Friday, November 7, 2008

Change! Yippee.

To steal a phrase from my favorite news anchor, Kent Brochman (who has more credibility than any non-animated news anchors, these days): I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords. You can laugh or you can cry; I prefer to laugh.

Here are some funnies to get you started. Click the links to read the entire column:
Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.

Southpark weighs in:

And one last thing! Palin 2012! Stop dissing Sarah Palin. Her selection as VP was the best thing about the McCain campaign.

Ann Coulter and I agree:
Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.


For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

Starting tomorrow, if not sooner.

Welcome to the next four years! My sunny predictions for what HOPEANDCHANGE will look like: 1) more war, not less, in the Mid East, with a good possibility of out right nuclear warfare between Iran and Israel; 2) massive energy shortages in the US - the gas line and the rolling blackout are the new breadline; 3) another terrorist attack or a slew of smaller ones; and 4) a whole lotta disappointed dems when they figure out they still have to work for a living and pay their mortgage. The beauty of being a conservative is, if my world view is correct then in a few years I get to say "I told you so" and enthusiastically support Sarah Palin in 2012. If my world view is wrong, then I still get to enjoy the socialist utopia along with everyone else -- that is, unless Billy Ayers gets those re-education camps up and running in less than 4 years. Gulp.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Speaking of slippery slopes

Here is a scary one from ... nope, not North Korea ... the UK.

Human tissue could be taken from the infirm without their consent and used for research

On Wednesday MPs will vote on a bill which would allow the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos to be used for stem cell research, change the conditions for granting IVF, and possibly liberalise the abortion laws.

The passage through Parliament of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been dogged by controversy. Failed attempts to outlaw late abortion have dominated the debate, while scientists, medical ethics experts and religious leaders have clashed over the hybrid embryo issue.

Defenders of the bill have repeatedly stressed the importance of gaining consent from anyone whose tissue is taken for the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.

It can now be revealed that a Government amendment, agreed after the main parliamentary debates, would allow tissue to be used from people who lack the "mental capacity" to give consent, children whose parents give permission, and anyone who has previously donated samples to hospitals for medical research but can no longer be traced.

read the rest

What is the big deal with taking tissue from people "who lack mental capacity" to create human/animal hybrid embryos for medical research? I mean, how could that possibly go wrong?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

RACIST !!!!!111

Joe the plmber is concerned that Obama will hike his taxes; obviously, he is a racist republican SPY!#$$!!! He even compared Obama to another black man! OMFG!@#@!! He also mentions Britney Spears, clearly another racist code word.

From the Huffington Post:

Joe the (unlicensed) plumber's two money quotes to the NYT include:

"You know, I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question...."

"I'm kind of like Britney Spears having a headache."

By the way, the extended quote on the first comment helps flesh out and inform Joe's expression in the photo -- squinty Joe in the white light and the earnest Obama literally in the dark. From The Times:

"You know, I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question ... for once instead of tap dancing around it. And unfortunately I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance."

He added, "Almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr."

Shades of Mark Halperin's post back in March, Wurzelbacher's intent to "corner" the celebrity tap dancer was motivated by racism. If the McCain campaign had done it's homework before tossing this guy into the national spotlight -- and whether they did or they didn't is a bit concerning either way -- you'd think the chip on Wurzelbacher's shoulder would have been pretty easy to flush out.

He also has a shaved head; clearly he is a skinhead. Only racist skinheads would question the effect of Obama's tax policies on their small business.

If your virus software is up to date and you care to wade on over to the dailykos, where they have a plethora of loosely based accusations (no, I won't do the courtesy of a link):

He may be an unlicensed plumber.
Either that, or he might not be registered to vote.
Maybe he owes back taxes.
He suspects Obama might be a socialist.
He is considering NOT voting for Obama when the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters already endorsed Obama!!!
He could be related to Charles Keating of the KEATING 5.
And... he might even have family ties... TO ALASKA!!!!11

We really have to watch out for all these faux independent racist skinhead small business owners... from Alaska.

The short slippery slope to Socialism

Wheeeeee.... It's like a waterslide, but that's your liberty going down the hole!

Just stop paying your mortgage

While angry voters have labeled the package as a bailout for Wall Street, it is more akin to a “Get out of Jail Free” card for anyone who acted irresponsibly during the boom. Here's why.

Nobody likes foreclosure, least of all politicians. The new law clearly indicates that the government will make major efforts to reduce foreclosures through “term extensions, rate reductions and principal write-downs” of the troubled mortgages that it buys from the private sector. In other words, your new landlord will bend over backward to keep you in your home. The legislation telegraphs this by including a provision that extends until 2013 the exclusion of loan reductions from taxable income.

When a financial institution holds a mortgage, homeowners must live with the fear of foreclosure. Private institutions only have obligations to shareholders. In the case of a defaulting borrower, they will look to recover as much of their principal as possible. If foreclosure is their best option, they will take it in a heartbeat.

The government has no such obligations. Its only goal is to keep voters happy. After supposedly bailing out the fat cats on Wall Street, no politician wants to be accused of evicting struggling families. Once you understand this, all of your anxiety should melt away. Why pay your mortgage if foreclosure is off the table, and if you know that lower payments, and possibly a reduced loan amount, would result? A tarnished a credit rating is a small price to pay for such a benefit.

Pay attention, this is where the "bailout" plans are headed kids.

If you do get the opportunity to live for a while with no mortgage payment, don't make the tragic mistake of using your extra cash to pay down your credit cards. As the growing level of credit card defaults will soon push credit card companies into bankruptcy, we can expect a similar bailout plan for American Express and Discover Financial. When that happens, expect massive balance reductions for Americans who can demonstrate the inability to pay. The bigger your balance, the greater the benefit.

Taxpayers, however, will not be so lucky. The savvy investment strategists who see the government turning a tidy profit on its mortgage purchases have not factored in the incentives that will discourage nonpayment. The only way the government will be able to profit would be to buy the mortgages at deep discounts to actual loan values. However, if the purchase prices are too low, the plan will bankrupt the institutions it is trying to bail out. On the other hand, if it substantially overpays, which seems far more likely, it will bankrupt the nation.

In any event, as more and more borrowers succumb to the allure and safety of nonpayment, look for the number of troubled assets to swell. This will ensure that the $700 billion merely represents the first installment in what will be a multitrillion-dollar plan. Just as government policies provided the primary impetus in blowing up the housing bubble earlier in the decade, its latest attempt at market manipulation will only result in making a terrible problem far worse.

Yup. We have a real problem in our society right now with stating the obvious; instead we want to name some nebulous whipping boy. Home foreclosures aren't caused by "greedy wallstreet fatcats"; they are caused by people taking out loans they can't afford. Like the obesity epidemic in this country, obesity is NOT caused by McDonalds; obesity is caused by people stuffing hamburgers in their face at a greater rate than their body can burn them.

I leave you with this sunny quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. --Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. (1747-1813) Unverified.

