.

This is what President Bush says right before his approval numbers trickle upward a point or two — read that as, away from Congress’ approval rating which is much lower.

When he values agreement above clarity and starts “reaching across the aisle” to “unify” with the folks who have no qualms at all about telling us when to plug in our coffeemakers and where to set our thermostats and what language to teach our kids…that is when his approval rating goes DOWN.

The record bears this out.

Posted in Elections, Nanny State Crap, Poisoning Western Civilization | 1 Comment »

Borrowing the Playbook

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

Barack Obama is being accused of borrowing pages out of the Rove/GOP “playbook” by none other than…Karl Rove.

Heh.

H/T: Sister Toldjah.

Posted in Elections, Obamamania | No Comments »

To Avoid STDs, One Should Avoid democrats

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

So says the very first comment in the under this video. The video itself is a project of TruthThroughAction.

I think if they want to call this their “premiere project” they should look at renaming themselves to something like Untruth Through Lack of Action; that is the subject of the movie isn’t it. Vote Republican, and some cute girl won’t have sex with you.

I remember back in my extreme youth, before Bill Clinton came along and before I had too many opinions about politics — I slept with women who wouldn’t have had me if they thought I was a Republican. I’m not entirely pleased with those notches on my bedpost. Had I declared an extreme hardcore Republican-ness way back when, and lost whatever opportunities I would’ve, I wouldn’t be the worse-off for it.

Then I slept with some women who wouldn’t have had anything to do with me if I had been a democrat.

So…all it takes is one “I only sleep with Republicans” type of woman who’s decent-looking, to raise all kinds of questions. Like — guys, do you wanna do it with a woman who only sleeps with Republicans? Because if she’s putting out, you already know she isn’t the militant-fundamentalist type. (And maybe you’d be better off if she was, but that’s a different question…)

Or do you want to sleep with a “lady” who’s been dreaming of chogging on Bill Clinton’s knob? I mean, it basically comes down to that doesn’t it. Maybe there aren’t any straight dudes putting this “film” together. Obviously, straight-dudes are the intended audience — and as one, I’m thinking the same thing the first commenter is thinking. Or more like “do I want to share some bucket o’meat trollop with that ferret-faced guy with his ass-pin on his lapel at the end?” And he looks like a pedophile.

And Lord knows what in the hell she’s carrying. Her STDs probably have STDs.

Poor silly donks. Backed into a corner. If only they had picked a decent candidate for President this year, they wouldn’t be so desperate. Bribing horny young drunk guys with sex for their votes, and it isn’t even real sex. Sheesh.

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections, Glad I Learned About This, Obamamania | 1 Comment »

Becky Has a Girl Crush on Sarah Palin

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

And I’m leaning in the same direction on this one. I first noticed Sarah Palin when Cassy jumped on the bandwagon last month.

Gov. Sarah Palin Bec and Cas do not agree on much. I’m thinking Gov. Palin may be worth another look or two.

Becky made an observation that made me chuckle. And this, too, is worthy of some extra thought:

And, since I am terribly shallow, I have to admit, though I have nothing against pant suits, there is a growing hotness gap, between the United States and the rest of the world.

Ooh, cuts like a knife! Yes, whatever your thoughts are about hot women, whether you’re gay or straight, appreciate them or not…you’d have to admit Becky’s right here. The United States stands alone, as a place in which loud — not necessarily numerous — people think there is something wrong when a woman in a position of authority looks too good. When she possesses too much “male appeal.” We want ’em dressed down & dowdy.

Fashionable is okay. Neat and tidy is acceptable. But once a lady is groomed to such an extent that a man would do a double-take if he saw her in a crowded airport, she can’t have too much authority — in the public sector. Too many voters are thought to be out there who say “if you are suspected of showing too much friendliness and hospitality to straight males, then you can’t show any to me.” And it’s a uniquely, or mostly-uniquely, American custom.

Note that I’m not talking about bimbos. I’m not talking about anything immodest. I’m talking about mature, responsible, demure women who nevertheless make a gentleman’s mind wonder, just for a split second, what exactly her marital status is. Not Hillary Clinton. Someone who is feminine and isn’t afraid to show it. Condoleezza and not Madeleine.

Sarah Palin wears eye shadow, has a nice smile, and isn’t a wrinkled up old prune. That would really upset the apple cart in American politics, if we woke up one morning and found out she was our VP. It would…and it should not. When our powerful women have to be frumpy looking, there is something terribly, terribly wrong.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Don’t take my word for it. Check out Becky’s gallery of powerful women in other countries. We are Americans, and we lead the world in being able to say “such-and-such a person or such-and-such an agenda for everyone…” while, in our heart-of-hearts, we mean exactly the opposite of “everyone.” And I’m thinking that’s why we’ve had so many Pelosis, the first-woman-this, most-powerful-women-that, who are, by design, unappealing to men. Faces crammed full of Botox, wrinkly skin stretched tight, assembled there to remind you much more of a mother-in-law than of anyone you’d really want to be your wife.

But then there are Governor Palin’s accomplishments, and her positions on the issues. She’s “gotten elected” to offices and then achieved things. So in the job-experience department, she is exactly what Barack Obama is trying to be.

Posted in Elections, Is It Really a Man's World? | 1 Comment »

Ann Coulter, Nose-Plugger?

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008

Nose Plugs At least, it looks like that’s the direction she’s heading. With some alcohol anyway.

I guess we’re beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of “centrists.” These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They’re the ones who check the “not sure/no opinion” box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism.

You can’t blame them: They’re not being paid to know something about national issues. Those people we call “senators” and “representatives.”

But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah … Drill! Drill! Drill!
:
The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises — at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.

Not being ignorant “centrists,” we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he’s cute.

How many times do we have to run this experiment?

Not only with elections, but with real life: People who sacrifice everything else to be well-liked, aren’t that well-liked, and of course you can forget about ’em being anything else because they gave it up.

But then people keep on doing it.

I dunno if I’m in the nose plug brigade yet. It would take a lot of alcohol and I’m not sure we have that much in the house.

Posted in Elections | No Comments »

How to Talk to an Obama Cultist

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Via Stop The ACLU, via Rick:

This guy’s got ’em pegged.

I feel this subconscious sympathetic twinge for these people when they start arguing with me. It’s so sad; they’ve got nothing to say and they damn well know it. “Hope change got elected to the Senate the real deal illegal unjust war”…and that just about wraps it up for them. That, and bitching about people mentioning his middle name, some global warming propaganda, and they’re done.

Posted in Elections, Obamamania | No Comments »

democrats’ Message

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Via California Conservative, we learn of an interesting editorial that appeared in WSJ:

If nothing else, the 2008 election will resolve the question of whether the Democrats have been losing the White House in recent decades because of their message or because of their candidates’ inability to articulate it well.
:
After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Whether that was an accurate reading of the electorate or a self-serving analysis by the party’s elites, it has made wonderful cocktail party fodder for years. But it has also been used as a rationale by those who didn’t see the string of defeats as a call to retool the party’s message.

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case.

Well, give the democrat party for being consistent with itself, for once. If you think you’ve got a good message and you continue to fail at the presidential elections because your “messengers” suck so much, it would logically follow that someone with a polished talent for delivering messages would really capture your excitement.

