Sunday, December 21, 2008
Well, we got 4.5 new inches of snow over the 3 inches already on the ground, and then some freezing rain to make it all slick and crunchy for the drive to church for Heair No. One's Christmas Play. Its all very pretty, but the freezing rain is making it all as slick as snailsnot right now, and I am not looking forward to the 25 mile trek to work tomorrow.
The Kids Did Well With The Christmas Play...Once They All Made In. Other Churches On The Street Had Suspiciously Empty Lots This Morning.
And Of Course, They Had the Opportunity to Stuff Their Faces After.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
One of the reasons I moved here from Michigan was to get away from winter weather. Snow fall in Western Washington is not unheard of, but it does happen. This was the view out my back deck 20 minutes ago.
I understand. In Michigan, this is nothing. In Western Washington? This is a disaster, lots of steep inclines and declines, and no salt + lots of idiots who don't have a clue how to drive in it = something sane people do not want to drive in.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Lefties are so cute when they declare themselves knowledgeable about things they do not understand. For example, this article in Newsweek, which purports to show that the Bible does not contain any prohibition of gay marriage, the implication being of course that all of we evil Christofacist thugs are all so stupid that we cannot even interpret our scripture correctly, and once again, it is up to the more refined lefties among us to spend 10 minutes reading the Bible, finding passages that appear to justify their agenda, and hold forth for us rubes to drink deep of their intellectual prowess and wisdom. Kind of like when the Algore tells us "The debate is over" in reference to his
lucrative business selling modern-day indulgences for sins against Mother Gaia Global Warming. It wouldn't be quite so frustrating if these idiots didn't have the bully pulpit all to themselves as a way to ensnare the sheeple in their particular brand of bias that I like to think of as "Through a cracked lens, darkly." It reminds me of something one of my unofficial scoutmasters used to say: "The Devil can quote you scripture all day long." How true he was. I can almost hear this particular author reciting this prayer before penning this lovely piece of propaganda:
"Oh dear Lord, whom I do not believe in, please let me find the words that I can interpret the way that I want, so that I can tell those evil Christofacist thugs that their precious book doesn't say what they say it says, and so I can be absolved of any sin or shame for my chapped lips and anal fissures, and my cheating on my partner with that guy from the bar the other night, and go on with the belief that God is love only, and that there is nothing expected of me to hold up my end of the bargain of salvation, which I do not believe in anyway. Amen."
Newsweek has finally dropped to the level of birdcage lining for me.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
In the latest of our dispatches from tree-hugger land, we have this inspired piece of work from the Redmond Reporter, demonstrating further why the dead tree media is on the decline.
Be thankful, but true to our past
Nov 26 2008, 12:00 AM · NEW
On the fourth Thursday of every November, Americans pig out to the fullest extent while ignoring the sins of the past.
I guess I missed the part where I might somehow need to feel responsibility for things that occurred before I was born. I guess more time in the soon-to-be erected "re-education" camps will teach me where I went so tragically wrong.
Teachers have long since squashed the myth that Christopher Columbus sailed to America to prove the world was round, but some still perpetuate the myth that he was the peaceful discoverer of the American continent.
You found a school where Columbus was still part of the curriculum? That in itself is a miracle in these days of revisionist hate America first pap that you spoon feed to our children at every opportunity.
Columbus, in fact, was the precursor to a mass genocide.
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
Considering that a 'precursor" is something that comes before, does that mean all of the revised histories will again have to be re-written? You know, the ones that call Columbus a murderer? Really, it is starting to get like we need a scorecard to keep track of these things any more. And Genocide? When was there ever a concerted effort on behalf of all Europeans here in the New World to systematically exterminate all living peoples? I'm fairly well versed in history, and I really don't remember coming across anything resembling a stated policy or governmental mandate to eradicate all indigenous peoples from North America. Can you say "flawed premise"? I knew you could.
More than 100 years later, the Pilgrims arrived peacefully to participate in the first Thanksgiving dinner. But, instead they opened the door to more death and destruction of the Native Americans.
Except that if it wasn't the Pilgrims, it would have been someone else. Mankind tends to stretch out in many different directions, but it really was a very skillful attempt to paint those evil Christofascist Pilgrims as murdering monsters, set on building their homes on the bones of unfortunate Indian children. Well, except for the part where I pointed out that the facts don't support the impression created. Sorry about that.
Eventually, they became the minority, captives in their own land. You can bet, they were never thankful for the famine, war, death, and plagues brought on by the Europeans.