Anyway, it's been a nice 232 years.

Obama: I did not have sex with that terrorist.

CNN Debate Transcript

Last night's debate definitely has to go to McCain. Obama is too slick for McCain to land a clean knockout or get him completely rattled, but I would judge it a TKO. Where has this McCain been?! Apparently, if enough people at his own rallies tell him he can't out-socialist Obama, he will figure out he can't out-socialist Obama and will turn out a decent debate performance. McCain also gets bonus points -- I only heard "my friends" twice during the whole 90min.

Obama, on the other hand, proved for all to see that he can lie like a Clinton. When confronted about launching his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist* Obama looked into the camera and straight faced, flat out lied:

McCain: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So -- and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.

Obama: That's absolutely not true.

McCain: And the facts are facts and records are records.

Obama: And that's not the facts.

Ummm... yeah, Obama those are what we call 'facts.' Of course, Obama runs into trouble when real facts contradict his wish facts. Obama also issued a bold faced lie on the 'born-alive' act. There was not an identical bill on the books -- that is why a living infant ("pre-viable" in Obama-speak) died in a dirty linen closet in an Illinois hospital -- and the bill specifically contained a clause stipulating that it was not to overturn precedent (i.e. Roe v. Wade). These real facts are a matter of public record. These facts are highly inconvenient for Obama and he wishes they would just go away; therefor, according to wish facts, there is a highly nuanced reason to vote against a ban on killing babies that only Obama is clever enough to figure out.

*Note on Bill Ayers: "unrepentant domestic terrorist" is way, way too much of a mushy PC term for my taste; I believe the more accurate term is "homicidal traitor." Ayers should have gotten the needle right along with Timothy McVeigh; the only difference between the two is that Ayers was less skilled at building bombs but better at eluding the feds.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Prez debate liveblog II

discussions without preconditions with Chavez... FARC terrorists... another good shot by McCain.

Abortion: I guess Obama got a raise; abortion is suddenly within his paygrade.

Education: McCain missed a chance to land one last good blow in regards to Ayers and radical leftist ideological indoctrination of Chicago school kids.

Well, people asked for it; McCain came out swinging, but it may be too little too late. McCain wins on issues (taxes!!!); Obama wins on general telegenic qualities. Unfortunately, telegenics counts way more than it should. Overall winner: Joe the plummer.

Last Prez debate

8:46 central

Wow... McCain has gone at least 30min without saying "my friends." Debate practice must have included electroshock therapy.

He is delivering some body blows - no knockouts - but body blows. Keep hammering on taxes, man. He brought up Ayers skillfully. Obama outright lied... he DID launch his polititcal career in Ayers livingroom.

"I admire Senator Obama's eloquence" heh.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Good column from the Telegraph

Financial crisis: We're all socialists now, comrade

I am such a ray of sunshine today!

Wisdom from our betters

"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." -- Barack Obama

Just Not Smack! That's my philosophy, too.

"Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton's use of the phrase 'fairytale' to describe her husband's characterization of his position on the Iraq war, (Michelle Obama) first responded: 'No.' But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: 'I want to rip his eyes out!' Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: 'Kidding! See, this is what gets me into trouble.'" -- WorldNetDaily

Clarification: I think Obama wrote the first one before he met Michelle; or not, I don't really know, actually.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." -- Michelle Obama

Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

Weeeeee... the next four years are going to be fun! Blogging will be a cakewalk, though, until they send me off to the re-education camp -- or is the correct term "sensitivity training"?

Quotes from:

Tue Night's Debate

And the winner is...

... Bob Barr

McCain didn't win this round. True, he landed some good body blows: cronyism, links to Fannie and Freddie, and taxes, but there were no knockout punches on Ayers, Obama's plans to send billions of $$$ to corrupt dictators via the UN, or his excessively waxed eyebrows. [Last debate Obama had 'evil wizard' eyebrows... this time he had 'who me?' eyebrows -- valuable political commentary, I know]

Even McCain's grating repetition of his signature verbal tic "my frieeends" wasn't enough to sink it for him. No... this is what made me sick:

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

WTF?!? Why on earth should the government be involved in setting housing prices? Why should my tax dollars bail out greedy 'mainstreet' idjits who bought houses they couldn't afford? Call me a jerk, but I always though, 'if you can't afford to pay for something, then you don't get to have the thing' was sort of like a basic part of being an adult.

Anyhoo... McCain ultimately lost in my mind because he failed to make a basic defense of American capitalist values against a radical left wing socialist. I expected some hand waving populism to appease those elusive centrists, but McCain went way to far. I was briefly excited about McCain after the Palin nomination, but I am not certain that her presence in the VP slot is going to be enough to help me swallow McCain's $300b bitter pill.

My state is nowhere near any kind of swing state so I feel safe casting a protest vote. Maybe it will register with someone, somewhere in the GOP and we see more fiscally conservative, libertarian minded candidates in 2012.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Huh... what?

Watching the pres debate...

~8:45 pm central; Did Obama just say that 'government scientists invented the computer' and throw in something garbled about the defense department communicating with itself?

Wow! I didn't realise that Al Gore was a gov't scientist.


McCain seems pretty on tonight. His attacks are sharp. He keeps saying 'cronyism' and gesturing at Obama... burn. Also, if you are playing a drinking game at home, you should be trashed by now; McCain has said "my friends" at least 50 times.

A handy dandy timeline of disaster!

Obama, ACORN, and our economic meltdown.

Question: what does a community organizer do?

I wish that we could just laugh at this like it was some meaningless bit of fluff Obama inserted into his other wise sparse resume. The truth is, Obama is both highly experienced and devastatingly effective at community organizing; unfortunately, it's not the kind of organizing that most peace loving, self reliant Americans want going on in their communities.

Over at the National Review, Stanley Kurtz has an excellent analysis of the role of Obama and ACORN in the current subprime mortgage meltdown.

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party. By Stanley Kurtz

You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

The above article gives a good timeline of the social engineering programs that led us into this mess.

1977 -- Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-- Passed by Jimmy Carter, calls on banks to increase lending to poor and minority neighborhoods. This legislation is used by ACORN to intimidate banks into providing subprime loans through a two pronged approach. One, they were able to file CRA complaints to block bank mergers and expansions. Two, they directly intimidated bank employees and executives in what they euphemistically term "direct action." The article describes it:

ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers.

1989 -- Savings and Loan Bailout -- included provisions requiring lenders to compile and make public statistics on race, gender, and income of mortgage applicants. The miracle of statistics provided groups like ACORN even more ammo for their bank intimidation tactics.

1989 - 1991 -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- Until the early 90's local banks were able to fall back on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to avoid making risky loans. Smaller banks could FMae and Fmac's refusals to purchase risky debt as political cover against ACORN's tactics.