The part about the message being perfectly decent, or adequately decent, doesn’t quite fit in though. Five elections lost in 28 years, comes to 71% failure. The same guy won the only two elections that went to the democrats in that time — so that’s five democrats out of six who lack the hunting talents to go out with this bait and bring something back. What kind of message needs a turd-polisher so impassioned and so skilled, that he has to bubble up to the eighty-third percentile before he can think about taking it on? It’s not quantum physics. It’s “vote for us and we’ll stiff those other guys to give you some bennies.” I have a reputation for making essays much longer and more bloated than they need to be, and in the verbal medium I’m not nearly as much fun to listen to as Sen. Obama, but even I managed to fit that on one line.

The editorial continues:

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills.

Not only is the political playing field stacked in the Democrats’ favor — an unpopular war, an even less popular Republican president, and a slow and perhaps shrinking economy–but also their White House candidate is the extraordinary communicator in this race. Sen. Obama is clearly the most charismatic candidate and the best public speaker that the Democrats have offered in many decades. Some might say since John F. Kennedy; others might go further back.

Therefore, the argument goes, if the Illinois senator, who could sell ice to Eskimos, can’t close the deal, there is a pressing need for a serious overhaul of the Democratic mindset.

I doubt that very much. What the hell are they going to do, say to themselves “well, we tried driving a wedge between the classes for all these years and we failed, I guess America is the one garden on the globe where the weed of socialism can’t take root.” And then find a sudden hitherto-undiscovered loyalty to capitalism, free trade, the right to self-defense, the right to worship freely, to eat meat, to drive big cars, to leave the coffeemaker plugged in, to defend the country on the battlefield and in the public discourse without apologizing for doing so? To travel overseas and say “I’m American” without “sorry” tossed in immediately afterwards?

No. Obama could get creamed like Walter Mondale — which I highly doubt is what’s gonna happen — and four years onward they’ll be back to sell us the same crap. Everybody who has money must have stolen it, everybody with a different skin color is out to screw you, sacrifice is the only noble human virtue, the Constitution is a living breathing document, you’re breathing too but you shouldn’t be because you’re poisoning the planet, you shouldn’t have guns, you shouldn’t worship a god, you can’t drill for oil because the caribou will be upset, there’s nothing that can be done about high gas prices but to blame Republicans.

In short, you aren’t here to do anything, you’re here to be comfortable. And everything in your life that’s comfortable is because of us — even though our central purpose is to make sure you can’t do anything — and everything that makes you uncomfortable is because of those other guys. Vote for us, we’ll make sure you have everything you need or want, limited, of course, to the extent to which we think you should want it. You’ll eat the food we think you should want to eat, go to the schools we think you should want to go to, drive the cars we think you should want to drive, pay your carbon sin taxes, rely on a public agency to defend your family from the guy breaking into your house…and, basically, become a well-managed non-unique human ball bearing.

That kind of message has to do with preserving an aristocracy. The ivory tower types get to make up the rules as they go along, the hoi polloi down in the trenches just go where they’re told and do what they’re told. democrats have a real passion for this, and it’s the kind of passion that comes from personal insecurity and a desire to control others.

If it was the kind of “message” that would be dropped after a string of electoral defeats, it woulda happened by now. No, the message will not be changed. It is expected to endure even throughout the most discouraging setbacks; it is designed to so endure. And that’s proven easily: You’ll not hear it defined, by a democrat, with the level of clarity that was used above. It’s stated by those who seek to promote it only in vague terms, behind thick veils of obfuscation, peppered densely with buzzwords like “choice,” “wealthy,” “working families” and “environment.” Such protections are not available to messages that are subject to dismissal, if & when they are found to be bad messages. These are the protections wrapped around fake ointment products, that will continue to be sold, no matter how many people reject it or how many times they so reject.

Simply put, snake oil salesman don’t give a rip about the oil. There are the sales that are made, and there are the sales pitches that make those sales happen. That’s all that matters to the snake oil salesman. That’s one of the most reliable ways you can tell he is one.

Posted in Elections, Obamamania | 1 Comment »

Helping to Highlight JohnJ’s Point

Monday, June 23rd, 2008

…JohnJ being one of my blogger friends trying to persuade me to go toward the light, Carol Anne, and support McCain this fall.

It’s a good thing I never said this point was entirely lacking in merit, for it certainly is not so lacking. Searching around for an editorial I saw last week in Sacramento Bee, I found it under Paul Greenberg’s name and Mr. Greenberg states a powerful case.

Nothing so well illustrates the essential asymmetry of this country’s worldwide struggle against terrorism than last week’s 5-to-4 opinion out of the U.S. Supreme Court. The enemy is fighting a war; we are litigating a plea.

Throughout the sleepy Nineties, we dealt with two – two! – earlier and incomplete attacks on the World Trade Center not as the barbaric acts of war they were, but as isolated matters for the criminal justice system to deal with when and if it could. While we slept, the enemy plotted. We paid the bloody price for our obtuseness – in thousands of innocent lives – on September 11, 2001.

Now we’re proceeding with great deliberation down the same blind alley.

How to describe this latest opinion from the high court? It’s not easy to get a handle on this decision for, against or maybe just vaguely about the exercise (or paralysis) of the president’s wartime powers. Here is how His Honor Anthony M. Kennedy – heir to the equally vacuous Sandra Day O’Connor’s swing vote on the high court – “explained” what his majority opinion means, or rather doesn’t mean: “Our opinion does not undermine the executive’s powers as commander in chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the judicial branch.”

This whole issue shouldn’t be an issue, of course. Supreme Court Justices are sworn in with an oath to defend the Constitution. Not to twist it around to make people happy, who in turn don’t even live in this country. They’re supposed to read the Constitution, look at some lesser law, and say “I don’t see any conflict here” or “yeah, that’s messed up, you’re not supposed to do that and it says so right here.”

What Kennedy is doing is ratcheting up the standard of constitutionality in such a way that it has little to nothing to do with the actual Constitution. He’s an authority doing exactly what authorities aren’t supposed to do when they wield authority: Try to use it to make himself popular.

…this is the third time in four years that the high court has left the question of how or if to try enemy combatants up in the cloudy air. What are the other branches of government, or even the lower courts, let alone our troops in the field, now to do with these detainees and future ones? The weightless burden of the court’s confused and confusing guidance on this subject might be summed up as: To be determined.

Each time the Supreme Court has ruled against this system of trying enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful, Congress and the executive – at the court’s explicit behest – have moved to meet its objections, only to be told once again that the tribunals still don’t pass constitutional muster.

In matters of civil and criminal law, you don’t want anything to happen unless all the tumblers are lined up. Outside of the military, government has a way of doing things like that naturally: Everyone has to agree something’s a go, but the lowliest mail clerk has the authority to stop it. Great way to prosecute a case. Lousy way to fight a war.

Greenberg closes by echoing John’s point, almost word-for-word:

The one thing that this latest example of law at its least vigilant does make clear is the importance of this year’s presidential election. Sen. John McCain, who knows something about war and being a prisoner thereof, says he would appoint judges who are committed to judicial restraint; he’s criticized this decision. Sen. Barack Obama has praised it. However confused and confusing this latest decision, it does clarify the decision facing the American voter this November.

It certainly does. What it actually means, I’ll leave to each reader to decide for him- or herself.

I know McCain isn’t speaking from the heart, though; I know this beyond the shadow of any doubt. His schtick is that he understands Guantanamo has to be closed down, that we need to recapture some of our global popularity by gelding ourselves in our treatment of these terrorists. He also clings to the tired old song that if we continue with our harsh interrogation techniques, it just puts the men and women serving on our behalf in danger, in case they are captured by the enemy.