Yeah, because they never had famine, war, death, or plagues before the Europeans came. Everybody knows that those were strictly inventions of the evil Europeans used to subjugate lands that they were not born to. All those tribes that warred with and killed each other, some times enslaving, but more frequently seeking extinction? How do you explain them? Famine? The phrase "hunger moon" did not arrive with the Europeans. Plagues? Disease does not exist in a vacuum. Simple reading in the field of epidemiology should be sufficient to convince you of this. And, since you are so blindingly ignorant of history, you might want to read up on the origins of swine flu...the native people's gift to Europeans, and the effects that it had.
Thanksgiving was a holiday created by President Abraham Lincoln to give Americans something to be thankful for during the Civil War. People can be thankful for a lot of things, but genocide should not be one of them.
Actually, the origins appear to reach back to St. Augustine in Florida, and then the Virgina and Massachusetts Colony. The Internet is a wonderful research tool. I suggest you use it to educate yourself on the true meaning of a holiday before you project your unreasonable self-loathing on the celebration of an entire nation. Yes, I know. You are not willing to let facts interfere with a serious bit of navel-gazing self-righteousness.
How can something so devastating as genocide become so overshadowed by a national holiday? Even if it happened centuries ago, a subject like genocide is something that should not be ignored no matter when it happened.
I'm not sure that such a thing can occur. I certainly have not witnessed where the Germans have a day where they load their tables with sausages and sauerkraut to celebrate the Holocaust. But then, that would be because the Holocaust was an actual, you know, genocide.
So this Thanksgiving you can be thankful for the money in your pocket or the freedom you have, but just remember the indigenous “Americans” who yearned for that freedom first.
Ok, now I'm confused. First you use the word "genocide" like a bludgeon, arguing passionately for the requirement that I feel guilt for a "genocide" that never happened, and I certainly had nothing to do with, and now you imply that our nation denied these people their 'freedoms'. They do not teach coherency in journalism course anymore, do they?
This Thanksgiving, we should be careful of what we’re grateful for.
Why this Thanksgiving? Why not last Thanksgiving? Why not next Thanksgiving? I refuse to let the triumph of form over substance that occurred in our recent Presidential election make me ashamed of being an American, or of the history of our nation, and being dictated to by sanctimonious dimwits such as yourself tends to reinforce the feeling. Somewhere, Zig Zigler is laughing hysterically at your flawed sales technique.
America, taken brutally from the natives already happily settled, built on the backs of slaves, and made powerful through numerous wars, has a bloody history.
Taken brutally from natives happily settled? You need to brush up on your native american histories. Tribes wiping entire tribes out. Enslaving others? Brutally attacking settlers who's only crime was moving into land that did not appear to be occupied. And bloody? Read some of the accounts of the French and Indian War. The tomahawk is not known for making a 'clean' wound. Built on the backs of slaves? If there was even a scintilla of truth to this assertion, then how is it that the north, with its noted absence of slaves, managed to win the Civil War? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Compare the numbers of Americans killed in the Civil War compared to any other conflict our nation has been in, and then try to make your case for bloody.
Nearly everything Americans have to be thankful for has hurt someone else along the way.
You're right. We hurt the Axis Powers...the ones who declared war on us, when we defeated them in WWII. We hurt the North Korean communists when they attempted to brutally repress their countrymen in South Korea. Ditto for the North Vietnamese. We hurt the man in the moon with the moon landings. We hurt the eastern bloc countries when we won the Cold War and they won their freedom. We hurt Sadam Hussein when we pushed him out of Kuwait and back into his own country. We hurt him again when we removed him from power so he could no longer arbitrarily and capriciously kill Iraquis who displeased him. We hurt the whole world with velcro, microwave ovens, incandescent light, the automobile, the zipper, refrigeration, the airplane, manned spaceflight, steel, and the various advances to existing technologies and processes that the Americans are responsible for bringing to the world. We hurt other people when we put our unique take on liberty and freedom and put it into writing. We hurt other people when we breathed life into those words with the sacrifices of our brave citizens as they fell time and again on foreign shores bringing those freedoms to lands that had previously only know tyranny.
The thought behind Thanksgiving is a pure and good one – set a day apart when we gather with family and friends and remember all the many things we have to be thankful for.
And to remember other times...some good, some bad, but always to be thankful for the providence that God has blessed this nation with, and the family and friends that we are fortunate enough to spend time with, regardless of all other circumstances, past, present, and future.
And we Americans have a lot to be thankful for.
Amen. Something we can both agree on. How did that happen?
The problem isn’t what we remember; rather, the problem is what we forget.
No, the problem is that you assume that because I don't engage in a lot of silly handwringing about things that I had nothing to do with, I need the benefit of your preachy admonition.
Americans simply don’t think about the people they have to step on to get where they are. This Thanksgiving, don’t make that mistake.