1991 -- ACORN representatives testify before congress claiming loan bias and racism, and Democratic Congressmen pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending practices

1992 & 1993 -- $3.5 billion committed by Fannie and Freddie to low income housing; $10 billion "affordable housing loan program" announced by Fannie. ACORN continues to complain of racism and strong arm smaller banks using CRA. Eventually, local banks join the chorus to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards to escape pressure from ACORN and allies.

1993 - 2002 -- Obama serves on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. ACORN recieved the following grants from the woods fund under Obama's tenure: $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002). [ ]

1993 -- Billy Jeff becomes prez, woo hoo, good times. ACORN reps get monthly meetings with Clinton Housing Secretary Cisneros.

1995 -- Clinton announces the "National Homeownership Strategy" a series of regulatory changes which simultaneously forces Fannie and Freddie to lower standards for potential buyers while making it harder for banks to get a favorable (i.e. non-racist) CRA rating. [More reading on Clinton's Nat. Home ownership Strategy: How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable ]

Up until this point subprime loans represented a trickle, but Clinton's home ownership initiatives opened the subprime flood gates and were certainly a "success." They certainly opened up "home occupation" (can it really be called ownership if they have no hope of ever paying off the mortgage?) to huge segments of the population through risky lending practices. A relevant snippet from the IBD article gives a good example:

Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.

Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Subprime lending and low-income housing schemes also provided a nifty way to funnel tax dollars into Democratic dominated voting blocks.

The Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress are guilty of the sin of inaction. They could have put the breaks on Freddie, Fannie, and the ensuing housing bubble, but despite a few week attempts, they failed to do so. But then, who wants to get called racist. The voters are to blame, as well, everyone was happy as long as their home values increased at rates drastically above inflation.

It is said the devil's greatest trick is convincing man he doesn't exist. It seems that Socialism's greatest trick is convincing the American electorate that a disastrous experiments in wealth redistribution are somehow the result of Capitalist markets run amok. Meanwhile, Obama seems poised to pull off the biggest trick of all -- convincing the electorate that he had absolutely nothing to do with it and that more wealth redistribution, i.e. "Tax Fairness," is the solution.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Homer Simpson Endorses Obama

... but votes McCain


Via Hotair, here is a leaked clip from the Nov2 Simpsons episode:

No it doesn't really make sense; it's the Simpsons.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The MV Iran Deyanat

Somali pirates hijaked an Iranian cargo ship off the horn of Africa, and now they are dropping like flies from a mysterious illness:

Mystery surrounds hijacked Iranian ship

A tense standoff is underway in northeastern Somalia between pirates, Somali authorities, and Iran over a suspicious merchant vessel and its mysterious cargo. Hijacked late last month in the Gulf of Aden, the MV Iran Deyanat remains moored offshore in Somali waters and inaccessible for inspection. Its declared cargo consists of minerals and industrial products, however, Somali and regional officials directly involved in the negotiations over the ship and who spoke to The Long War Journal are convinced that it was heading to Eritrea to deliver small arms and chemical weapons to Somalia's Islamist insurgents.

It was business as usual when speedboats surrounded the MV Iran Deyanat on August 21. The 44468 dead weight tonnage bulk carrier was pushing towards the Suez and had just entered the Gulf of Aden - dangerous waters where instability, greed and no-questions-asked ransom payments have led to a recent surge in piracy. Steaming past the Horn of Africa, 82 nautical miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was a prize for the taking. It would bring hundreds of thousands of dollars - possibly millions - to the Somalia-based crime syndicate. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship.

And a description of the illness:

The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. Within days, pirates who had boarded the ship developed strange health complications, skin burns and loss of hair. Independent sources tell The Long War Journal that a number of pirates have also died. "Yes, some of them have died. I do not know exactly how many but the information that I am getting is that some of them have died," Andrew Mwangura, Director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, said Friday when reached by phone in Mombasa.

Follow the link above, the whole article is worth reading.

Obama Youth

A Youtube musical tribute to Our Dear Leader...

Obama's gonna swoop down from Washington DC on his magic unicorn, Toodles, and bring us all candy and toys. Yipee.

Little Fascists up early this morning...

The Little Fascists are up early this morning with some double plus good ways to make your life miserable:

Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change

People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.
The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

The general level of agreement in the comments section is equally disturbing. Do these people like being miserable? It kind of reminds me of something... what was it... oh yeah:

We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK
--Barak Obama, May 2008

Good morning! Big Brother is watching you!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Posting a bit slow

... sorry for the slow posting, faithful readers (all 2 of you, hi mom and dad!) har har...

I've been trying to wrap my brain around this impending economic doom business; not being a banker, it's taken me quite awhile (and still is, I don't claim to fully understand it). Also there was the first pres debate; all fertile blogging ground which I have largely missed. Oh well.

Starting with the presidential debate last week. I don't know who won. I was so disturbed by the opening round in which both the candidates displayed zero leadership and zero grasp of the situation that I almost turned the dang tube off. A true conservative would have used the opening of the debate to defend free markets and capitalism and acurately describe this crisis as the product of social engineering and political correctness run amok. Instead we got regurgited populism from McCain, and apocalyptic incoherence from Obama.

At least I have the dim satisfaction of knowing I voted for the wacky Mormon in the primaries.

Briefly, on impending economic doom 2008 / New Great Depression, I am starting to wonder if this isn't a crisis a whole lot like global warming, as in -- one more excuse for a big socialist power grab. Weren't we all supposed to be roasting alive, choking on carbon dioxide, and drowning in the boiling ocean by now, anyway? Actually, you would think Democrats would be cheering this development. If the world economy grinds to a sceeching halt, they'll get their cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, no messy cap and trade scemes needed, and we will all be saved. Hooray.

Backing up my suspicions over this whole crisis is this quote from French president Sarkozy:
The idea of an all-powerful market without any rules and any political intervention is mad. Self-regulation is finished. Laissez faire is finished. The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's usually a good idea to do the opposite of whatever the French are advocating. Is the government really the all knowing, all powerful wise and benevolent force that is going to save us all? Call me skeptical.

Anyhoo... here is a music video:

Friday, September 12, 2008


From the transcript of last night's presidential forum on CNN, in his own words, here is yet another good reason NOT to vote for Obama:

And so part of my job, I think, as president, is to make government cool again.
Go back to sleep children; don't worry, being a government tool will be soooo cool.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

A wee bit of sanity

Red-State Feminism

by Kay S. Hymowitz

Feminist Cat Fighting

Hysterical denunciations of Palin as an Anti-feminist and smears against her family continue to pour out of the media. Today's winner of the Palin Derangement Syndrome daily column contest actually hails from Canada:

A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention
By Heather Mallick

Here are some juicy tidbits.

She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.

Wow... how... um... enlightened.

It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.

My vagina is recoiling in horror at the thought that women like this claim to speak for all women. As far as Republican men being sexual inadequates... don't knock it 'til you've tried it, sistah. Additionally, I would bet good money that Todd Palin is more handy around the house and better help with the kids than Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore combined. And John Edwards... Okay, okay, I won't even go there.

I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred.

... written without a slightest hint of irony...

Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too. John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly.

...and they wonder why they keep getting called elitist.

Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe... McCain nominated Palin cause he likes her stance on issues and her track record of reform. That 80% approval rating as gov prolly didn't hurt either. I'm just typing off the top of my head here, but what if... Republicans aren't the raging misogynists they are reputed to be. What if... they are so energized about a women candidate because they love seeing a woman with a family succeed at home and at politics -- like it justifies their belief in family values and personal responsibility, or something. Nah ... they were clearly trying an eeeevil ploy to pander to Hilary voters.

I'm counting down until Steinem, Mallick, etc. come out with the big "it was all satire, stupid Rethuglicans" line once they reread their own writing.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Just Asking

Sorry for the snark, but this is really starting to annoy me.

Every single last critique of the Palin pick has employed some form of the hysterically typed: Sarah Palin is soooo inexperienced and she is a 72 year old heartbeat away from being president!!!

SO WHAT?!? If Obama is elected then the inexperienced one will actually be president. And what if Biden dies? Obama will be really screwed then. It's really just a veiled way of saying, McCain is old... nyah nyah. Who cares? Biden is old too. Nyah nyah.

Besides, I don't understand the fetish with the youth vote. I would be much more focused on the old people vote. If P. Diddy's yoot vote was worth a bucket of dog poo than eighteen year-olds would be able to legally drink beer. Instead, they can get drafted; meanwhile, old people get money from the government just by virtue of being old. Who's got the whole voting thing down here?

Okay, rant off.

Feminist Face Off

The self proclaimed feminist elite aren't happy with Sarah Palin's VP nomination. Gloria Steinem writes yesterday in the LA Times:

Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Time

The claws come out quickly and Steinem proves she can be every bit as catty as your average third grade girl:

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.

She criticises Palin as an affirmative action pick, apparently completely unaware of the irony. Usually, it is conservatives opposition to affirmative action that liberals use to label them as racist of sexist. To be fair to Steinem, she does acknowledge the sexist slant to the liberal criticisms of Palin:
I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father.

However, Steinem displays a curiously lopsided notion of women's liberation when she spends most of her column smearing Palin as a tool of the "right-wing patriarchy" for holding conservative views. Apparently, it is inconceivable that a liberated, free thinking woman might sypathise with the socially conservative view.

Palin's main offense against Steinem's particular feminist sensibilities seems to be that she is pro-life. Steinem drips venom when she writes, "she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs." I don't completely agree with Palin on the abortion issue, myself, but I think it is disingenuous to characterise her views as supporting government control of women's wombs -- just as it would be unfair to claim that Steinem supports killing babies. No one advocates government mandated womb control or infanticide. The abortion debate centers around competing fundamental rights of two distinct individuals: the fundamental right of the unborn baby to live versus the equally fundamental right of an adult to control their own body. How you think these two rights should be balanced determines whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. To say that pro-choice is the only feminist option is absurd.

Equally absurd is Steinem's claim that disbelief in anthropological global warming is somehow an anti-feminist view point:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming.
The creationism bit is pure MSM fabrication. When Palin's comments on the subject are taken in context, she supports a teacher engaging the class in a scientific discussion if a student should bring up the subject of creationism -- rather than telling the poor kid to shut up. Otherwise, she supports the typical libertarian sentiment that school curriculum should be determined by locally elected officials. Furthermore, one's opinion on global warming is based on their knowledge and interpretation of scientific facts. How, by any stretch of logic, does holding a different scientific opinion from the majority of women qualify as anti-feminist?

According to our feminist masters, if a woman rejects the Democratic party platform, she is not liberated. Conservative women are to be marginalized as poseurs or pawns; women are only valuable when they vote Democratic and promote socialist agendas. Women must be delivered from the cruel patriarchal clutches of their fathers, husbands, and ministers and into the open and liberating arms of the state. Steinem wants to paint Palin as a victim and pawn of the "right-wing patriarchy," but she fails to explain how she herself is no better than a toady for the left wing grievance machine.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Palin a Neo Libertarian?

I sure hope so!

This almost got missed in the general hub-bub of the last few days, but it's a point that I am really happy to see made:

The Libertarian Case for Palin

We will have to wait and see if over the next weeks of interviews and debates whether or not she truly governs from a libertarian perspective. If she does consider herself a libertarian then she would have to be a "neo-libertarian" -- definitely the direction I would like to see the Republican party head.

Mark Steyn kills me!

Big funny over at the corner.

Well, um... wow

First there was the Obama - Clinton DNC drama and a hurricane bearing down on the opening day of the RNC, I thought that was as exciting as things were going to get! Man, could I have been more wrong?

McCain unleashes Sarah Palin, his bombshell of a VP pick (pun totally intended - love the beehive and naughty librarian glasses). The leftwing blogosphere shifts into warp drive: She faked her pregnancy; Trig isn't Sarah's baby... he's Bristol's! Frenzied Daily Kos diarists published reports with highly scientific evidence 'debunking' the pregnancy like tiny pixelated pictures of the governor wearing all black and *gasp* she doesn't look preggo at 5mo! Michael Moore demands DNA evidence. In his blog, Liberaland, Fox News commenter Alan Colmes (of Hannity and Colmes) becomes completely unglued and suggests that Palin is an unfit mother and second guesses her obstetrician. Bloggers and the commentariat all over the left have asserted that because she has five children she cannot possibly be a good mother and VP. The Democratic party supports working mothers, but only if they don't have too many kids or get too ambitious.

Next plot twist, the Republican campaign announces that, in fact, 17 year old Bristol Palin is pregnant. Without skipping a beat, lefty smears about the youngest Palin are dropped in favor of the McCain-didn't-vet-his-VP meme, quickly followed by odd fantasies that 'evangelicals' will reject her. Alan Colmes has to pile on one more completely original smear:

Alan Colmes: Conservative Family Values

In her speech in Dayton today, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she and her husband are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary, which means they were married on August 29, 1988.

On April 20, 1989 – less than eight months after they eloped – their first son, Track, was born.

I think I can guess the real reason why they eloped, and it wasn’t to save money on an expensive wedding.

Sooo ... Sarah Palin had pre-marital sex and then married the baby daddy? That's scandalous? What century is Colmes blogging from, the 1800's? Actually, marrying your high school sweat heart, finishing college, having five beautiful children, and celebrating a happy 20yr marriage, all while leading a blazingly successful career... those ARE conservative family values.

Interestingly enough, rap star P. Diddy offers by far the most balanced and least sexist commentary coming out of the left. Language alert, lots of f-bombs, it also might make you motion sick.

Diddy Blog #16 - "John McCain Is Buggin The F%^k Out'"!

Best quote:
Alaska, mother fucker? What is the reality in Alaska? There's not even no crackheads in Alaska. There's not even no black people. There's not even no, like, crime, or like foreign policies."

Yup. You heard the man correctly: reality = crackheads = black people = crime = foreign policy. That's Diddy's theory; not mine.