The facts don’t square with this sales pitch. When John McCain was captured by the North ~~Koreans~~ Vietnamese, the United States was a signing party to the Geneva Conventions. That’s just a fact. The VC brutalized him at the Hanoi Hilton, and that, too, is an inconvenient fact. No getting around it.

So if anything, McCain is in a great position to know — beyond any doubt whatsoever — that a nation’s determination to behave in a “civilized” manner either by treaty or by deed, does nothing, zilch, zip, zero, nada, bubkes, as far as ensuring that nation’s troops will be subjected to kinder treatment by an enemy once they are captured.

He knows this. He knows it personally. And he’s playing up propaganda that is meaningful only to those who are too ignorant of the facts to understand what’s really going on here.

So do I think McCain’s rhetoric is right on the money about these nominees to the Supreme Court? Yeah, pretty much. Do I think a President McCain is likely to nominate better judges to the Supreme Court than a President Obama? Mmmm…maybe. There’s the slimmest of chances. Would I put a lot of money on it? No. I’d put very, very little. McCain is the very picture of a Republican nominee for President who’ll screw the conservatives over that way once he gets in.

Do I admire him for his service? Hell yes. Do I admire him for his character? Not one bit. I think he has serious issues in that department. Do I think he’s better than a democrat? Uh…maybe I would, if it weren’t for the history of Bush Pere. Or Nixon. I have my reasons to be jaded.

Am I optimistic about how things are going to turn out this year, if only the Republicans unite on this candidate, and thus reassure the candidate that we’re all with him, and consider the job of team-building to be behind him?

Hell no.

He’s the presumptive nominee. He doesn’t have the track record of sticking with principled positions on things…which means both sides will get a benefit out of him if they lean on him.

And those “moderates” are going to lean on him 24×7 all the way to election day.

Those who understand the wisdom of what Greenberg has had to say, should lean on him too. Which means, necessarily, that he can’t count on us. Not until he’s made some commitments that he hasn’t even bothered to make just yet.

Update: As Buck points out, I got my countries mixed up. It’s tough to keep straight in one’s mind all those wars the democrats started.

Posted in Elections, My Blogger Friends, Poisoning Justice, Torture and Civil Liberties and What-Not, Vision for Victory | 5 Comments »

Memo For File LXII

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

Now that I’ve picked on him, noodle on the following as an equal and opposite righteous thrashing of the other guy. Along with all those bosses you know you’ve had…the aggravating ones that, now that you’re done with ’em, they haven’t been worthy of too much thinking since then.

I was trying to find this description of Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged, last year sometime, and anytime you go looking for anything in Atlas Shrugged it’s like finding a tiny needle in an enormous haystack. I came up empty back then — and then when I went looking for the passage about Cherryl Taggart (finally locating it on p. 827) I stumbled across the Mouch thing on p. 496.

It’s pure gold. Describes much in our lives. More than it should. You know people like this; you know you do.

Wesley Mouch came from a family that had known neither poverty nor wealth nor distinction for many generations; it had clung, however, to a tradition of its own: that of being college-bred and, therefore, of despising men who were in business. The family’s diplomas had always hung on the wall in the manner of a reproach to the world, because the diplomas had not automatically produced the material equivalents of their attested spiritual value. Among the family’s numerous relatives, there was one rich uncle. He had married his money and, in his widowed old age, he had picked Wesley as his favorite from among his many nephews and nieces, because Wesley was the least distinguished of the lot and therefore, thought Uncle Julius, the safest. Uncle Julius did not care for people who were brilliant. He did not care for the trouble of managing his money, either; so he turned the job over to Wesley. By the time Wesley graduated from college, there was no money to manage. Uncle Julius blamed it on Wesley’s cunning and cried that Wesley was an unscrupulous schemer. But there had been no scheme about it; Wesley could not have said just where the money had gone. In high school, Wesley Mouch had been one of the worst students and had passionately envied those who were the best. College taught him that he did not have to envy them at all. After graduation, he took a job in the advertising department of a company that manufactured a bogus corn-cure. The cure sold well and he rose to be the head of his department. He left it to take charge of the advertising of a hair-restorer, then of a patented brassiere, then of a new soap, then of a soft drink — and then he became advertising vice-president of an automobile concern. He tried to sell automobiles as if they were a bogus corn-cure. They did not sell. He blamed it on the insufficiency of his advertising budget. It was the president of the automobile concern who recommended him to Rearden. It was Rearden who introduced him to Washington — Rearden, who knew no standard by which to judge the activities of his Washington man. It was James taggart who gave him a start in the Burueau of Economic Planning and National Resources — in exchange for double-crossing Rearden in order to help Orren Boyle in exchange for destroying Dan Conway. From then on, people helped Wesley Mouch to advance, for the same reason as that which had prompted Uncle Julius: they were people who believed that mediocrity was safe. The men who now sat in front of his desk had been taught that the law of causality was a superstition and that one had to deal with the situation of the moment without considering its cause. By the situation of the moment, they had concluded that Wesley Mouch was a man of superlative skill and cunning, since millions aspired to power, but he was the one who had achieved it. It was not within their method of thinking to know that Wesley Mouch was the zero at the meeting point of forces unleashed in destruction against one another. [emphasis mine]

Kinda reminds me of a certain energetic and charismatic young man — a decidedly underqualified young man — running for President this year. But that’s just my opinion, of course.

Update: One of that underqualified young man’s supporters argues for nationalizing the refineries…as classic an illustration as can possibly exist, of confusing mediocrity with excellence.

Link: sevenload.com

Hat tip to St. Wendeler at Another Rovian Conspiracy. The uh, er, socializing, I mean, uh, whatever was acknowledged to be a Maxine Waters “oopsie” moment…mouth started getting ahead of her brain there. Well, it doesn’t seem to have been a misstatement at all. As St. Wendeler points out, they’re getting more brazen, more sure of themselves, and their true colors are starting to show.

They’re disciplined in dealing with the situation of the moment, and therefore presume that those among them who are capable of amassing power, must be cunning and brilliant and therefore their plans must be ingenious. It’s a simple case of mediocrity being confused with excellence. And plans that have been tried repeatedly, and failed, being thought to possess some sort of beneficiality or merit.

Be afraid; be very afraid.

Thing I Know #230. We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”

Posted in Elections, Mediocrity/Excellence Confusion, Obamamania, Poisoning Individuality and Reason | 2 Comments »

Know The Devil You Know

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

I suppose this weekend we should eventually get around to discussing that subject I try so hard to avoid, which is this decision we all need to make in November.

I have a lot of close friends who beat me up quite regularly over my failure to declare allegiance to Mister Straight Talk. They say our national security is in peril if Obama gets into the White House. And they’re right. They say if I engage in my silliness, e.g., writing in my own name, writing in Fred Thompson’s name, staying home, etc., I will help to make this happen. They are right about that too.

Where they’re wrong, is in offering up Sen. McCain as any sort of remedy to the situation. Not that this is news to them. You can tell they already know this would be a false argument to make, by their careful reluctance to actually make it. They don’t say this word-for-word. It sounds, to the lazy intellect, when you say “we’re up to our shoulders in crap if Obama gets in and McCain’s the only guy who can stop that from happening,” like you’re saying “if McCain gets in maybe we won’t be up to our shoulders in crap.” But those are two different things, they know those are two different things, and that’s why they put so much energy into repeating one of those two things while remaining silent on the other.

The balance of my thoughts has to do with McCain’s penchant for backstabbing, both politically and personally. It is captured well by LindaSOG:

I was somewhat struck by this:

Last January McCain said that the president was “ very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of defense.”