Insulting and stupid. If we are indelibly stained by any misdeeds that may have been committed by our fathers and grandfathers, then I submit to you that the rest of the world has as much or more to answer for than this great nation, yet I don't see you on your soapbox wagging your finger at any other country. Why is that?
Freedom is wonderful. By all means, be grateful for it. Enjoy that turkey dinner and be thankful for our freedom, friends and family.
Thank you. I intend to.
Just don’t forget about all the people who don’t get to be grateful for American freedom.
I'm confused. Did we change the subject of your outrage screed again? Because if they live here, they get the same freedoms you and I do. If they don't, then maybe they can aspire to it where they are, and that would be a good thing.
I'm thankful that your wretched 'opinion piece' was mercifully short. I would have been more thankful if you could have checked your "Hate America First" attitude before writing it and instead penned a thoughtful, factually based piece that would have treated thanks and pride as the centerpiece, rather than a half-hearted afterthought, tossed out to deflect any deserved criticism of your page of bile.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Have you ever been in the grip of the belief that it just didn't matter? Rightly or wrongly, this is how I have felt in the last few weeks. And every day, I get a little bit more to make me think that way. The video of the Obama voters who couldn't identify the speaker of astonishingly stupid Obamaisms. Glenn Beck's random calls to people, asking them pointed questions about government, politics,and the economy. We are adrift on a sea of stupid. More and more, I am convinced that we have brought about C.M. Kornbluth's Marching Morons, and the shrinking numbers of intelligent people will soon be tasked (unofficially, of course) with the burden of making the world work so the rest of the world doesn't just start dying off wholesale from their stupidity and making the rest of us choke on the odor of their own decay.
Right now it is very cold comfort to know exactly where the blame for this all lies. The left, in its insatiable quest for power in exchange for the individual's self-sufficiency appears poised to get exactly what they have plotted and schemed and worked for over the course of decades. Of course, being fixated on the goal for so long, it is clear that they have given very little thought to what it actually means. I'd pity them for their tunnel vision and the coming brainduster to be administered by our old friend, The Law Of Unintended Consequences™, but since they have destroyed a once great nation by cutting all ties with its moral roots and catering to the fickle and shortsighted nature of human emotion, I believe I'll just stoke a low fire of contempt for them instead. They will soon be able to declare that the reward of individuality that has been the great genius of this country have given way to the primacy of the lowest common denominator. Rather than aspiring to greatness, we can be enslaved to the service of the least of us. And when the left's intelligentsia comes to the inevitable conclusion that there is nothing to be gained from blaming the ultimate result of their policies on conservatism, they will finally be fully aware of what responsibilities come with the leadership of a nanny state that is hostile to innovation, freedom, and excellence.
I think about this a lot these days as I watch the Hopey-Changey One fill his cabinet with Clinton retreads. No change, no hope. Only the inevitable march toward mediocrity and national malaise that it will bring. But I guess after surveying the collective awareness of the country, maybe we did get the government we deserve. Maybe others will be considering more in the coming days.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Watching the fallout from the Prop 8 vote in California has been disturbing. For anyone who has been living under a rock, the voters of California got to vote on whether to keep or get rid of their court-mandate right for gays to marry. And by a very surprising margin, the voters elected to get rid of it. The result? The rainbow and pink swastika brigades have taken it upon themselves to riot, vandalize, assault, and intimidate those who do not share their "tolerant" and "enlightened" views. This has included venom-laced invective directed against the Mormon church, which was a major contributor to the "No" campaign, leaving burning Books of Mormon at the entry ways to Mormon temples, marching and assaulting those who express different viewpoints, and "outing" and harassing various donors to the "No" campaign. I suspect that this behavior is influencing people, but not in the way that the "activists" would like. The sad thing is that in addition to sabotaging their interests, they will eventually endanger themselves by deciding to assault someone who won't be as forgiving as most of the Christians they have made a point of bullying up to this point. Unfortunately, this outbreak of asshattery is not confined to the gay and lesbian community. It is part of a larger trend of "thugocracy" which is casting its shadow across the country in the names of "Change" and "Enlightenment".