Whew. Did you get all that? I'm still soaking it up. I have to give a nod to Obama for doing the classy thing and issuing this statement:

I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.

It sounds like, suddenly, the left is afraid, very afraid. Last night, we got a little taste of why:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.


We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Jab. Jab. Right hook. Jab. Uppercut.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?


Personal disclosure: I was jumping on the couch and cheering about halfway through this speech. I was wondering what it was going to take to get me excited about the Republican ticket. Sarah 'Cuda just might be my hero.

Dangit! The P. Diddy video just disappeared from Youtube! Conspiracy!

Thursday, August 28, 2008

if Orwell could blog...

Supa cool! George Orwell's diaries are being posted to the day, 70 years later, as though he were a blogger.


The Orwell Prize, Britain’s pre-eminent prize for political writing, is publishing George Orwell’s diaries as a blog. From 9th August 2008, Orwell’s domestic and political diaries (from 9th August 1938 until October 1942) will be posted in real-time, exactly 70 years after the entries were written.
Orwell’s ‘domestic’ diaries begin on 9th August 1938/2008; his ‘political’ diaries (which are further categorised as ‘Morocco’, ‘Pre-war’ and ‘Wartime’) begin on 7th September 1938/2008.
The diaries are exactly as Orwell wrote them. Where there are original spelling errors, they are indicated by a ° following the offending word.

The entries so far are mostly weather and gardening; the good stuff should start in a week or two. This is definitely worth keeping an eye on!

Bookmark this link:
Orwell Diaries

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Anarchist Riots in Denver

A group of radicals/anarchists calling themselves "Recreate '68" are attempting to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in Denver. They wear black and cover their faces; their tactics include hurling rocks and bags of urine at police officers. Their main agenda seemed to be disrupting fundraisers and other functions in downtown Denver related to the convention. Of course, denied the opportunity to do that, they resort to petty vandalism.

These new age brown shirts aren't confined to this event. They (ne'er-do-wells dressed in black intent on rioting and inflicting property damage in the name of the cause-du-jure) make appearances at other evens such as meetings of the WTO and G8 in the US and Europe. They have also announced plans on the internet to disrupt the Republican National Convention, as well. They are fuzzy on their ideology; these gangs are usually made up of an odd alliance of communists and anarchists. Their overarching grievance is usually euphemistically phrased as "anti-imperialism" or "anti-capitalism" of course we see in this case, the real result of their actions is to interefere with the legitimate democratic process.

Blogger and citizen journalist, Zombie, was in Denver and has reports posted on littlegreenfootballs. Follow the links for pictures and excellent commentary:

Zombie: The Denver Games - Opening Ceremony
Zombie: Recreate 68 Finally Lives Up to Its Name: Riot in Denver

Best caption:
An unfortunate side effect of announcing your riot on the Internet is that the police can see the announcement as well. As a result, squads of cops milled through the crowd, looking for troublemakers.


Jimmy Carter didn't speak at the Dem convention yesterday; that's like the summer Olympics without the speed walking or the synchronized swimming! Think of the missed entertainment opportunity.

Link: Carter won't speak at Dem convention

Monday, August 25, 2008

FYI Obama: You’re Not Reagan

But you’ve got that Jimmy Carter thing down

Obama would like to think of himself as the liberal’s Ronald Reagan, and his campaign would love to invoke the image of the Reagan 1980 electoral landslide in the minds of voters. Obama frequently compares himself to Reagan in stump speeches, and why wouldn’t he? Reagan rode a wave of public discontent to a historical political landslide. He appealed to voters in both parties to engineer a nationwide political realignment that still shapes today’s political landscape. He was a celebrity idealist and sunny optimist whose only apparent weakness was his image as an inexperienced Hollywood lightweight. Obama kicked off the Reagan comparisons early in the primary season with this widely quoted interview with the Reno Gazette Journal Editorial Board on Jan 14, 2008:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that, you know, that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

Unfortunately, as has been a trend with Democratic candidates in the last two presidential elections, Obama underestimates the intelligence of the average voter. The majority of Americans are more sophisticated than the Democratic campaign gives them credit for. Issues and character inform the average voter and direct their ballot – not slick photo ops and snazzy logos. The Obama campaign and its supporters are tragically focused on the latter and fail to recognize that it was common sense policies and strength of character that fueled Reagan’s political appeal amongst both Republicans and Democrats. Some superficial similarities to Reagan aside, Obama has much more in common with Jimmy Carter on deeper levels of policy and political thinking. Whether it is taxes, foreign policy, or even racial politics, similarities to the Carter administration are strikingly evident.

First on taxes and the economy, hoping to deflect criticism of Obama’s policies, Chuck Raasch wrote last month in, “Democrats had ridiculed Reagan as an actor who had crazy economic theories.” It is a convenient narrative for Democrats to point out that Reagan was criticized for promoting “voodoo economics” much as Obama is being ridiculed for his taxation policies today. However, the ridicule is where the similarities to Reagan end, and in terms of taxes, Reagan and Obama could not be further apart in their respective philosophies.

Reagan was an adherent to supply side economics that promoted strategically adjusting capital gains and income taxes to encourage production and thus maximize tax revenue. In our modern tax climate, this means cutting taxes. Obama, on the other hand, advocates raising taxes to make things more “fair.” His campaign dubs its policy, “Tax Fairness for the Middle Class;” of course, Obama would be our grand arbiter of fairness. During the Democratic primaries in the ABC debate against Senator Clinton on April 16, 2008, Charles Gibson challenged Obama on his capital gains tax policy. Gibson pointed out that, historically, lowering the capitol gains tax actually increases government revenue so why would Obama favor increasing capitol gains tax? Obama responded, “I would look at raising taxes for purposes of fairness.”

Additionally, taking a page directly from the Carter playbook, Obama also advocates a revival of the disastrous Windfall Profits Tax. In stump speeches, Obama calls out Exxon-Mobile by name and sneers at their supposedly unseemly profits to finagle public support for this bill. Of course, Obama fails to mention that this tax decreased domestic production and increased dependency on foreign oil while failing dramatically to produce expected revenues. Reagan finally succeeded in repealing this tax in 1988.

Likewise, we see eerie echoes of Carter foreign policy in the Obama campaign. The most striking example is their mutual fumbling on questions of American policy towards Iran. During the Iran hostage crisis, Carter’s bungling resulted in hostages being held for 444 days and a botched rescue attempt which still holds propaganda value for terrorists to this day. Obama isn’t Commander in Chief yet, but his current stumbles on the campaign trail may foreshadow future debacles. During the YouTube/CNN Democratic primary debate, a participant asked the candidates the following question:

Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during your first year of your administration in Washington, or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Without hesitation Senator Obama responded affirmatively, and for bonus points, threw in another Reagan reference:

I would, and the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire… [Iran and Syria] have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are going to be in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

No one is really sure how, exactly, Obama would convince Iran and Syria to “carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region,” or how announcing a retreat of the US military would encourage regional strongmen to act more “responsibly”. The Obama campaign never really clarified the points, either. However, there is no doubt that Ahmadinejad, or any other Iranian leader, would milk a face-to-face meeting with a US president for all the propaganda value it was worth, and furthermore, meeting without preconditions would only reinforce present bad behavior by the regime.

