Some random web application off the innerwebs just notified me that my mini notebook was in dire danger of being infected with malware. You know, I agree with that. It gave me this nice pop-up window graciously offering to do a hard drive scan for free.

Folks, I’m thinking back to the events of earlier this week, when the DoD finally stopped hounding those three brave men. The time has come for the law we need. And we do really, really need this law. I don’t think we’re going to get anything like it until we reform something in a major kind of way:

For every year the DoD, or the DoJ merely threatens to impose on a peace officer or a military officer for doing bad things to a bad guy — “roughed up a detainee,” “gave a fat lip to a suspect,” et cetera. I want to see seven years of hard time handed down in a sentence to a convicted author of computer malware. I want that codified as a hard quota. To be reconciled at the end of every government fiscal year. With penalties for falling short of it.

Until this happens, I am going to assume the people who wield the power in our country, are the people who don’t do any real work. I’m going to assume these people, right down to the last man/woman, barely know how to turn the fucking thing on. I’m going to assume their priorities are cockeyed because they think a computer is something you use to watch the Hamster Dance, to watch porn, and to look at your own “wall” on the Hello-Kitty-of-Bloggin’. And this is why they don’t know “computer malware” from their own assholes. And so long as they continue to harass the brave men and women who are in the hot spot only because they did what was necessary to protect the country — much more often than not, having been put there under orders, not having specifically volunteered for the mission itself, only for the initial enlistment — I am going to assume the people in power are filthy communists and we need a Joe McCarthy like we’ve never needed one before.

That’s what I’m going to assume until things are done the way I want them done. I’m going to lose respect for ’em every day between this one and that one. Case closed.

Computer malware authors — making license plates, doing prison laundry, turning big rocks into little rocks, being roommate-Bubba’s bitch. Also, the Guantanamo “detainee” should have the same “recourse” that I have against the IRS; which is to say, the system is innocent-’til-proven-guilty, with them it’s the other way around.

Point me to the candidate who will make these into realities, and I will donate some hard money. Show me his or her war chest. I will make it jingle with something shiny. But if we must have wink-wink nod-nod slap-on-wrist justice, let us deliver it to those most deserving of it.

Oppugn.us: Where The Rants Go.

Now, for years I’ve kind of felt sorry for Microsoft. They’re perceived as being bumbling idiots in the tech world but honestly compared to many of their competitors they probably produce more interesting and better tech. For example, what OS has Google created? From scratch? Multiple times? What programming languages has Google created? What virtual machine did they create? How many hardware platforms runs that OS they actually didn’t make? How many applications run on that OS they didn’t make?

Exactly. When it comes down to it, Microsoft kicks the shit out of Google in the “hardcore tech shit” department, but they never get credit for it. Google is the classic post-modern tech company, borrowing and stealing anything that ain’t nailed down barely making anything new on their own. Microsoft at least makes a large amount of its own tech, and don’t give me that shit about a few things they bought or that one video company they screwed.

Via blogger friend Gerard‘s Tumblr account KA-CHING!.

Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Twenty-eight principles that changed the world.

Newsbusters, via Sister Toldjah.

Update: A Tennessee classic. It’s much closer than the Beatles hit in the video above, about 180 miles off the bulls-eye. And more appropriate to the theme, I think. Sorrow, hope, regrets maybe, some grief, and a yearning for life to return to normal.

I have the opinion that I look really, really bad in a white tee shirt and I will still look really bad if I ever get a torso like Mr. Universe. Something about it is just awful. Otherwise, I’d snap this puppy up in a great big hurry.

Well, FrankJ has come up with yet more slogans for the democrat party and if you missed them, you missed a lot:

Iran can have nukes, but you can’t have salt.
:
You still have your freedoms; we just get to tell you how to use them.
:
We’ll take the power and the money, you do the work.
:
Aggressively useless.
:
Government like the Founders envisioned: Dimwitted, entitled lawyers spending all your money.

I like my idea best though, the one in the headline of this post.

Not good. I personally think it’s a mistake. Not only that, but I have money tied up in Sarah Palin and I have money tied up in Chuck DeVore, too.

I see fellow Blogs-For-Palin blog Conservatives4Palin put up a post telling us this was the right choice to make. Could be, but I gotta tell ya Mr. Lazaran: I read that Palin Facebook entry from top to bottom. I didn’t see one single thing about Carly Fiorina that wasn’t also true of Chuck DeVore. And that remains true of your entry as well. Yes, I’m including the “Carly can beat Barbara Boxer” thing in that.

But I see it as a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of whatever movement Palin is trying to get going here, is a long-overdue one — what will ultimately be a successful one — in which the nation pulls its head out of its butt. It’s gonna happen; it’s happened many times before. It’s clockwork. Every sixteen years we put the kiddies in charge, then when the damage is done we pull our head out of our butt. It becomes an inevitability when we cannot afford the consequences of childlike thinking being invested with real power.

Why did Palin do this? Maybe her rationale is that the movement is more likely to succeed, if it creates a good-ol’-boy network of its own. That’s the trouble with rebellions. Sooner or later they have to be organized, somewhat; and in order to organize they have to germinate an inconsistency with their basic philosophical purpose which is to rebel. If they aren’t purely anarchist movements and they really have something to say, they have to eventually confront this dichotomy (sometimes it happens even if they have nothing to say).

Given that reality, the time might be right to rally behind an “establishment rebel” and maybe that’s Fiorina. But if this decision was supposed to have been about retaining pull-the-nation’s-head-outta-its-butt principles, then this one was a dud. DeVore’s credentials are superior, and if the choice was mine it would just come down to just that.

There is another possibility behind what Palin did here, a really ugly one: Perhaps she sees her history-making wave of support as a revolution of females, and her mandate as one of “Put the girls in charge of everything no matter what.” In other words, maybe she sees her support from brutish males like me as a gesture of resignation. Screw it, let’s let the chicks handle everything. Sonia Sotomayor said it best: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” Let me be blunt: If our newest associate justice isn’t smart enough to see what’s wrong with that, I think Palin is. But after yesterday’s letdown I’d like to see some evidence.

Palin supporters deserve no less. A large number among us have donated our time and money specifically for the purpose of defeating the scourge of identity politics. Or at least trying to.