“John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized,” Cheney said in an ABC News interview in February. “Maybe he’ll apologize to Rumsfeld.”

Aw. Ran over and apologized, did he? Nothing says hypocrite and panderer quite like an apology made in private for an attack made in public. Maybe McCain will apologize to Rumsfield, or… maybe he already has. In private.

Some of McCain’s colleagues in the Senate said they believe Rumsfeld will eventually support the GOP candidate. “He will be for him in due time,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said. … Rumsfeld’s vote will be for McCain, Thune surmised, because “he cares about the country’s national security.”

Yeah sure, McCain really really cares about the country’s national security, you can tell by his plan to close GITMO because after all, closing GITMO and bringing terrorists here into the United States prison system will do so much for the country’s national security. Sure, why not give these hardened and experienced terrorists a captive audience made up of angry, violent, hate-filled American citizens and the opportunity to recruit and train and initiate them into Jihad. It will only make us safer, right?

McCain has been remarkably consistent on the closing of Guantanamo, and other issues dealing with the upcoming gelding and defanging of the United States; embracing our new paradigm of advertised harmlessness.

Let’s just call this what it is: A religion. It’s based on mountains of faith, and on not so much as a molehill of anything else. There is no evidence — anywhere in human history! — that this will have a beneficial effect on anything. What happens to the guy who goes trolling for dates, showing off how harmless he is and how he totally respects the object(s) of his affection? He sleeps alone, of course. What happens to the father who shows his children how harmless he is? They disrespect him, disobey him, and grow up to be hoodlums. What happens when he showcases his harmlessness to his wife? He gets divorced and loses everything he owns. What happens when the justice system shows how harmless it is? Crime goes up. What happens to countries with harmless systems of national defense? They get invaded and conquered. And on the list goes…

I’ll simplify Goldwater’s wisdom for today: Harmlessness is not a virtue. Period.

What’s really flawed about this “harmlessness is virtuous if it’s advertised” religion, is that it is lacking a deity. That’s a terminal defect, you know. There needs to be an authority sitting in judgment of us in order to determine what incredibly good people we are, for having closed down Guantanamo. Step One, we close it down…Step Two, ???????? says “look what they did, they’re wonderful people”…Step Three, we get more popular, and in this way our interests are served. Good karma — but — for that to work, you need to fill in the “????????”. There’s no way around it. Now, who’s performing that adjudication? Osama bin Laden? Earth-Mother Gaea? “Most” people around the world? This is where it breaks down…none of those wash.

So over the next four and a half months, I’ll be instructed to believe, many more times, that McCain deserves my vote because it’s better to ally with The Devil You Know than with The Devil You Don’t. And that is my retort: All these people who say so, smart as they may be in other matters, simply don’t know this Devil You Know. As LindaSOG points out with amusing verbal irony, to place a premium value on our national defense is inconsistent and irreconcilable with wanting to close down Guantanamo to score some prop points with some unnamed deity.

Gee, now that I think on it some more, Obama might be the Devil I Know. McCain’s appeal to conservatism, where he has some, is that he’s a crap shoot as opposed to a sure thing. A crappy crap-shoot.

Posted in Elections, Torture and Civil Liberties and What-Not, Vision for Victory | 3 Comments »

Can’t Have Baby Alex

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

Via Don Surber, via Rick, the latest MoveOn has everything. Weird grin, exploitation of children, promulgation of the strange surreal left-wing myth that parents sign their kids up for service, single Mom, no Dad, quote out of context with a desperate hope that none among the recruited take the time or energy to go research it. And, of course, the fallacious Jean-Luc Picard premise that we can banish war (and crime) forever simply by deciding to. Yay!

How do they make sure all these boxes get checked when they make these? Is it carrots, or sticks. Here’s a bonus for you, your new video whacked all the moles — or — you’re the one who gets whacked, because you missed one.

Here’s McCain’s side of the story vis a vis the hundred-years remark. It includes his complete quote, reproduced here:

…a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

It’s about the United States, and those other countries who have the balls to back us up on this, being a monkey on the back of Al Qaeda. Like salt on a slug. And I find it interesting that MoveOnDotOrg is so resolutely against that idea…more than interesting.

We need to dissect some left-wingers for study sometime. This seems to be such a constant with them — things that they are responsible for deciding, they act like they’re not; and things that they are not responsible for deciding, they act like they are. We can’t have Alex? And that’ll stop all the fighting? Really? Wow.

She’s probably not “Alex’s” real mother, but better than even odds she’s as free to vote as you and me, along with all the dimwits who can’t see anything wrong with what she’s saying.

Posted in Elections, Vision for Victory | 2 Comments »

A Good Flip-Flop For McCain

Monday, June 16th, 2008

Via CDR Salamander, Kathryn Jean Lopez gets the idea from one of her readers:

McCain should flip-flop on ANWR by claiming while meeting with Gov. Palin of Alaska she informed him of the issue at hand in detail(with facts he was ‘previously unaware of or misinformed on’) and combined with Americans now hurting at the ‘pump’ he now sees he should support drilling, blah, blah. Frame it around Energy Independence, make it a national security issue as well as economic and then make sure to include that we can still seek alternative sources while drilling domestically at the same time, etc……this issue has legs and there is nothing the Democrats can do to counter it. Sure it would be a flip-flop but it wouldn’t matter since on this issue the moderates are flip-flopping on it also, it’s a populist issue.

The Republicans, and not only them but the conservatively-inclined, are deeply split over the issue of whether McCain is a worthy candidate. I have consistently been inclined toward the negative on this because I think he’s a backstabber.

This would coax me seriously toward McCain’s side on this thing. Do I speak only for myself? Ah…I don’t think so.

I’m sure those $400-an-hour political consultants say people like me aren’t worth it. They must know something. History shows, however, that when those $400/hr consultants piss in their own boots, they do it right after saying people like me are better enemies than friends. They tell their bosses to go ahead and tick off the conservatives, there’ll be no price to be paid…and then those bosses lose. The record’s pretty consistent.

Just sayin’.

Posted in Elections, Oil & Gas | 1 Comment »

Hottest Ring

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

Dick Durbin and Rachel Lucas are having a minor disagreement about who among us is bound for the hottest ring in hell.

Who’s the hottest ring in hell reserved for?

People who say mean things about Michelle Obama. No, really:

DICK DURBIN: Well, I know Michelle, she’s been my friend, a friend of my wife, for many, many years. She can take it. She can handle herself. She’s a very accomplished person. But I will tell you this: the hottest ring in hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents’ families. And if there are some Republican strategists who think that’t the way to win the election, I think they’re wrong.

Huh. That’s an interesting moral structure, a fascinating window into the mind of someone who apparently misunderstands the concept of “if you go on the campaign trail and say campaign things, you’re gonna get criticized, dumbass.”

You know what I think about when I hear the phrase “hottest ring in hell”? Things like this:

The men who pulled up in three white pickup trucks were looking for Patson Chipiro, head of the Zimbabwean opposition party in Mhondoro district. His wife, Dadirai, told them he was in Harare but would be back later in the day, and the men departed.

An hour later they were back. They grabbed Mrs Chipiro and chopped off one of her hands and both her feet. Then they threw her into her hut, locked the door and threw a petrol bomb through the window.

Because, CALL ME CRAZY, just seems to me that it’s healthy to have some perspective. To maybe spend less time defending Michelle Obama’s tender widdle feewings and more time doing something about truly horrifying issues such as that genocidal psychopath Mugabe. Which by the way, no one is.

Yeah. That.