In a rebuttal to the same question, Senator Clinton avoids falling into the trap:

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year; I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high of a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes; I don’t want to make a situation even worse.

Before even securing his party’s nomination, Obama hands the Iranian regime a needless propaganda victory.

Like taxes and Middle East policy, even race politics came up back in 1980, and once again, Obama comes out looking a whole lot more like a Carter than a Reagan. Speaking on August 4, 1980 to the Neshoba County Fair outside Philadelphia, Mississipi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, Reagan delivered what he intended to be a standard stump speech about restricting the size and influence of the federal government, but he unwisely used the term “states’ rights” to reference this concept. It is true that the term “states’ rights” has an ignoble history in the South. The States’ Rights Democratic Party ran Strom Thurmond for president in 1968 on an anti-segregation, pro-Jim Crow platform; however, in 1980 it was Jimmy Carter who first played the race card when he accused Reagan of racism. Speaking to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia on September 15, 1980, Carter told the audience:

You’ve seen in this campaign the stirrings of hate and the rebirth of code words like “states’ rights” in a speech in Mississippi in a campaign reference to the Ku Klux Klan relating to the South.

Reagan already had a long and well documented history of supporting states’ rights—in the small federal government meaning of the phrase—in a completely non-racial context as governor of California. Certainly, the use of the term was an insensitive gaffe on Reagan’s part made by a Californian out of his element in the deep South, but to construe his statement as a secret message to white supremacists, as Carter did, is race baiting hysteria.

Fast forward to 2008, McCain has not yet made any such slip, yet Obama pre-emptively accuses him of running a racist campaign. Speaking at a campaign stop in Missouri on July 30, 2008, Obama warned supporters to be on guard for racist attacks:

What they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

After the Obama campaign initially denying that his comment was about race, David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, conceded the obvious, that Obama’s remarks were about ethnicity, making the Obama campaign the first to play the race card. The race card may have helped nudge Obama ahead of Clinton in the primaries; however, Reagan weathered these types of attacks in 1980, and they ultimately reflected poorly on Carter. Likewise, this line of attack is unlikely to bear fruit for Obama in the 2008 general election.

Finally, Obama sought the ultimate Reagan-esque photo op and hoped to cement the image of himself as the liberal Reagan with a speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg gate in front of a crowd of cheering Germans. After expressions of concern from German chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama was forced to move his rally to the Berlin Victory Column. Obama did indeed get his photo taken in front of thousands of cheering Germans; however, in a speech smattered with no less than sixteen wall references, Obama never once achieved the clarity and impact of Reagan’s imperative, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Instead, Obama’s wall metaphors ran together into a bland string of platitudes because he utterly lacks the character, precision of thought, and sound principles that Reagan articulated in one simple sentence.

It was not Reagan’s clever use of a good line that riled the crowd; it was Reagan’s unambiguous rejection of tyranny against an undertow of moral equivalence that awed Germany and America. Sadly, from his questionable associations with Raila Odinga, to his vote on the Iraq war and opposition of the surge, right up to his timid and ambiguous statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, Obama has shown Americans that he is all too willing to tolerate tyranny and embrace moral equivalence. Furthermore, Obama’s tax policies and even his use of the race card in the current election bear a much closer resemblance to those of Carter in 1980 than of Reagan. With Jimmy Carter speaking on Monday night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the electoral analogy comes around full circle – but clearly not in the way that favors Obama.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

3AM Obama Central

Like a needy ex-girl friend drunk dialing from outside some cheesy frat boy bar, the Obama campaign texted its VP announcement to supporters just after 3AM (eastern) early Saturday morning.

Drumroll please... the winner is Joe Biden!

The Obama campaighn promised that supporters would be the first to learn of the VP text and would find out by text message (wow... Obama is just soooo cool). Unfortunately, Obama's pick was leaked to the media late friday forcing the campaighn to send the 3am message.

Obama selects Biden

Thursday, August 21, 2008

A/C = Bush = eeeevil

Does air conditioning make people vote Republican?

Wow. Just wow. The author attempts to make the case that A/C is responsible for the rise of the eeeevil "Bush dynasty," John McCain, and the all around degenration of the idustrial Northeast. Yep. A/C is resposible for all our social ills, chief among them the fact that more people are voting for conservatives:

As we observe Air Conditioning Appreciation Week, we should thank A/C for reducing malaria and infant mortality, for allowing pollen sufferers to breathe in the summer and for cooling the labs that produce our computer chips. But we should also talk about the unintended consequences of a machine that pumps out cold air.

Let's start with the Bush dynasty.

So... we have fewer dead babies and no one dies of malaria... BUT people are voting for George Bush! Unintended consequences, indeed.

In 1966, Texas became the first state in which half the homes were air-conditioned. That same year, George H.W. Bush was elected to Congress -- from Houston. Coincidence? Or does air conditioning make people vote Republican? After all, the GOP's rise in the South coincides with the region's adoption of air conditioning.

Yep. A/C, definitely eeeeevil.

It's easy to write this now because we've had a cool summer in Chicago. The temperature has never topped 91 degrees. On Monday night, I turned on the bedroom fan for the first time all of August. But I moved here on the day the Great Heat Wave of 1995 spiked. I nearly fainted carrying furniture up a flight of stairs. Over 500 people suffocated to death inside their apartments. Air conditioners would have saved lives, but it's too simple to say the heat wave victims died just because they didn't have them. Most were old, alone and afraid to open their windows. Some died not because they lacked air conditioning, but because they lacked it in an air-conditioned society. The traditional method of cooling off in a heat wave -- camping out in the parks -- is no longer acceptable. No one looked in on those people because, in the age of air conditioning, it's hard to remember that a heat wave can cull the weak and the elderly.

Okay, try to follow this logic: 500 elderly people suffocated to death in their apartments (in Chicago), they were too afraid to open their windows or go out into parks (in Chicago), and no one checked in on them (in Chicago). All of this is the fault of "air-conditioned society" a.k.a. Bush, Texans, and Republican voters in the south. Did you follow? No? Well, you are obviously a dumb redneck.

Update -- Chicago Annenburg Challange

They're friends. So what?

Via Ed Morressey at Hot Air: Obama hiding behind Daley's skirts?

Morressey links to Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, who provides an informative quote on the issue from Chicago's mayor Richard M. Daley:

When Daley says shhh, library is quiet on Obama
"Bill Ayers--I've said this—his father was a great friend of my father," the mayor said. "I'll be very frank. Vietnam divided families, divided people. It was a terrible time of our country. People didn't know one another. Since then, I'll be very frank, [Ayers] has been in the forefront of a lot of education issues and helping us in public schools and things like that."