Leon de Winter writes in Pajamas Media:

It is fascinating to see how the authorities and the major media outlets avoid the words “Islam” and “Muslim” in connection to the failed Times Square bombing. In both this piece in Time and in this piece in the New York Times the word “Islam” is only used in the name of the city of Islamabad in Pakistan.

The Times uses the word “Muslim” once: “At his news conference, Mr. Bloomberg warned against any backlash against Pakistanis or Muslims in New York, saying, ‘We will not tolerate any bias.’”

The authorities — Holder, Napolitano, New York Police Commissioner Kelly — also avoided the words Islam and Muslim at their press conference. They spoke about “terrorism” but didn’t define the term.

So what kind of terrorist is Faisal Shahzad if he cannot be called a Muslim or an Islamic terrorist?

A CNN anchor said about the Pakistani-American suspect: “It can be confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family.”

Could this suspect be described as the “foreclosure terrorist”? As a true believer in the American dream and owning his own home, Faisal Shahzad had to act against the banks which foreclosed his property. If that is the case, why didn’t he park his SUV closer to Wall Street? If he was angry about losing his house, why didn’t he try to blow up his bank? Times Square doesn’t make sense for a foreclosure terrorist.

NewsBusters has more on that loopy news anchor guy, Jim Acosta:

Acosta remarked on Shahzad’s familial difficulty at the end of an interview of Brenda Thurman, one of the suspect’s former neighbors, which began 47 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour. During the interview, the CNN personality, who was filling in for anchor John Roberts, asked Thurman about her foreclosure claim: “What sense did you get from the family? I mean, you just said a few minutes ago, I think- that it’s pretty significant that this house that he apparently owned was foreclosed on in Shelton, Connecticut….Did you get a sense from the family as to- I mean, that must have been extremely difficult on them.”

Yeah Jim. Well, that doesn’t quite seem to square with this other compilation of Norman-Rockwell tearjerker events from ABC. See, they were going after the “he seemed so normal just a little bit quiet” angle…and they went and found some facts that are at odds with your narrative.

According to a next-door neighbor who asked not to be named, Shahzad’s behavior began to change and he became frightening.

“He was always in black, creeping around the house in all black,” she said to ABC News.

She said Shahzad’s wife gave her bracelets from Pakistan and their girls played together, but then suddenly in May 2009 they were gone.

Shahzad gave different reasons for why they were leaving, neighbors said: a baby was on the way, he had to take care of family, and even that they were moving to Missouri.

One thing seems for certain, according to authorities, just two months after gaining his citizenship he vanished into Pakistan.

With his departure, the house in Shelton fell into foreclosure and when Shahzad returned to America two months ago, authorities say the life of promise was gone.

Shazhad allegedly moved alone to Bridgeport, Conn., on a mission of destruction.

That facts still trickling in, so far as I’ve been able to learn about them, consistently support a conclusion that Faisal Shahzad abandoned the American Dream rather than the other way around. And that his family was already long-gone.

Real people who have to get real work done, have to think about things a certain way. Our media has thought about this thing the exact opposite way, and our so-called “leaders” have followed suit…or perhaps it’s the other way around. It’s like they come from a whole different planet.

This is just sick.

So is this.

And this.

And there’s more to follow, you can be sure of that. But of the bigotry that has already taken place, we should all feel deeply ashamed for having tolerated it. There’s no excuse for it, and it reflects poorly on all of us.

These are our most authoritative leaders and our loudest voices. They speak for our society. And what they have to say is: We don’t tolerate bigotry, but we define bigotry according to certain skin colors, and in so doing exercise it even as we claim to oppose it. Our minds are made up about things before we learn anything about anything, and we’re too good for facts.

Foreclosure terrorist? Eh, sorry; still doesn’t seem very likely. The more we learn, the more it seems this “citizen” “homeowner” “MBA” guy decided to declare war on America, moved out, and then…well, why would you continue to make payments to one of the Great Satan’s banks?

And so he and his family were placed in a deep funk because of the foreclosure? Mmmm…not so much, Mr. Acosta. But nice try.

As for the rest of you — don’t quit watching CNN or MSNBC just yet! Keep getting your news from there. Wouldn’t want your “moderate” left-wing friends, family and neighbors to think poorly of you after you’ve gone & gotten ahold of some real facts and made up your own mind about things. Your social status might suffer. Who cares if it’s all feelings & made-up nonsense, right? It sounds a lot like what our officials are saying all day every day…so there must be some legitimacy in it somewhere, even if there isn’t a grain of truth to it.

Steve Hayward in National Review Online:

Judging from the triumphant tone of the e-mails I’m getting from indignant environmentalists about the oil spill in the Gulf, I’d have to say they are having the most fun since the ExxonValdez. After all, the greens were slowly losing ground to expanded domestic oil and gas production, and now they have a catastrophe to reinvigorate their philosophy of No. As many have observed, this spill is the Three Mile Island/Chernobyl of offshore drilling, and will likely set back further offshore drilling for decades, unless we find out there was some truly extraordinary human error, negligence, or unprecedented equipment failure. Even sabotage wouldn’t get Big Offshore Oil off the hook; after the 1984 chemical catastrophe in Bhopal, India, was determined to have been an act of sabotage, the political hysteria over chemical plants was unabated.

What is clear is that the overall risk of environmental harm will likely increase from the reaction to this. Why? In the first place, it means we’ll import more oil — by tanker.

There’s something wrong about environmentalists becoming emboldened, gleeful, feelin’ their oats — when an environmental disaster takes place.

Why was an Asian-American student beaten up by black students?

Thomas Sowell would like to know.

Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian American population who, for most of their history in this country, have not had enough clout to prevent themselves from being discriminated against.

While ugly racial or ethnic conflicts can seldom be explained by rational economic or other self-interest, they have been too common to be just inexplicable oddities– whether in America or in other countries around the world, and whether today or in centuries past.

Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.

The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.

That’s a heavy thought: That the animosity doesn’t come from people being different, it might come from people being similar. As in, sharing similar circumstances on an outta-the-gate basis…and caught trying to make themselves better through hard work. Thereby turning up the pressure on the others. Crabs in a bucket.