But I have another question: Why do prominent democrats like Durbin keep talking to dumbasses? By that I mean…his words seem very reasonable, if you have command of some of the information, but not of all of it. Like for example, if you know Michelle Obama’s been criticized by Republicans, but you don’t know about the nasty, vile stuff that has been coming out of her mouth, it would be understandable if you were inclined to pump your fist in the air and yell “Right on, Dick! You da man!”

But if you knew the whole story, you’d know why Rachel’s criticizing him.

This element always seems to be there in democrat speech-making — the lie-by-omission. It’s like, if it isn’t there, they go to some regular meeting and get paddled with a wooden spoon, or it’s their turn to clean the toilet with their toothbrush. Or something.

Who, paying attention to this election, thinks Michelle Obama is all sweetness and light and minding her own business when suddenly these awful Republicans have this nasty stuff to say about her? Who’s he talking to?

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections, The Evil Men Do | No Comments »

D’JEver Notice? VI

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Me quoting me, on March 21st:

The liberal has a proposal. He looks around and sees that we are living in an antagonistic relationship with each other; his proposed idea would put us into a symbiotic one. You spew carbon and are therefore killing the planet. You are keeping the money you make and are denying it to “needed social programs.” You aren’t paying enough tax on your income; your purchases; your gasoline; your tolls. You are killing the Iraqis. You are poisoning the caribou. The oil companies, in turn, are poisoning you. And if you have a gun, it’s just a matter of time before you shoot me with it.

The conservatives are putting out the message that we are already living in a symbiotic relationship. I breathe out and I spew my carbon, it’s a wonderful thing because the trees and plants need the carbon for photosynthesis. Notice that science, on this point, sides with the conservatives. The oil companies supply the gasoline I need to get to work, earn my money and live my life. Hard facts and evidence, here again, side with the conservatives. Furthermore, if the taxes are raised we’re just going to buy less stuff…and if the taxes are raised on the oil companies, they’ll just pass that on to the consumer. Once again: Economic science and historical evidence side with the conservatives.

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

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

Phil Bond of Elk Grove, writing a letter to the Sacramento Bee which appeared this morning:

This fall, voters can choose whether our goals in the Mideast are better served by keeping our troops in Iraq or withdrawing them. But more important, we can choose whether we want four more years of a failed Republican economy, or whether we want Democrats to reverse its course.

Is our economy better or worse than it was seven years ago? Most would say worse. Crude oil futures, for example, are now more than four times higher than they were at the beginning of the Iraq war (2003).

The Republican economy is marked by the following mistaken beliefs:
• War is good.
• Wealth trickles down.
• The free market will take care of itself.
• Business regulation is bad.
• Consumer protection is unnecessary.
• The wealthy deserve tax relief.
• Health care is for those who can afford it.
• The working men and women of America are chumps.

With a Democrat in the White House, and with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, our economy can turn around. We can go from our current record national debt to a more manageable deficit, or maybe even a modest surplus.

The failed Republican economy must be replaced by one that works for all of us. [emphasis mine]

Must be a bitch when Howard Dean’s checks don’t clear, huh Phil? I notice you left the relevant question unasked: When did our economy do a better job of sucking, between seven and two years ago, or between two years ago and now? I mean, that just bubbles up to the top of my cranium when I hear things like “democrat in the White House…filibuster-proof democrat majority in Congress.”

Dude. Gas is up to over four a gallon, plus a good deal more in some parts. You’re making me think of…like…seven eight nine ten. A permanent ceramic plate riveted in place over the 48 states to keep anyone from drilling anywhere, a hundred and ten percent profit tax on anyone who thinks of making any money off oil, and a carbon sin tax to help regulate us little peons into the “correct” behavior.

Is that not the way it works with democrats in charge? If not, then when does this wonderful Nancy Pelosi Marc Foley Congress bring down the gas bill? Ah yes…they aren’t running enough stuff yet. That’s why they suck so much. We need to let them make more bad decisions, then everything will be all wonderful.

Ah, but those words I’ve put in bold, are the ones I think deserve special emphasis: Works for all of us. ALL of us. I’m thinking back on that symbiotic relationship, the one believed-in only by our conservatives…or our conservatives and our moderates, rather.

Our liberals don’t believe in it.

Phil Bond just got done bashing big huge chunks of this “all of us.” The “wealthy,” “those who can afford” health care, Republicans who’ve been running this “failed economy” (especially after the democrats got in to help them run it, which is when it really seems to me to have gone in the crapper, but anyway…). Big oil companies, Republicans, wealthy people — they all need to be taken down a peg in this economy that “works for all of us.” I’m having an Inigo Montoya moment with Mr. Bond on this “all of us” thing. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

Me quoting me, commenting on Rick’s blog (hours before I learned of Phil Bond’s screed in the letters section):

When liberals use the word “everyone” they never mean it. If [the] roar of a motorcycle or boat engine is music to your ears, and your interest is captured when you hear about a new barbeque sauce recipe, you probably don’t exist to them.

In spite of that clear difference — conservatives think we’re already living in a symbiotic relationship, liberals don’t — it still flummoxes and bedazzles me that the liberals I know, who are approachable and genuinely willing to debate things in good faith do see symbiosis as a noble ideal. These, I think, are the good-hearted people being bamboozled by the career politicians and public-relations hacks.

Your democrat-voting guy-in-the-street, so far as I can tell, wants everybody to live in harmony, with common interests.

But he’s everlastingly married to the idea that it simply can’t happen. He says a lot of words to the effect that he’ll always believe it’s possible no matter how discouraging things get. But his actions are the exact opposite. He continues to be shown, year after year, that we are living in a symbiotic relationship with each other — business owners and employees, men and women, blacks and whites, oil providers and oil consumers.

And he refuses to see it. He’ll pick a solution to our problems, either through multiple-choice, cheer-this-guy-boo-that-guy — or, he’ll put a solution into his own words. Through it all, there’s always a whole class of bad people, who need to be bashed.

Very often, how this helps someone is left unstated — the stated part, is what injures someone else. We’re going to regulate and tax those oil companies………yeah? And? Well, that’ll be good for everyone else. Don’t ask me why. You shouldn’t wonder. It should just be assumed.

He’ll insist this is in service of a society, or economy, or brand new zeitgeist, that will serve the interests of “all of us.” But all doesn’t mean all. It means the opposite. Logical opposite, not numeric opposite — not “none of us.” I mean, “not all.” The guarantee is that there will be a defined subclass of persons who, by design, are injured. It is an exclusive club of people who are serviced by this new economy; there are membership restrictions involved. THAT is what they mean by “all.”

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections, Oil & Gas, Poisoning Capitalism | 2 Comments »

Kos Hates the Microsoft Spellchecker

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Via Weaselzippers.

Psst, Microsoft? “Obama” is not a misspelling. And suggesting “Osama” is bad form.

Moulitsas’ ranting can be found here.

Speaking of…that guy whose name we’re trying like the dickens not to mention…

It’s interesting that Kos is offended in the exact opposite direction by the end of the Tuesday Midday Open Thread.

Given the dearth of diversity at the Washington Post editorial page, it’s offensive that one of the few women on their pages is this one.

That would be Anne Applebaum, being dutifully taken apart by liberal blog, Sadly, No! Her crime? Asking the question that is the moonbats’ favorite rhetorical this year — is there racism behind every otherwise legitimate complaint about our Messiah? — but pointing it in the wrong direction.

Fred Hiatt’s Concubine Speaks. You Listen.