The mayor expressed his frustrations with outside agitators like Kurtz.

"People keep trying to align himself with Barack Obama," Daley said. "It's really unfortunate. They're friends. So what? People do make mistakes in the past. You move on. This is a new century, a new time. He reflects back and he's been making a strong contribution to our community."

Oops! I bombed the Pentagon!

So what? The voters get to decide what matters--not Obama and his buddies. With a resume as light as Obama's; his friends do matter. Now, we may never see the records though. The common consensus seems to be that if Kurtz, or anyone, ever does receive the documents, they will have been sanitized beyond recognition.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

McBain for President!

Cute, Simpsons themed McCain parody:

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Obama, Taxes, and Fairness

From William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal:
For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness

McGurn presents some good analysis about the Saddleback Church debate, and concludes with a good followup question:

Mr. Warren, a man of the cloth, has done us a great service by asking the candidates to answer a pretty secular question: What kind of income makes an American "rich"? Maybe in the more secular setting of an upcoming debate, one of our nonpastor moderators could ask the candidates the moral question: What specific rate of individual taxation would it take for the rich to be paying their fair share?

I don't know how John McCain or Barack Obama Jr. would answer this question. However, Barack Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr. has given us his opinion:

Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. ( )

Note: One of Obama's two autobiographies was title Dreams from My Father. Apparently, Obama's dad was dreaming of a whole lotta taxes.

Update: Chicago Annenberg Challange records

Will we find out what's in those 132 boxes of documents before the election? Maybe not.

Bill Burton, a UIC spokesman, says "The university has not received ownership rights to the Chicago Annenburg Challange collection. The university is aggressively pursuing an agreement with the donor, and as soon as an agreement is finalized the collection will be made av to the public." Burton would not disclose the donor, but did confirm that the donor was not Bill Ayers. Near the end of the interview, Burton reveals "If it can't be done [an ownership agreement] then the material will be returned to the owner."

Annenberg Records in Grave Danger
Radio Interview:

Latest Nutroots Nuttiness

The buzz over at DailyKos is whether McCain is making up his story about a Vietnamese guard drawing a cross in the sand outside his cell during one of his Christmases in captivity. There is no way to prove whether or not McCain is making this story up. Of course, the bigger picture is: McCain spent five and a half years enduring beatings and torture in the service of his country while during the analogous period in his life, Obama was chillin' with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Somehow, that point goes blazing straight over the nutroots pointy little heads.

Here is a link to a dailykos journal outlining their 'evidence' that the story is fabricated:

I was watching the forum last night and decided that since I hadn't eaten yet, I would try to listen to John McCain speak. I was doing OK with the "my friends" and the evil chuckle when I heard him talk about his POW story of the cross in the dirt. That was when I couldn't take it anymore.

rickrocket's diary :: ::
It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.

Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation. The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair.

On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him. He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

The silver lining to all this? Lefties reading Solzhenitsyn!

Monday, August 18, 2008

What's in the Chicago Annenberg Challange records?

Will we ever find out?

Obama's relationship with Weather Underground terrorist and unrepentant Pentagon bomber, Bill Ayers, came up during the Democratic primaries, but the press has been lax on following up on the details of this relationship since Obama dismissed Ayers as some guy who lives in his neighborhood.

On Obama's short resume, his Chicago community activism plays a central role. According to wikipedia Obama served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challange (CAC) from 1995 to 2002, including a four year stint as chairman of the board. Bill Ayers founded the CAC and wrote the charter grant in 1993 and served as a co-chair with Obama.

During the Democratic primary debates, the question of Obama’s association with Ayers came up and Obama dismissed it casually:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

An extensive collection of records of the CAC are currently housed in the J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Writing at, Stanley Kurtz outlines the potential significance of these documents:
That document cache contains the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama’s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question.

Kurtz contacted the library and obtained written permission from library officials to view the records. As Kurtz was boarding a plane to Chicago to examine the records, he received an email that his access had been revoked!

Kurtz’s expedition into the depths of the UIC bureaucracy to view the enigmatic CAC records can only be described as Kafka-esque. The whole tale is detailed here, and it reads like the plot line of a political thriller – all it is missing is a car chase and a couple of shootouts:

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?

It is well worth the time to follow the link and read Kurtz’s full account. He sets loose an avalanche of questions; whose answers may have major implications in the upcoming election. Why was Kurtz’s access to these files abruptly revoked? What do these records have to say about Obama’s relationship with Ayers? What else might they tell us about Obama? Who is suppressing their release? It’s possible that this is dead end, just a bunch of ho-hum meeting minutes of some obscure education committee, but if so, why go through all the trouble to hide them from the public?

Friday, August 15, 2008

Russia, not so tiny

The Russia/Georgia conflict continues to heat up; Putin is clearly not taking the weekend off. Currently, headlining over at The Drudge Report:

Kremlin Warning: Poland Takes the Shield

MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.
The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.
"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike—100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

In the immortal words of Scooby Doo, “Ruh-row.” I am also reminded of some other immortal words from Our Dear Leader from a few months ago:

That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev; that’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it; Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union! They don’t pose a serious threat to us, the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us, and yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, “we’re going to wipe you off the planet.” And ultimately that direct engagement, lead to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time, brought about the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin wall.

First off, I would like to give Senator Obama props for recognizing that the USSR was actually a threat to US security prior to 1989. However, putting Obama’s tiny-ness to threat ratio aside, if Obama has any “direct engagement[s]” or “series of actions” he would like to suggest that would onvince Russia to take a chill pill, right now might be a good time to speak up. I mean, think about it; Russia isn’t such a tiny country. And lastly, Obama, you might be a celebrity, but you ain’t no Reagan.

WWII According to Quentin Tarantino

World War II not gory enough for you? Never fear! Concerned that there are not enough blood and guts WWII movies available in cinematic archives, Quentin Tarantino endeavors to fill the void:

Quentin Tarantino signs Brad Pitt to star in gory World War II movie
Cult moviemaker Quentin Tarantino is poised to make a blood-spattered World War II epic starring Brad Pitt as the leader of a maverick U.S. unit of Jewish soldiers which scalps Nazis.

Tarantino, in Berlin this week scouting locations for ’Inglorious Bastards,’ begins directing the film at the famed Babelsberg Studios on the outskirts of the capital on October 13.

The director of ’Pulp Fiction,’ ’Reservoir Dogs’ and ’Kill Bill’ wrote a 165-page script in record time about a no-rules squad of desperadoes operating behind enemy lines in the war.

I always thought that Brad Pitt looked kinda Jewish!

Darth Bush

The Newsweek (print) cover this week is totally giggle inducing. In case you haven't been paying attention to the MSM for the last eight years, Bush is eeeeeevil.

The article by Fareed Zakaria is titled, "What Bush Got Right." I confess, I haven't slogged through it, but judging by the cover graphic, Newsweek must be panicking that they only have a few more months to point out that Bush reminds them of a Star Wars Sith lord.