More and more, it seems the “R” word is being used as a mask of sorts; a disguise for crabs-in-a-bucket syndrome. And Sowell makes a great point about this particular attack, you can’t argue that it’s any kind of retaliation against historical wrongs. Not unless you know something I don’t know.

A dastardly idea of The Other McCain.

Hat tip to Bob Belvedere.

I like the look of this. It’s freedom. And I got a gut feel that the folks who are going to contribute the best ideas for this noble effort, around here, are going to be the females.

I would hope the best ideas are going to be the ones that have to do with fun. Wait until a feminist is anti-fun…which isn’t much waiting at all…and then be pro-fun.

Ideas? You can get them at my favorite spot for collecting samples of rancid feminist bile.

I’m not completely clueless about all these things. But being able to explain something is a different thing from knowing about it. I just hope, in the decades to come, nobody comes askin’…I do not consider these things easily explained…

1. Timothy Geithner getting his job.
2. Timothy Geithner keeping his job.
3. Liberals putting up with people who say we need more abortions to take place. They seem to think the Watergate burglary is the ultimate evil. Do they realize it’s much more evil to want more abortions to take place? Don’t they understand that’s more evil than a billion Watergates?
4. The whole global warming thing was exposed and disgraced in the third quarter of 2009. By 2010 we still have some people talking seriously about it.
5. President Obama keeps saying all these socialist things. Nobody’s been able to supply a good logical explanation for what socialists are supposed to do and say, that He hasn’t done or said. Why is there any disagreement, anywhere, that He is one?
6. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998: If tobacco is that bad for people, why not just ban it?
7. Avatar. James Cameron started writing this in 1994? He spent fifteen years writing it? Writing what, exactly?
8. Health Care. Barack Obama didn’t write it. Everyone knows He didn’t write it. He told Congress to come up with something with “health” and “care” in the title, and He’d sell whatever it is. Everyone saw Him do this. It was an act of salesmanship and nothing else.
9. Apple. Are people seriously pretending they have some idea what these products do, before they buy ’em?
10. Traffic lights that aren’t synchronized. Why do we still have those? How come some of them make me sit there, idling, for two or three minutes, maybe more? Global warming? I thought we were supposed to be really concerned about it?
11. The View. Fox and Friends. All that stuff; what is the appeal of watching people pretending to drink coffee around a table?
12. Men wearing clothes that are too big for them. Why do you want to look like a little boy wearing his dad’s clothes?
13. Californians and weather. Why can’t they drive in it?
14. Pants that sag. Who wants to see someone’s butt crack? How come people who expect to run away from cops, wear pants that are wholly unsuitable for this purpose?
15. Bill Maher. He’s the best that cable teevee could find huh?
16. Bond, James Bond? Everybody loves him, men and woman, across the generations? Most profitable movie franchise ever? And a typical special-effect is a car crashing or a guy getting shot…nothing really expensive like a spaceship blowing up or a vampire turning into a bat…how come it’s so much trouble to get ’em made?
17. What Gerard calls Vaginism and Fai Mao calls Womynism: Feminism sees a gender disparity that has to do with stature or privilege, feminism works overtime to eradicate it; feminism sees one that has to do with assuming responsibility for things, feminism leaves it alone.
18. Opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Four years earlier there was universal agreement this guy was a bastard and the sooner we were rid of him, the better. And then, taking him out was an ultimate act of pure evil? People want to pretend they were thinking about this independently, really?
19. Hollywood continuing to pump out America-bashing anti-military movies that everybody hates, and that don’t make any moolah.
20. The First Lady is still considered “off limits” even when she attacks people.
21. Schools cannot spank kids anymore. Schools cannot yell at kids anymore. Schools cannot put kids on the spot, or pressure them in any way. In short, schools cannot give kids any incentive whatsoever to pay attention to anything. A new disorder is invented called “Attention Deficit Disorder”; diagnoses freakin’ skyrocket. Nobody makes a connection?
22. Hope and Change? That was enough to get Him elected? Seriously? Heartbeat of Stupid? We may have to become mature enough to learn some things, but for heaven’s sake, we can still write things down.
23. We had a budget deficit, and these new entitlements were supposed to close it up? Really? From where, pray tell, did people think the money was supposed to come?
24. No long form birth certificate? Not before the inauguration, not after? Nobody insisted on it?
25. Ted Kennedy was “The Conscience of the Senate”??
26. Rahm Emmanuel gets caught saying “never let a crisis go to waste.” And then…for months afterward, years even…his boss continues to stuff His speeches chock-full of the word “crisis.” Nobody says anything about it? And He still wants to do this? For all that time?
27. Sandra Bullock. She makes this movie guys love called “Demolition Man.” She makes another movie guys love called “Speed.” She becomes a superstar…then makes a zillion and one movies chicks love that bore the guys to tears. Then she makes a zillion more.
28. Affirmative Action. We make a national holiday out of the birthday of one single man who said we should judge each other by the content of our character not by the color of our skin. Clue?
29. Paul Krugman. Joe Biden. If you were to make a list of gentlemen who’ve been wrong about things, you’d have those two pegged at the top…with a big, big gap before you get to third place. People still listen to ’em?
30. Horatio Caine. My God, what a joke. Does anybody think this guy looks cool just because he talks like he has strep throat and keeps whipping his sunglasses off?
31. Tomagucci toys. Wouldn’t this be a big red flag to the parents, that the kid needs more chores?
32. Couples walking around on the weekends, with the guy showing off his legs and the woman covering hers up. Sick.
33. Little tiny dogs being carried around in purses. What’s the dog going to do to the purse? Shit and piss in it, of course. How expensive is the purse? Gawdawfully. Cheap purses are never used for this purpose. Who’s paying for all this?
34. Joe McCarthy was on a hunt for communists? That made him a bad guy? Because of something called “guilt by association”? This was a bad idea? How?
35. Speaking of McCarthy: The Venona papers came out, and then we still made fun of people who said so-and-so was a communist spy…after it was proven so-and-so was, in fact, a communist spy. You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
36. Iran going nuclear. We let this happen?
37. We were opposed to racial bigotry, and we kept Franklin Roosevelt’s face on the dime for all that time?
38. Before the United Nations, wars ended in decisive victories; after them, they ended in periods of peace so tenuous, so fragile, they might as well not have ended at all. Somehow, we still let the U.N. negotiate things? Why?
39. Politicians telling whistle-stop lies in the age of YouTube. Why do they think they won’t get caught? How did they get as far as they did, telling lies that are so many decades behind the technology?
40. Gay couples told us we had to recognize gay marriage, and if we didn’t we were somehow prohibiting them from loving each other? We bought into that, really? Why?
41. Labor unions. How come after all those years, we still let them make decisions about things?
42. You people thought you’d be so inspirational to future generations, and yet you let Obama shut down the manned space exploration? Without rioting? Seriously?
43. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009…plus George W. Bush’s Act of 2008. They were tried, they failed. Why did anybody ever utter a syllable in support of such plans from that moment forward?
44. All the rage directed at Richard Nixon. He ran for President on a platform of: The hippies are taking over the country and I’m going to stop it. Then, the hippies got mad at him for not representing them. He got caught lying, breaking the law, obstructing justice. Thought himself entitled to special privileges. But what made him more contemptuous than a typical congressman?
45. The wire-work fad in action movies. If you want to be dazzled by a physical feat that is so awesome that it isn’t even possible, that’s what cartoons are for isn’t it?
46. Obama is thought to be a healer of divisions, an agent of hope and a reminder of responsibility; He is thought to be engaged in a process of getting other countries to like us. If you read over His transcripts, you see He does not say healing, hopeful or responsible things. He does things that inspire other countries to giggle at us, and find out how much they can get out of us, but not to like us.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