Republicans have started wracking their brains for clever ways to say, without appearing racist, that Obama’s skin color is a reason not to vote for him. Not so long ago we had Tony Blankley saying that not voting for someone because of their skin color wasn’t bigotry or racism, it was “demographic consciousness.” Now the loathsome Anne Applebaum, a distinguished member of the WaPo editorial board, hits it out of the park with this column where she argues that people shouldn’t vote for Obama because some foreigners are racist.

Permit me a bunny trail here.

Anne Applebaum never said people shouldn’t vote for Obama…not for any reason. Not within this column, in any case. She lays on the accusation good and thick, and carves even-handedly with a double-edged sword insofar as what the political consequences overseas from an Obama presidency; she’s silent on what we ought to do about that.

But — she has accused people of being racists, who aren’t Americans. Kos and Sadly have decided the R-word is to be thrown around this year only to make Obama the next President, and for no other reason, and so they start throwing it at her. Interesting.

This engine which drags us, like a tugboat dragging an aircraft carrier, toward voting for the least qualified candidate by calling us racists if we dare show an ounce of skepticism — it’s an interesting construct, that engine is. It’s a powerful little beast, but it runs hot. Applebaum’s column could be interpreted, reasonably, as an exhortation to vote for Obama because once he gets in we’ll show those racist Europeans that change is in the air and there’s no stopping it. But the hot-running engine chugs away, burning itself out, as all the finger-wagglers start waggling their fingers at each other, feeding on their own.

It brings to mind a comment I made here & there about the supposedly-upcoming Wonder Woman movie. The dormant status of the picture, now, is a direct result of “creative differences” that emerged when it was a moving, vibrant project that enjoyed funding and talent. My idea is, therefore, that the movie will not be made any time soon and probably cannot be made in our current eon. Simply re-designing Wonder Woman’s uniform, let alone re-thinking the more complicated components — what powers does she have, anyway, and are we going to get rid of that invisible jet? — elicits accusations of sexism in all directions, for whatever reason. Another powerful engine running hot, burning itself out before it accomplishes anything.

The real tragedy, of course, is that this creates an environment in which it’s exceedingly difficult for anything to be done except by one of those dreaded white guys. Someone of a designated minority group achieves a position of prominence, and likelihood for better things…and behind him arises a battalion of nanny-do-gooders screeching away, essentially, “Do Everything My Way Or Else You’re A –Ist!” And before anything gets done, they turn on themselves. We saw it with Hillary: You’re a sexist if you point out she’s crying, and you’re a sexist if you tell people it doesn’t matter.

So. Now you’re a racist if you don’t have the word “Obama” loaded into your spellchecker. (I added it to mine weeks ago, so my test with Microsoft Word didn’t get anywhere.)

I think the lesson here is that accusing people of things is a great way to stop something, but a lousy way to keep it going. If you want to get something done, and you’re working with other people to get it done, sooner or later you’re going to have to resign yourself to the idea that some things aren’t going to be done your way. Obama is very promising as a candidate for our next President — even now, you’d be nuts to bet anything against him — but there’s a powerful argument for calling the whole thing for McCain right this very minute. When his own supporters can be counted on to call each other racists any time they disagree on how this-or-that should be done, it becomes a lot like the Wonder Woman movie. A cancellation “due to creative differences” becomes not only easy, but inevitable.

Oh well. Better that kind of stalling-out and seizing-up happen to the Obama candidacy, than to the entire nation.

Now excuse me. I’m going to go run my spellchecker. If you want to accuse me of something, please be gentle.

Posted in Elections, Glad I Learned About This, Obamamania | No Comments »

Good Drama Makes for Poor Policy

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

We have yet another super-creative entertainment type with deplorable judgment in politics. This time, it’s a guy with some real talent, and a penchant for thinking outside of the box and making it pay off…really, really big…

George Lucas has created legendary film heroes like Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones, but the US director says that in real life, his hero is Barack Obama.

Lucas was in Japan on Wednesday to promote his latest film, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” as Obama clinched the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.

“We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama,” Lucas said when asked who his childhood heroes were.

Obama, “for all of us that have dreams and hope, is a hero,” Lucas said.

Not all, George. Not all.

Some of us have the wisdom to sit back and say “well, that’s nice” when we’re promised things…and elevate those who promise up on the pedestal of heroism upon delivery.

If you’re not in our crowd — well, what can I say. I think we’ve just had it played out right in front of our eyeballs, exactly how Jar Jar Binks came to be.

Yoosa hassa fallen from a great height-sa, sir.

Posted in Elections, Movies, Obamamania | No Comments »

Which Is Worse?

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Dominique is challenging readers of Down With Absolutes with the question that has been plaguing the democrat nomination process all year long…and she’s emphatic it doesn’t have anything to do with the election. I have a lot of trouble seeing that, but okay.

Question Of The Day – Sexism vs. Racism

A lot has been made of -isms this primary season. We’ve been having an ongoing, sometimes heated, debate about it in the Marshall household. Which is more prevalent? Are they equally bad? Is one tolerated more than the other? Is one considered more serious than the other? If so, is that a good thing?

I compared that to shooting yourself in the head through the left temple or the right one.

If I’m pressed to answer, I’d have to embark on a thought process that’s just — well, let’s have at it. Okay, I’m hiring for a position, and I can arbitrarily dismiss women from my pool of candidates, or black people. Sooner or later these will both be mistakes, because I’ll run into a competent person otherwise qualified, and dismiss them because of their sex/color. So, uh, I calculate something like…one out of four black guys is qualified, but one out of five women is qualified. So sexism isn’t as bad because I can dismiss more candidates that way without mistakenly pitching out someone who was otherwise qualified.

On the other hand, if more women are applying than black people, maybe it would take me less time to run across the competent woman against whom I’m going to discriminate. So golly. Maybe I should consider becoming a racist instead.

See what I meant about shooting yourself through the right side or left side of your head? Both are irrational and self-destructive. I really don’t want to re-type the following comment, because it kind of makes your head hurt reading it let alone writing it, but it sums it up solidly…

I would suggest that, if there is no intent to select a presidential candidate based on “which-is-worse,” and there is no intent to ignore one or the other as being less serious — the question is completely useless and meaningless.

Note to future generations, in case your textbooks are cleansing this. It is well known in the here & now, that it has become an effective Republican tactic to let this thing play out and hope for it to be played out in the limelight as much as possible.

Feminist activists trying to portray women as having more acute grievances than black people; black people trying to portray themselves has having a better group complaint than women. It’s all about claim on the democrat side of the ballot. Just like Yorkists and Lancastrians fighting over who has a stronger claim to the throne. Jockeying for a coronation based on pity. Complaining. Weakness. Whining.

We’ve carved our way deeply into the longest presidential election in our country’s history, without any prominent democrat saying one word about how the country would be governed should this-or-that democrat be elected — save for:

1. I’ll “negotiate with our enemies”;
2. “Healthcare for everyone”;
3. Blah blah blah something about the “Bush Administration.”

In other words — thanks to a question that happens to be identical to the one Dominique asked, our democrats have shown the very opposite of leadership.

Republicans haven’t been too much better. They’ve noticed their approval ratings have been dipping, and so they have worked their asses off to act more like democrats…which has brought their approval ratings down even more.

Here’s what kills me, though. What’s wrong with discrimination, no matter what kind, is that before you see all the things that make up the person you see the group identity of that person…which is like one page out of a great big book. But the minute we “recognize it” and “treat it as a serious problem” what do we do? — We see people not as people, but as members of groups.

It’s like we promulgate the disease, in hopes of finding a cure.