Et tu, NYT?

Even the notoriously slanted New York Times is starting to notice the disparity in depth between McCain and Obama’s reactions to the Russia/Georgia conflict.

McCain Displays Credentials as Obama Relaxes

HONOLULU — For the last several days, Senator Barack Obama has seemed to fade from the scene while on his secluded vacation here, as his opponent, Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity to display his foreign policy credentials on the dominant issue of the week: the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Only once, at the beginning of the week, did Mr. Obama discuss the fighting in public, when he emerged from his beachfront rental home to condemn Russia’s escalation, in a way that seemed timed for the evening television news. He took no questions whose answers might demonstrate command of the issue.

Mr. McCain and his surrogates, however, have discussed the situation nearly every day on the campaign trail, often taking a hard line against Russia to the point of his declaring the other day, “We are all Georgians.”

Of course, after a good start, the editorial degenerates into making annoying excuses for Obama:

Still, some Hawaii residents and political observers acknowledged that exotic impressions of the islands have become mythology among Americans, making it one of the most unlikely places for a presidential candidate to call home.

Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama has played down his Hawaiian roots, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Obama’s biographical narrative has focused on his mother from Kansas and father from Kenya, and less on his time in Oahu.

“When you’re being accused of being an elitist,” Ms. Jamieson said, “and when people are using code words such as ‘exotic’ in order to describe you and your background, you would not want to locate your biography in Hawaii, if you had a choice.”

Riiight … the observation, supported by facts, that Obama’s foreign policy is uninformed and timid has nothing to do with it. All you voters are just stupid and distracted by the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. Sorry, even if Obama was vacationing in Oklahoma, I would continue to be under whelmed by his non-statements on the developing events.

PS: McCain was born in frickin’ Panama for gosh sakes.


Clarification – Iowahawk: Breakthrough in Georgia

Aaaaaack! I heard a crazy rumor that I might possibly have readers, like maybe even more than one. That is so way much scarier than when I thought I was just randomly blathering to the vast internets to hear myself type.

In my post from yesterday, I realized that the formatting might have been misleading. That was an excerpt from a hilarious satire blog called Iowahawk, . The excerpt was in blockquotes, but without more non-quoted text around it, you can’t really tell. No, that was not my original writing, but hey, I surf the internet so you don’t have to!

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

VP Picks

If I were a gambling kind of gal, I would put money on Lieberman as McCain's VP pick. Don't get me wrong; as a mostly libertarian at heart, this ticket sends a shiver up my spine, but that is until I look at the alternative. Lieberman is not my personal favorite choice for VP, but he makes sense for McCain. Picking Liebs reinforces both McCain's bi-partisan credentials and his desired maverick image. If fear of four years of Obama doesn't energize the conservative base, then there is not much McCain himself can do. Obama represents the Daily Kos/ wing of the party so McCain can safely straddle the center and still be far to the right of Obama. After 8 years of playing Neocons vs. Hippies, much of the electorate might be sick of playground politics and willing to compromise on a centrist ticket.

Dick Morris has much the same analysis on a possible McCain / Lieberman ticket and additionally predicts an Obama / Joe Biden ticket. I don't think it's going to matter too much who his VP is. He definitely won't pick Clinton so regardless of who else he picks, his campaign is going to be all Obama all the time.

Iowahawk: Diplomatic Breakthrough in Georgia

Red Faced Party Crashers REtreat

By early Saturday morning, however, Russia's loutish behavior had gotten out of control, and according to some included wearing lampshades and carpet bombing of civilian areas. In response, the US State Department prepared a carefully worded rebuke, reading "Dude, totally not cool," and the UN Security Council issued a special envoy to the region expressing "grave concern" and warning that "come on dude, you're drunk."

The harsh international diplomatic verbal response brought an immediate halt to the Russian firebombing campaign, followed by what observers termed "an uncomfortable silence."

"Everyone was just sort of staring at Russia, who's in the middle of beating the hell out of Georgia, and Russia's like, 'what? Come on man, you have to admit it's funny,'" said a source with UNSCOM. "So Russia's going around, looking for high fives and is like, 'don't leave me hangin', bro,' but the G8 gives him the total gas face, so he's like, 'whatever, dude, this party sucked anyway.'"

As Russia sobered up and began packing up its tanks and bomber groups, the source said it began feeling bad.

Aafia Siddique

A high level female Al Queda operative caught with detailed plans for terrorist attacks and a thumbdrive full of email contacts caught following a shootout:

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Olympics Make Satan Happy!

According to Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid, the Olympics are "an exposure of women's private parts on a global scale."

Wow. Which sport is that? Oh yeah... all of them.

Video at lgf:

Almost 3AM - Update

Obama has finally figured out that Russia is the aggressor and adopts McCain's position calling for Russia to withdraw ground forces from Russia. He has also clued into the cease-fire. "For many month I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully settle the disputes over South Ossetia." Hmmm. I've heard the Global Citizen call for international engagement in all kinds of things, but this is the first time I've heard him mention Ossetia.

We should also convene other international forums to condemn this aggression to call for an immediate end to the violence and to review multi-lateral and bi-lateral arrangements with Russia including Russia's interest in joining the World Trade Organization.

Oooo ... multi-lateral and bi-lateral, that must be super duper diplomatic. So ... Russia invades a small democratic neighbor, and in response, we should consider letting them join the WTO? Forgive my lack of nuance, but WTF? Also, according to Obama, Russia's behavior is "wholly inconsistent with the Olympic ideal." For real, Russia, if you're going to go and invade neighboring democracies -- don't do it during summer vacation! "Michelle is going to be, like, so pissed if I make this press conference longer than five minutes." [Okay, I made that one up.]

McCain presents a lengthy review of Georgia's history and attempts to put the recent crisis in a larger context:

9min 13sec is an awfully long time for me to pay attention to anything, and the salmon colored tie and powder blue shirt are definitely making me wonder, if he's not senile, could he possibly be color blind? I also don't understand the point of going to the UN Security council when Russia has a veto over any putative action; however, McCain's past advocacy of a League of Democracies and calls to exclude Russia from the G8 appear impressively prescient given its recent aggressive behavior. Either of these two organizations might have given us a multi-lateral platform from which to exert diplomatic pressure as opposed to the UNSC in which Russia has veto power or the continually ineffectual EU. McCain may not be the hip candidate, but he does come out looking like the informed one.

Our handling of Georgia is an important test for the United States. Putin is likely to be sublimely unconcerned with international opinion, and Russia's natural gas and petroleum reserves make economic sanctions an empty threat. However, a limp response by the US risks emboldening Russia to expand its ambitions to other former Soviet Republics and eastern European satellites meanwhile encouraging any wanna-be's like Venezuela and Iran to make power and territory grabs of their own. Recent history is full of examples where the appeasement of dictatorial ambitions only allows conflicts to fester precipitates a broader crisis.