We were watching this again and realized it’s even more funny and poignant than it was two years ago.

Laugh or cry?

“I know what’s best, you haven’t a clue…”

Caulfield uploaded this comment to Cassy’s blog and I thought it was pure gold.

I don’t know why Arizonans would want to protect their citizens from Mexican drug cartel violence, safeguard the public treasury, or prevent the strain on their already choked social services. I mean, not doing that has done wonders for LA! That movie, American Me, I want to recreate that in my city. Yes!

I have no idea why they’d want to enforce the laws that have been on the books since the USA formed or why they’d be mad at the Feds for not doing their jobs of securing our borders. Arizonans are racists, red-neck, bigoted, right-wing conspiracists for wanting to protect the quality of life of LEGAL immigrants already living here. What’s up with that? They should enjoy picking up the 2 million tons of trash the illegals leave strewn across our lands as they make their way north because they always have beautiful, sunny skies.

Did you know that asking for someone’s citzenship papers is the equivalent of slaughtering 7 million Jews in Nazi Germany. If you didn’t, then you’re not reading the main-stream, unbiased, good-intentioned media. Get with the program, Comrades! Read the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Post, or any newspaper that feeds off of them. It will really educate you and keep you from losing your public education indoctrination.

Why not let the entire world into this country, starting with Haiti, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Yemen — oh, and don’t forget a few “mainstream” Castro-loving Cubans. I’m sure the freedom-loving Cubans already living in Miami who hate Castro won’t mind. Let’s blow taxpayers’ money overseas by sending travel vouchers to the Middle East so they can fly to Mexico and come across the border. Can’t we all just get along? If we just sat down and negotiated with them, all war, poverty and disease would end and Obama could save us all.

After their amnesty, they’ll vote Democrat in order to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing freely and keep Democrats in power. What’s so wrong about that? That stuff going on in Greece — riots, protest. Yeah, I like that. Let’s get some of that. After all, we’re no longer a Republic. We’re a dictatorship. Just ask the folks who passed healthcare with the Slaughter House Rules, instead of abiding by the will of the people. If you can’t afford health insurance, you should be jailed or fined by IRS agents, so there will be no room for locking up illegal aliens. Obama is going to help this country like Chairman Mao helped China take the Great Leap Forward, or how Stalin helped unite the Russians. CHANGE, TRANSFORM. I really love it.

All I ask is that you don’t complain as your paychecks get smaller and smaller. After all, someone has to pay for all those bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, etc. Well, you get the idea. It might as well be you. We know from history that the rich ALWAYS get soaked, so none of it will effect your pocketbook. Right? I mean, look how many millionaires are now living in boxes by the river. Plus, the more money you rob from rich people and give to poor people, the more jobs that are created. Right, Nancy Pelosi? It looks like rain today — maybe too much. I hope the government is doing something about that. Maybe a rain tax is needed.

Neal Boortz’s take on it:

This isn’t about immigration reform. To these marchers immigration reform is just another way of saying amnesty. Any immigration proposals that move through either Washington DC or the states that does not include amnesty for criminal aliens is not immigration reform to these folks at all, and will not satisfy the invaders. It’s as if they’re saying:

“Ok, we’re here. We broke the law coming here. We broke the law staying here, and we’re breaking the law working here … and frankly, amigos, we don’t give a damn whether you like it or not. The problem is yours, not ours. We’re here, we’re not going anywhere, and there isn’t really anything you can do about it. If you arrest us — if you so much as look at us cross-eyed — we’re going to start screaming racial profiling and human rights abuses so fast and so loudly that there won’t be a news agency in the world that will not come running to demonize your country. “

At the risk of being a bit repetitive, just know this. Whenever you hear a Democrat, an illegal alien, an advocacy group for illegal aliens, or any member of the ObamaMedia use the words “comprehensive immigration reform,” they’re just using a bit more air and some extra words to say “amnesty for illegals.”

And just what is this load of bull about profiling. Glad you asked. It’s nothing less than a tactic used to make the job of law enforcement much more difficult than it needs to be. The true goal of those who scream “profiling” is to make it virtually impossible to enforce immigration laws. Virtually all of the illegals in Arizona are Hispanic, most Mexican, and to find the illegals you really do, of necessity, have to look for Latinos and if you look for Latinos you’re profiling. How asinine is this? Mexicans are invading Arizona, but you when you go looking for the invaders … for the law breakers … you can’t go looking for Mexicans. Doesn’t that sound just a bit ridiculous?

Real orderly and peaceable protest ya got there. Have you seen any footage of a Tea Party that looks & sounds like this?

Fellow Right Wing News contributor Duane Lester brings us this gem of a response to RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s dud of a statement…and that law of physics about “equal and opposite reaction” is completely undone.