The pervasiveness question makes me laugh even louder…and more sadly. Someone says “It’s Still Out There” and we’re all just supposed to — whoa boy. We’d better get rid of it!

That’s silly. Just about everyone who would insist “we have to get rid of it” would agree, in this country, you have the right to do stupid things. Well, that’s the thing. When you look at discrimination, that’s what you’re looking at: People doing stupid things. And if they have a right to it, that means it’s going to be around. Forever. It’s a consequence of free will.

You want people making decisions who aren’t serving in Congress — or you want people making decisions who are? Eh…the people who are outside of Congress have a much higher “approval rating” with me, thankyewverymuch. And yeah, I say that as a straight white guy. What of it. People discriminate against me whenever they want to, so yes, I know what I’m talking about.

Posted in Elections, Racial Tension | No Comments »

Neal, You Are A Very Bad Man

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Yes, you are.

Posted in Elections | 2 Comments »

D’JEver Notice? V

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Anger I've Seen From time to time I hear about “angry white males.” It occurs to me that simply requesting some evidence to substantiate this theoretical phenomenon, observed first-hand, is to deal it a devastating blow, especially since probably ninety percent or more of the times I’ve heard this phrase have been since the 1994 elections.

Other than my father and my brother and my son getting mad at me for various reasons…why…thinking back on it, I’d have to say the last angry white male I’ve ever seen was Archie Bunker. Oh, and my fifth grade teacher Mr. Vanderpool got really upset with something one of the other kids did.

These are interesting musings on which to think in 2008. This year is five-twelfths of the way over. And I’ve seen so very much anger — so very, very much anger. The term “angry white male” seems to me to be misplaced right now. I thought it was misplaced in ’94. But it seems even more misplaced now.

What holds my fascination even more than the various directions from which it comes, is where it is sent. Anger I have seen this year is a very pragmatic type of anger. Most of it, one way or another, is connected with the primary victim selection process going on within the democrat party. Who’s the whiniest victim among us? Who should run everything? That the weakest, whelpiest sniveling whine-job should make all the critical decisions, is something on which they’re all agreed…they disagree vehemently on who that is going to be. Black guy. Woman. Black guy. Woman. Back and forth it goes…

Where is all that anger directed? It is pointed at whoever, it seems, is about to win the chief-whiny-democrat sweepstakes, to the annoyance of those showing off the anger. This year, it’s just the same old story over and over again.

And from that, I daresay I’ve seen enough anger over the last five months, to put a big dent in all the anger I’ve seen in all my days previous to that.

Angry white males? Maybe it’s time for a lot of other folks to ask, in unison with me: Where, exactly?

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Elections, Obamamania, TIK 52 | 1 Comment »

A Defense for Obama on the Uncle-Auschwitz Thing

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

It was Buchenwald, and the guy who helped liberate it was Obama’s grandmother’s brother. Which would make him a great-uncle. And it’s quite permissible to refer to great-uncles as uncles.

Out of the woods? Huh. Maybe yes, maybe no. We’ll all have to decide that for ourselves. Unless Obama says we’re not allowed to, which he probably will.

This kind of reminds me of that time Ann Coulter tossed it in one of her books that Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas is the son of Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas — and Al Franken tossed it in one of his books that this isn’t true. Coulter’s a liar. And on that point, started sounding like Henry Rollins…she’s a liar! Liar! Liar, liar, liar!

And then it went ’round the liberal jungle telegraph…Coulter’s a liar, she said Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas when he isn’t! Liar!

Just like Bill Clinton’s friends being sent out to say he didn’t have sex with that woman…they went out to do a whole bunch of in-your-face arguing, knowing not what they were talking about.

Evan is Norman’s grandson. By the second or third printing, Coulter had the five letters inserted that were needed to correct the record.

So I’m just sitting back with a silly grin on my face, wondering how spirited of a defense all these “Coulter’s a liar!” types are going to afford Barack Hussein “He Meant Buchenwald And You Know It And You Should Silently Correct Him As He Goes Along Just Like I am” Obama.

Posted in Elections | No Comments »

Hawkins Joins the Vote Wasters

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

Or writers-inners. Or the ham-radio-on-election-nighters. Really, I don’t know what you call us. I know the anti-liberals who disagree with us, should probably be called nose-pluggers — those who insist “this election is so important” and look at Candidate McCain as a half-a-loaf offering of Reagan-style conservatism, at least on some of the issues. And I know this is a heady, divisive issue…and oh so important.

What you call people like me, who are on the other side of the divide, whom Hawkins just joined (H/T: Karol), I don’t know. I’ll think on it.

But I can tell he’s put a lot of thought into this, his arguments are sound, and I know they make a lot of sense because they’re the ideas I already had. Simply put, McCain’s value as a candidate would be that he can talk to people who have my priorities, reassure them that he’s going to do things a certain way, and then go off and talk to people with different priorities — and we’d have some genuine confidence that he’d stick to his guns. Even if those people with different priorities had a quid pro quo for McCain that he desperately wanted.

And McCain is extraordinarily weak in that department. I haven’t seen anyone showing this kind of character defect to such a problematic extent since Bill Clinton. It’s like McCain has been studying his playbook. I’ve never understood people who supported Clinton — I’ve always thought as much as I resented his natural talent for acquiring more and more authority and power, I would resent it so much more if Clinton took some more positions I found acceptable. I mean, that would put me in such a spot. Clinton says what I like, I say “okay that sounds good, you’ve got my vote” and then Clinton has lunch with this guy or drinks with that guy or a meeting with that other guy…then what?

That’s the problem I’m having with McCain. Sure he says what I want to hear sometimes. He says it because it’s what I, and millions of others, want to hear. But that doesn’t mean very much, I’m afraid. It just tells me when he does one thing, he finds it easy to talk in the opposite direction later. And that isn’t giving me the reassurance for which I’m looking.

GOP 2.0 I’m sidebar-ing that GOP 2.0 thing because it’s an idea whose time has come. How much evidence do we have, that the great mass of this nation’s ideological consensus is far, far, far away from what is represented this year by our presidential candidates. To borrow a phrase from our global warming and evolution-as-fact-in-school afficionados…the evidence is simply overwhelming. Except on this issue — it really is.

I have a special handicap in the science-or-skill of figuring out what “everyone” is thinking. But I can look around and see things for myself. And I see…

The idea that a typical war protester is motivated to “support the troops by bringing them home NOW!” is a thoroughly worn-out cliche that labors under far more skepticism than faith.

Radical feminism, the kind that mixes genuine hatred of men with only skin-deep egalitarian desires of “equal pay for equal worth” is still failing to achieve widespread support — which it desperately wants.

President Bush’s approval ratings were moderately high, and are now extremely low; what tends to go unmentioned, is that he governed conservatively when his ratings were high and he governs as a liberal now when his approval ratings are low.

Said presidential approval ratings, which now by all accounts show a persistent weight that keeps them anchored at bargain-basement levels…are stratospherically high compared to our hardcore liberal, left-wing, Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid “Marc Foley congress.”

Gas prices are going through the roof but, although you know there are some left-wing power brokers who’d piss rusty nickels if they thought they could get it to stick, you don’t hear a lot of “buzz” out there trying to blame it on “Bush and his oil buddies” like you did six or seven years ago in the wake of the Enron scandal.

I’m not hearing an awful lot about our “illegal and unjust war” anymore either.

Every six months or so, Hollywood trots out another movie that bashes America. It flops.