It’s a rather peculiar thing about the folks in charge right now. Individual interests go up against the common interests of “everybody,” and the common interests win every time. And then the common interests of everybody, go up against the specific interests of a demographic group. In that second match-up the common interests of everybody aren’t worth jack.

I guess it’s just the way we’re wired in our most primitive, savage programming. We want to see something that’s “good for everybody” but we don’t get really excited about it until, while it’s good for this “everybody” over here, it’s simultaneously bad for that “everybody” over there. What Pastor Broden is talking about is something that is good for a real everybody regardless of skin color, circumstance of birth, whether they’re incarcerated or not, whatever their faith or income level. And before you can see the value in that you have to have some maturity. It really doesn’t take much; just enough to rise above that savage, primitive programming. Seeing the eventual consequences of the other side’s policies will do just fine.

I’m looking forward to finding out how many people have progressed to that level of maturity. Six months to go.

Very often, coming up with a name for something is the first step toward getting rid of it. It’s hard to reject something when it doesn’t have a name. In fact, we as a modern society have a longstanding habit of rejecting some things maybe we shouldn’t be rejecting, just because someone, somewhere, came up with a name for them. For example, when we reject “discrimination” we reject an entire mode of thinking, not only about people but about things as well; it’s a survival instinct, one that has served the human race capably in the past. Does it really make sense for a restaurant to be forced to hire ugly waitresses, or a trucking company to be forced to hire blind drivers? “Bush Doctrine” is something a lot of people think is within their comprehension, when it really isn’t, and it never was as formalized as a lot of people seem to believe. And then there’s “patriarchy,” “neocon,” “teabagger,” and many others. My very favorite of all time has to be “swift-boating,” which near as I can figure means to damage the campaign of a liberal democrat by telling the truth about what he said or what he did.

We have a lot of things infesting us that seem to hang around from one year to the next, because nobody puts together an organized campaign to make ’em go away. And it isn’t possible to put together such a campaign if these things aren’t named. I thought, without taking the time to actually invent the names, I should start a little list of what they are. Maybe if time allows I’ll add some more items to the list, and then switch over to the right side of my brain and invent some slurs as best I can. Although I got a feeling that when it comes to that, I’d be better off outsourcing that part of the project to someone more creative and talented.

Early in the morning, while the coffee was fresh and before the sun came up, I managed to jot down ten.

1. That branch of feminism that seeks to divide privilege from responsibility, so that all gender disparities having to do with privilege can be ended, but disparities dealing with responsibility can endure indefinitely.
2. That sect of Christianity that seeks to win converts through fear and threats, by linking random disasters to the vengeance of an angry, spurned God.
3. Excessive adoration for a public figure based not on the sensibilities of his ideas, or their likely success, but rather on the uneducated perception that he would be a close and dear friend if only his acquaintance could be made somehow.
4. Pronouncing oneself to be the champion of a debate after having deployed nothing but “zingers.”
5. The mistaken belief that war must be caused by those who show the temerity to acknowledge it is coming, or to respond to its arrival, or to prepare for its arrival, or to enlist for the purpose of responding to it.
6. Making horrible ideas look like possibly-good ideas, by socially stigmatizing their opposites.
7. When an awful idea of yours is put to a test, and fails, behaving as if history began the day after that test; conveniently forgetting about any & all occasions on which the idea has been exposed as a miserable failure.
8. Insisting that secular people like you are just as moral as religious people, and then defining morality according to your own personal likes and dislikes — how else could it be done? — completely missing the irony.
9. The notion held by certain people “at the top” of a structure of money, power or prestige, that people beneath this level should be forced to cope with limits that don’t apply up there. Hypocrisy coupled-up with a sense of elitism.
10. Angry people show off their anger. Say they’re angry because they don’t have stuff. The other people get them whatever it is they want. The angry people stay angry as if they were never given the stuff, even though they were. TIK #52.

My response; my version. He Who Argues With The Dictionaries has His sensibilities, and I have mine.

Funny how some of us are expected to live within constraints and limits, and others are not. Isn’t it?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

.

Hat tip to Homchick Report, via Gerard.

Palin haters’ comments follow…

Sarah palins password was 1234, thats easy to hax.

Be funny if he had locked her out.

palin sends a 22 year college nerd to prison – nice one palin…

This sentence is a crime in itself. Palin is a piece of shit.

Hacker? WTF? He guessed the security question, and the question was: where did we get married? Now any one who is a huge Pailin’s supporter would have guessed it, IF they would have any sign of intelligence! Give a guy a break, it’s not he’s fault she is that STUPID!

goddamn jewish lawyers.

So there are still a whole bunch of people out there laboring under the mistaken assumption that Palin used a lame password like “Sarah123” and the kid guessed it. In reality, he reset the password using Yahoo’s flaky security-question scheme. But never let the truth get in the way of a good rant, especially when you’re calling someone stupid.

He sought to change history by derailing the campaign. That was his purpose. By itself that was okay — but when it involved breaking the law, he didn’t even slow down to a gallop. What he was doing was so righteous. In that sense, he deserves a harsh sentence…although, IMO, 20-25 is a bit stiff. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s the very picture of someone who should be sent to jail. Yes, I’d say exactly the same thing if he hacked into Obama’s e-mail.

Hmm…that’s an interesting hypothetical. I wonder what the Palin-bashers would say if the shoe was on the other foot? There’s been an incredible amount of news and speculation about Holy Man’s birthplace, and it’s not at all uncommon for an e-mail system to set up “Where Were You Born?” as a security question. Is Barry such a luminescent deity-like off-this-world intellect that He’d pass on that one, or would He go for it? And then someone figures it out…what do you say then? Stupid Obama, can’t believe he’s got the nuclear codes? Yeah. Sure. Sure ya would.

I hate to say it, but the severe sentence was needed. The whole “I Want To Be Part of This Thing And Change The World” has, over the last two years, just gotten way out of hand. From the comments I’m seeing, I’m doubting that this guy was just a lone voice in the wilderness — I think he was acting on a desire felt by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of mistaken young people. Yeah, just hack into this e-mail account! And then I’ll find something incriminating of Sarah Palin’s, and keep her out of anything because she’s so stupid…and then the decisions will be made by super duper smart people and life will be perfect! Yeah! All right…so e-mail hacking isn’t serious enough a crime to stop them, what else would they do?

They’re too young and dumb to understand that soopersmart people are capable of making boneheaded decisions and screwing things up. Which, in my book, means really, really young and inexperienced…the needle on the stupid-meter is pegging the post. People like this just making up their own code of morality as they go along, that’s a situation we don’t need. They do plenty enough damage just by voting.

So says strange-lookin’-woman-with-hyphenated-last-name. If the abortions that took place in ’05 represent the women who wanted them and also were able to afford to have them, then that number is too low.

If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/…) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

So if your mother would’ve aborted you if only she could’ve afforded it, but she couldn’t afford it, then you’re not supposed to be here. You are a walking moral aberration. Unless I’m somehow distorting her meaning?

Hat tip to Vital Signs, by way of blogger friend Rick.

Roger L. Simon has reason to think so: The President-Who-Never-Was just bought yet another house in Montecito. A big ‘un. With a big ol’ carbon footprint. Nine bathrooms’ worth.

If, as La Rochefoucauld famously said, “hypocrisy is a sort of homage that vice pays to virtue,” then Al is paying more homage on the environment than all the sinners combined paid to all the medieval Popes for all their perversions, real or imagined.

Well, maybe not quite that much, but Al is not alone and we could go down a long list of rich enviro-phonies who, added up, would easily reverse AGW, assuming you believe it. But I have a different suspicion. Most of them don’t believe it anymore. They won’t admit that, of course. But Lindsey Graham’s withdrawal from the latest iteration of cap-and-trade is just a signal of what’s ahead. Get out while the getting is good. And make sure you get out the side door, if possible.

And there’s a lot more evidence that the chicken-littles are getting out while the getting’s good. RTWT.

Other than Graham’s exeunt, no word on what effect this will have on the upcoming legislation built to bind the rest of us. Our aristocrats, for as long as the rivers have flowed, have always desired a special set of rules for little people and a different set for themselves.

We barnyard animals don’t need milk & apples, they’re for the pigs.

Westsound, who generously played host to that, eh, duel between myself and that silly left-wing gadfly “Joe America,” just found out he’s been punked by his little brother. Guess that means I was too.

Puts a slightly different light on things. Who knows, maybe all of these people who think ObamaCare is good for the nation’s financial circumstances, are made-up. Life-sized muppets or something.

Meanwhile, blogsister Daphne is pissed at me and Gerard. Let me sum it up this way: I think I can speak for all concerned when I say that the ladies, and mothers in particular, are owed a certain level of respect. This is an inviolable rule. Also, when you jump into a melee and start tossing around playground insults you should expect retaliation in kind; that is an inviolable rule too. I’m of the opinion that, while those two inviolable rules should never be placed in conflict with each other, if the unthinkable ever does occur then the second of those two inviolable rules holds supremacy over the first. Daphne clearly feels differently about it. I have the utmost respect for her incorrect opinion.

That “mom” put us into the situation where we have to quibble about it, in my mind, is just supplementary evidence that I’m right and Daphne is wrong. And this is part of a bigger issue, I think. We have lately been up to our ears with people wanting to…shall we say…fire photon torpedoes while cloaked. To be the flower of mankind, purely off-limits, don’t-you-dare-pick-on-me, and relish the duties of designated attack-pit-bull at the same time.

I think of it as the “Michelle Obama syndrome.” It’ll get worse before it gets better. But we can peck that thing to death another time.

In the meantime, congratulations to “Joe America.” Suckered your big blogger brother to put up no less than three posts about this, and you got one from me and one from Gerard too. Let’s give the Devil his due; a victory lap has seldom been better earned in the an(n)als of punking.

Michelle Malkin wants to know and she has reason to ask:

I’m still on the road and our wonderful guest-bloggers will be dropping in again today and tomorrow. The hate mail is on an increase again thanks to my outspoken defense of Arizona’s immigration enforcement measure. Too many to choose from, but here’s a typical response:

from Ruben ruben_baruch@sbcglobal.net
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM
subject The color of your skin

Dear Michelle:

I have never met you or heard from you until today.

I didnt’ need to hear you for too long to know the kind of person you are or what are your personally.

I just wondering how or where did you learned to speak like the way you do.

Because you are are not white, and that is obvious, I would like to invite you to take a walk around or drive in Arizona and see and feel in your own skin the racism that exist [sic] in that state. I really would like you to experience first hand the racial prejudice. I would like you to feel how does it feel to be discrimated [sic] for the simple reason of the color of your skin.

Take a walk in Arizona. By yourself. Because you are not white no matter how hard you try to be white, you will never be white . no matter how hard you try to speak like a white person. you will never will be one and your father and your mother and sisters and brothers will never be white no matter how hard you try.

You tell me: Who are the real racists?

SharpElbows.net, by way of Gateway Pundit.

Anonymous (Commenter #2) sums it up well:

OMG! calling out SWAT to keep an eye on Grandma/Grandpa……Someones insain [sic]

The video embedded starts out with three minutes of some guy with a camera trying to expose the ignorance of Obama supporters…mostly succeeding at it…and then halfway through the clip, violence breaks out in the ranks of the Tea Party people! Eh, not exactly…

It’s looking more and more like, if we need one sentence to sum up that slice of time which is the two years 2009 and 2010, it’s going to end up being a dollop of premium quality sarcasm from the pen of Mark Steyn:

Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending” that that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.”

Politico:

Mitch McConnell is in bed with Wall Street “movers and shakers” — and is fronting “cynical and deceptive” arguments on their behalf.

John Boehner is a health care Chicken Little to be mocked for predicting Armageddon if the Democrats’ reform bill passed.

Sarah Palin can be ignored on arms control because she’s “not exactly an expert on nuclear issues.”

And Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are just a “troublesome” twosome spreading “vitriol.”

Democratic oppo research? Comments from Daily Kos?

No, this is your president speaking.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal:

Smart Aleck-in-Chief?
There may be good reasons for Obama to go negative, but doing so could wreck his presidency.