In my lifetime, in fact in a tiny piece of my lifetime, I have seen the gun control debate swivel away from a hotly debated issue with passionate opinions on both sides, to a Done Deal. You don’t do gun control now. You keep it if you’ve already got it…maybe…if you’re an exceptionally frenzied and partisan left-winger, living in an exceptionally frenzied and partisan left-wing territory. Otherwise no. That wasn’t true twenty years ago but it is definitely true now.

Let us not forget the above-referenced global warming movement. Wherever it presents itself as an effort to save the planet, it doesn’t do so for very long; I infer that is because people wouldn’t labor onward for too long accepting it in that form. Public service announcements use “save the env-eye-row-ment” for all of two or three seconds as an attention-grab, which is all it is…and the other 27 seconds dissolve into a gooey puddle of “oh and besides, our service/widget/plan will save you MONEY!” Money. The propaganda is that we’re all trembling in fear that our planet will burn out and become uninhabitable in a decade, and a third grader should be able to tell you in that scenario money isn’t going to hold a lot of interest for people. Our politicians believe in the Global Warming Boogeyman; I don’t think “real people” do. At all.

Skimpy Outfit, With Gun. Yummy. Lastly, there’s the stuff a blogger just plain knows. I write up hundreds of posts a year, and I get back traffic response on each and every one. You know what people really like? Pictures of girls in skimpy outfits…and then, after that, a whole bunch of other right wing stuff. Guns. Tasty dead animals dripping with barbeque sauce. Wounded warriors.

That’s significant, because this blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, is not ideologically-neutral when we say nice things about wounded (and as-yet thankfully whole) warriors. We show them genuine respect — respect for the choices they have made, as well as for the service they have provided. In other words, when we speak of the military here, we speak of it as if our nation has a genuine requirement to have one. Not to provide free or discounted educational benefits to people who are willing to go to boot camp and put on a uniform, or to deliver food and medicine to poor folks under the banner of the United Nations, but to do military stuff. Kill people and break things. Provide our country with the vigorous and deadly defense, when it’s necessary, that our country deserves.

So…welcome to our side of the wall, Mister Hawkins. That wall which divides the nose-pluggers and the vote-wasters. Speaking for myself, the possibility exists that I might jump the other way and become a nose-plugger before November — you can’t pressure someone to “do things my way” while you’re simultaneously guaranteeing “that’s it, you dun made me mad, now I’ll never, ever, ever vote for you.” But we’ve certainly been consistent in our position in these parts, that the candidate who truly represents America, has not yet been offered (or, rather, is no longer in the race). So on our ballot, we’re going to vote for whoever manages to drum up genuine confidence that he’ll represent our interests and values faithfully. If that’s a name we have to write in, then that’s a name we have to write in.

As far as picking a guy, and holding out hope that “our guy” is going to “get in there”…that ship sailed a long time ago. I don’t like saying it at all, but there it is.

Posted in Elections | 1 Comment »

Not Even Original

Monday, May 19th, 2008

Not Original Gerard noticed that Tony Puryear “doesn’t even try to create original bullshit,” calling his work “Too little. Too late. Too derivative.” The question is, derivative of what. Commenter Len astutely noticed (#1), in his own words, “This brings back memories of a Chairman Mao poster.” And that’s what I was thinking. The beams of radiance emanating from from the illustrious cranium of Chairman Hill. There must be something about wanting to control the lives of millions of others, that makes your head glow in the dark; or shoot out ray beams, or something.

Is it the extreme height of intelligence that makes one uniquely qualified to be a communist stooge? What happens if they look right at the camera, does something come out their eyes? Is it really hard for them to play hide-and-go-seek in the dark?

Yes, the more I think on it, the more I’m sure I’ve seen something like this before:

Is this what Puryear had in mind?

You know, I don’t imagine it very much matters. I got busy with my ramshackle Photoshop-lite tools, and slapped together a subtle enhancement to Puryear’s work, which I feel quite confident would meet the approval of Her Hillaryness in these closing days of her presidential bid.

And Chairman Mao, too, for that matter.

Posted in Elections, Nanny State Crap, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Three and Five Word Slogans

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

I voiced my displeasure at the Republican party’s new four-word slogan, “The Change You Deserve,” by coming up with ten alternatives of equal length. As is always the case, I find a rigid word count to be a confining yoke on my creative process, but a word limit has a place. So, since I didn’t think too highly of some of my four-word slogans, I thought I’d try on a three-word limit and then a five-word limit, and see if I could come up with some better ones.

Three word slogans for the GOP that I know:

1. Don’t Be Timid
2. English Is Good
3. Defense Over Popularity
4. Show Some Grit
5. Because Humans Matter
6. God Bless America
7. For The Proud
8. Live Without Apologizing
9. Don’t Tolerate Intolerance
10. Honor Their Sacrifice

And, the five-word candidates:

1. Don’t Be Stuck On Stupid
2. Appeasement Has Already Been Tried
3. We’re Worth A Vigorous Defense
4. We’re All In This Together
5. Don’t Burn Food For Fuel
6. Because We Don’t Have “Superdelegates”
7. Buy. Sell. Emit. Live Freely.
8. You Are Not A “Collective.”
9. This Country Is Already Great
10. Loyalty To Fellow Citizens First

Posted in Elections, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Possible Solution to a Vexing Problem

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

Hmmm yeah, I gotta vote for somebody, and none of the three democrats running for President represent my values. Less than six months left to make up my mind. I could write in my own name, but I don’t know if the nation’s ready for me.

And just like that, a solution presents itself. I’ll give it some thought.

Posted in Elections | 2 Comments »

Republican Campaign Slogan

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Michelle Malkin is apoplectic (H/T: Alan), and rightly so in my opinion, over the Republicans’ new campaign slogan:

The Change You Deserve.

Four words, huh?

I nominate some replacements:

10. Think Like An Adult
9. Action Over Empty Talk
8. Keep America Socialism-Free
7. Introduce Them To Allah
6. It’s Not 1992 Anymore
5. The Victory America Deserves
4. They’re Still Out There
3. Because Americans Aren’t Subjects
2. Fix The Intellectual Climate

And my #1 nominee for a four-word campaign slogan, for the Republican party I know…

1. Balls Have A Place

Update 5/15/08: Rick appreciates our list and echoes our sentiments.

Alan has another four-word alternative that I think is pretty darn good:

Don’t Fear The Future.

Posted in Elections | 2 Comments »

Fred Thompson on Judges

Saturday, May 10th, 2008

Also via Pajamas Media.

Posted in Elections, Glad I Learned About This | No Comments »

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

Eliminationism

This Is Good LII

He’s Tired, They’re Tired

The Rules for democrats and Republicans

Let’s Make the 2008 Elections About THIS…

Borrowing the Playbook

To Avoid STDs, One Should Avoid democrats

Becky Has a Girl Crush on Sarah Palin

Ann Coulter, Nose-Plugger?

How to Talk to an Obama Cultist

democrats’ Message

Helping to Highlight JohnJ’s Point

Memo For File LXII

Know The Devil You Know

Can’t Have Baby Alex

A Good Flip-Flop For McCain

Hottest Ring

D’JEver Notice? VI

Kos Hates the Microsoft Spellchecker

Good Drama Makes for Poor Policy

Which Is Worse?

Neal, You Are A Very Bad Man

D’JEver Notice? V

A Defense for Obama on the Uncle-Auschwitz Thing

Hawkins Joins the Vote Wasters

Not Even Original

Three and Five Word Slogans

Possible Solution to a Vexing Problem

Republican Campaign Slogan

Fred Thompson on Judges