Here’s a quiz: For which of the following reasons is the 44th president of the United States bad-mouthing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, bankers, mine operators, insurers, Glenn Beck, the tea party, the Supreme Court and whoever he hammers as we go to press:

a) He’s rallying his base.

b) He’s rallying the Democrats’ base (one overlaps but does not equal the other).

c) He’s changing the subject from 9% unemployment.

d) To reverse his sinking approval ratings.

e) It’s what Saul Alinsky would do.

f) It’s what Barack Obama likes to do.

Astute readers instantly saw that the answer is, all of the above.

Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, a target of Obamian invective, are calling it conduct unbecoming a president. They are right. Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Ford didn’t do it. People assume the hyperpolitical Bill Clinton did it, but if memory serves, his public persona was presidential to a fault, even as he brimmed with Vesuvian anger.

Does this hurt His ability to preside? Is it bad for the country? Does it manifest an unwillingness, and perhaps an inability, to do the job we are supposed to have elected Him to do?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

What’s missing is this: The notion that grappling with the situation at hand, turning a bad situation into a good one, is Priority #1. The Alinsky politics are incompatible with that, and His Eminence is — oh, you’re going to have to forgive me for what comes next, I simply cannot resist — bitterly clinging to Saul Alinsky’s book. ++smirk++

We’ll survive this, but only the way you survive a bad hangover, or the severe dehydration of three days trapped in a locked suitcase. We won’t be whole the instant it’s over. We’ll need time to recuperate.

Henninger mentions Reagan. Reagan made it his business to stir the puddin’ only when he had something thoughtful to say. I remember clearly Reagan’s first year in office. He certainly did have his share of critics, especially for a nearly-70-year-old man who went through surgery to remove a bullet an inch from his heart.

But he stuck to business. And what you very rarely hear anyone mention is that the much-discussed “energy crisis,” with all of the gas lines winding ’round the block, the spiking power bills, the winter heating oil crises, this & that…mysteriously came to an end. Oh that’s right, isn’t it? It’s a seventies thing and not an eighties thing. How come that is?

Because government really doesn’t have that much power to make things better. Unless it can get out of the way…and in 1981, it had a lot of getting-out-of-the-way to do. Reagan stuck to the job, and didn’t lower himself into a shouting match with his critics.

Sarah Palin, the woman who’s supposed to be so dismally unqualified for the Presidency, is made from much the same mold. She makes her points when she has something thoughtful to say, when it’s more than a one-liner. Yes, she often starts with some witty catchphrase…which is probably borrowed. And then she posts the resulting three paragraphs on Facebook, which I take less than seriously. I see it as the “Hello Kitty” of blogging. But the things she has to say, are substantial things. Ad hom is not part of the discussion, in fact she very rarely addresses an attack directly — only when the attack was so egregious, that ignoring it is out of the question. Jokes about her daughter being molested by a baseball player for example.

Barack Obama, it seems, is never going to ascend to this level of maturity — the maturity that has to do with taking on weighty problems, along with the heavy thinking that must swirl around them, head-on. There’s always another round of “I’m better than that guy over there” that must be played.

For the good of the country, this must be made into an issue. It might not teach Holy Man what He needs to learn, but it’s a real problem with how this nation is being governed, and will be governed in the near future. If those in power won’t be dealing with the issue, it falls to the electorate to deal with it. We need some grown-ups in there.

And I’m going to embed this first one because it’s been in my stack of “Click for a quick smile” videos for…since it came out, whenever that was. Great stuff.

CavemanCircus.

Hat tip to Linkiest.

This Sarah Palin fan finds himself outnumbered, according to appearances, by the Palin haters…although it’s difficult to tell. They’re so loud because they’re so desperate, and they’re desperate because she’s effective. Well, I think I found the perfect response to them and it’s just two words: Paula Abdul.

On any planet where Paula is allowed somewhere near a teevee camera, Palin is perfectly qualified to be not only President, but Supreme Court Chief Justice, Nobel Laureate, Chair of the Board of Microsoft, Chief Architect of the next major release of the Linux operating system, and inventor of some kind of new form of space travel.

Hat tip to Tom McMahon.

J. Christian Adams writes in Pajamas Media:

Why, just this year you’ve passed … uhm … you’ve passed … well … you’ve passed … a lot of time on a horrible health care bill. But, in the pipeline, you’ve got … a bill about climate change. OK. Well, let’s look at what’s being talked about on the long-term horizon, and that would be … immigration reform and a possible path to citizenship for illegals.

Mr. President, I respectfully ask … what the heck are you thinking? Do you have your head in the sand or in a place that up ‘til now I really thought was physically impossible?

Oh…my…God. I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised about this.

How do our left-wingers see this; that is my question. Really, what’s their take on it. If they’re of the mind that this is an Officer Barbrady situation — “Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here!” — then the cultural divide that separates us must be so wide and yawning as to be irreconcilable. Read the comments to see what I mean by that.

On the other hand, if their attitude is one of “Yeah, he’s a clueless fuck but what are ya gonna do?” then I will have to challenge them for their title of “Good Liberal.” Because, to whatever extent we need liberals around (and that ain’t much), it really needs to be all about opposing the establishment, or the maintenance, of an under-talented and over-privileged aristocracy. If they’re not going to stand up for that, then I will.

I think of the name “Geithner” these days when I think about under-talented and over-privileged aristocracies.

That’s right, an egg-sucking pinko-commie left-wing bleeding-heart liberal.

1. I disagree with the Republican party’s pro-business stance when it goes too far afield, when it gets into the “businesses can’t do anything wrong” territory. When the businesses are doing things that are against the law, for example. Like hiring illegal aliens.
2. I think Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are pretty smart guys, at some things. The problem is that these things aren’t terribly useful to us. Lying, equivocating, obfuscating, making planted whores faint at their speeches, inventing an “Office of the President Elect,” etc.
3. I further agree that George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are unsophisticated at some things. Of course, we can probably use some leadership that is unsophisticated and unskilled at lying, equivocating, obfuscating, et al.
4. I acknowledge that carbon, in sufficient quantities, has an insulatory effect in our atmosphere.
5. I’m a little bit gun-shy about sending people to jail for cheating on their spouses. I don’t think they should go to Hell for it, either. Purgatory maybe, but not Hell.
6. I believe it is possible to live according to a moral code, that will endure over time, without believing in God. I just haven’t personally seen a lot of people doing that, is all.
7. I don’t want anything to happen to convicted murderers that’s any worse than what they did to their victims. For example, if you shoot some guy in the head, I don’t think it’s right that we burn you at the stake. We should save that for the guy who burned his victim at the stake. If you shot your victim in the head we should stop at shooting you in the head.
8. I think any issue involving controlled substances is purely a states’-rights issue. In fact I think states are too big for this. If you can legalize it in your city block or township, then by all means shoot up.
9. I don’t want to see a cross erected on any government facility or property.
10. I don’t think people should be denied an opportunity to make a living just because they didn’t go to college.
11. I don’t approve of woman/minority “set-asides” in college enrollment, government hiring, promotions or contracting.
12. I’m concerned about the environment being poisoned by human activity, it’s just that I’m concerned about the human activity nobody seems to want to talk about. Kids being rude and grabby. Gum being left on sidewalks. Little kids with shopper-in-training grocery carts. Convertibles with boom-boom-chicka-boom music. These are all pollution.
13. I am a champion of unions organizing to bargain collectively with management, but the unions I have in mind are the Tea Parties, and the management I have in mind is the government.
14. I’m a staunch defender of a woman’s right to choose. If she chooses to work at Hooter’s, and she’s got the legs for it, then let her work.
15. The public debt that is being taken out, through our government, is another form of pollution since it has the potential to degrade the quality of life for future generations. I am much more concerned about this than I’ve ever been about any spotted owl. It is an “environmental” catastrophe waiting to happen, one crying out for a bunch of new laws that I would fully support if they were submitted for a hearing.
16. I want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I would like to see Congress treated as “Agent Zero” for any & all new laws that would apply to businesses in the private sector — I think Congress should be regulated by these laws for a whole year before they apply to anybody else. Maybe two years.
17. I think the little people deserve to have someone fighting on their side for a change. You know who I mean: The people who don’t work in Washington.
18. I am opposed to corporate welfare, and that includes bailouts for businesses deemed “Too Big To Fail.”
19. I am concerned about the ability people have to think independently. When tens of millions of my countrymen think radical Islamic terrorism is not a threat, and those very same millions think the planet is in danger when I make a pot of coffee and don’t bother to unplug the pot when it’s done, there is something terribly, terribly wrong.
20. Men being forced to marry women before they can have sex? Whatever this rule is supposed to be doing to build up civilization, it’s tearing down a lot more than it’s building up. Tell you what, church people: Stop marriage from being a modern form of legalized theft, and then we’ll talk. Until then, I’ll oppose you like any good liberal should.

Hat tip to fabiorojas at orgtheory.net (by way of tjasko at RedState), who adds:

…[T]he decline of the antiwar movement can be attributed, in part, to the fact that Democrats have stopped using the peace movement as a platform for anti-Bush sentiment. In other words, at its peak, the ranks of the antiwar movement were swelled by partisans. Once Obama won the presidency, and other issues emerged, the movement shrank when Democrats stopped showing up. The remaining protesters were more likely to be non-partisan or third party, and these non-Democrats were more likely to disapprove of Obama’s management of Iraq and Afghanistan. When Democrats gained power, the movement converged on a core of peace activists who were not strongly identified with the Democratic party.

This is just completely damning, especially if you bought into the notion that voting for Obama was all about a principled opposition to war. This is precisely why we spell “democrat” with a small d, even in our headlines. We don’t respect them, because they don’t respect anything. Every single agenda their party has, is exactly like this — they are fair-weather friends of whatever it is. They’re fiscal hawks until such time as they get elected and don’t need that support anymore, they’re peace doves until they don’t need that, they’re all for making sure every vote is counted provided they’re the kind of votes they happen to like.

They buy votes. I suppose both major parties are guilty of this to some degree, but the democrats have made a constant practice out of it. Here…here’s some money…now, just completely sidestep the whole question of whether my ideas are any good or not, because they’re important to the people I really represent. Just think about the money and the benefits. Can you get along with those. No, you can’t? Then the conversation is over. And you’re to think of me as a wonderful friend because I gave you this money and these benefits, as if I pulled them out of my own billfold…even though you know and I know, that that’s not what I did.

That, too, is but a means to an end. That, also, cannot be reliably envisioned as their ultimate goal. Ninety-nine percent of what they do is in service of something else — and the one percent that’s left, is the something-else. Day and night they work like the dickens to avoid talking about what that is.

We’ll discuss that further, later. It isn’t opposition to war. That question need not be pondered, ever again.

Update: More obfuscation, this time it’s parody. But this is the sort of parody that creates a serious challenge for he who parodies. It’s getting difficult to stay out ahead of this stuff.

Democrats Introduce 12,000-Page Bill to Solve Problems Caused by Previously-Passed 2,500-Page Bill

As objective evaluations of the recently-passed health care law have become available, it’s becoming increasingly clear the law will not lower the costs of health care insurance, some 14 million people will lose their employer coverage, patients will spend tens of billions of dollars on new fees and excise taxes on drugs and medical devices, and 23 million people will remain uninsured.

In response to those concerns, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced she was introducing a 12,000 page bill to help solve the problems created by the previously-passed 2,500 page bill.

“The American people can have faith that these additional 12,000 pages comprehensively address the previous 2,500 pages that were intended to comprehensively address needed changes to our health care system,” said Speaker Pelosi.

This sort of touches on the issue of what’s going on with the post previous, and it also recalls some of my bitching and belly-aching back here.

We are living in a prolonged period within the history of our government, in which problems are routinely being solved through measures nearly identical to what created the problems in the first place.

It’s getting to the point where nobody who’s watching what’s going on, possessing some measure of recollection of recent history, has any reason to think anything is ever going to be any different. Nobody’s expecting a real change of motion. So we all must be expecting consistent results, or else among those who truly expect things to work out differently there must exist a condition of true insanity.

I can’t really blame the democrat party for pretending to support an antiwar movement they never really supported. If this was my constituency, I’d be using a whole fistful of phony gimmicks too. Some of these politicians have been serving for a very long time, and I think this must warp your view of life after awhile wouldn’t it? When your job is to just put on a big show for people who are easily fooled, and then you go back the next day and do it again? And you’re always working the same primal instincts…so unlike the stand-up comedian, you’d never have to change your act.