We saw this during the Presidential campaign. Joe the Plumber asks a question, and in two days, every detail of his life is laid bare, when we still knew so little about the candidate that he dared to question. When critics of Obama were scheduled to be interviewed, supporters rallied and swamped radio/TV stations with calls, threatening the stations and repeating any lie or smear to discredit the speaker. Like it or not, this was leading by example, and is an unsettling herald of the age of Obama. Now there are rumblings about a return of the Fairness Doctrine. I was and remain skeptical. I have read the court cases. There is even less justification, in the age of cable TV and satellite radio for such an overbearing imposition of federal authority. Especially when the other side has begun to grow bold enough to abandon spin in favor of fiction. However, since the left is now so emboldened, and feeling the power gained from the skillful employment of fiction, I can concede that they may well try it. After all, the acolytes of Algore and the fable of global warming have been thuggishly enforcing their rigid dogma on the scientific community and lately by extension, national governments for sometime now, regardless of the size or weight of inconvenient facts to the contrary of their new religion. But they have of course, felt justified. They are, afterall, saving us from ourselves, right. And pay no attention to the enormous profits to be reaped from the practice of selling carbon credit
The point I'm coming to is this: There is a growing movement among the left that says that the rest of us are not smart enough to decide for ourselves what is right. We aren't 'tolerant' enough. We aren't 'diverse' enough. We don't do enough for the planet, and therefore it is up to them, those who see themselves as both smarter and morally superior to us, to save us from ourselves, and they see nothing wrong with forcing us to see it their way. The lump on the back of my head is ok if Steve and Bob can get 'married'. It is ok to question authority, as long as it doesn't come with a (D) after its name. The job I used to have and the standard of living I once knew and wanted to pass to my children is an acceptable sacrifice, as long as it slows the rate of global warming that isn't really occurring...and its OK for Algore himself to have a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla on steroids because he buys those
indulgences offsets himself as he is trying to save the planet from the evviiillll humans. All the behaviors the left has accused the right of committing for the last four years are those the left currently engages in now. I have been talking for a while about the Great Pushback™. It seems to me that there is a growing restlessness on the right and it won't take too much more to trigger the pushback. And on that terrible day, I don't think I'd want to be standing on the left, because I don't believe the left will be standing for long.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
An amusing story from the NYTimes...Apparently they haven't shut the doors yet...
WASHINGTON — Sorry, Mr. President. Please surrender your BlackBerry.
BLACKberry???? THAT'S JUST RACIST!!!!!!11!!
Those are seven words President-elect Barack Obama is dreading but expecting to hear, friends and advisers say, when he takes office in 65 days.
Peasants! He is THE ONE!!! He dreads nothing!!!
For years, like legions of other professionals, Mr. Obama has been all but addicted to his BlackBerry. The device has rarely been far from his side — on most days, it was fastened to his belt — to provide a singular conduit to the outside world as the bubble around him grew tighter and tighter throughout his campaign.
It must have annoyed his campaign gurus to no end...a source of info that wasn't filtered through them. Maybe it was one of his Ayers-educated friends who talked to him about the 57 states?
“How about that?” Mr. Obama replied to a friend’s congratulatory e-mail message on the night of his victory.
"There really are that many foolish people voting in this country. We didn't even need the votes we had ACORN stealing for us."
But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful.
Oh snap! Now we are going to have a newly recovering addict in the oval office...a guy just jonesin' for his daily fix of IM'ing on yahoo, or the BBF at The Hostages. And he'll have access to the nuclear codes. Just sayin', s'all.
For all the perquisites and power afforded the president, the chief executive of the United States is essentially deprived by law and by culture of some of the very tools that other chief executives depend on to survive and to thrive. Mr. Obama, however, seems intent on pulling the office at least partly into the 21st century on that score; aides said he hopes to have a laptop computer on his desk in the Oval Office, making him the first American president to do so.
And I'm sure that there are several laptop makers vying for the privilege of saying that it is their hardware which is preferred by the ONE.
Mr. Obama has not sent a farewell dispatch from the personal e-mail account he uses — he has not changed his address in years — but friends say the frequency of correspondence has diminished. In recent days, though, he has been seen typing his thoughts on transition matters and other items on his BlackBerry, bypassing, at least temporarily, the bureaucracy that is quickly encircling him.
"Now that we made him the President, he never writes, he never calls..." But at least he is typing his thoughts on it still. How wonderful for all involved!
A year ago, when many Democratic contributors and other observers were worried about his prospects against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, they reached out to him directly. Mr. Obama had changed his cellphone number, so e-mail remained the most reliable way of communicating directly with him.
Thus demonstrating something that the rest of us on the web learned a long time ago. It pays to have the "public" email address, and the "private" email address.
“His BlackBerry was constantly crackling with e-mails,” said David Axelrod, the campaign’s chief strategist. “People were generous with their advice — much of it conflicting.”
"Crackling"? Now I just have a lowly Motorola, and IM/Text will only a few choice persons, but if my electronic communication device "Crackled", I would change the chime, or GET A NEW ONE. No wonder he and Michelle are always shouting at us. They have no nerves left after hearing the damn thing crackle all the time.
Mr. Obama is the second president to grapple with the idea of this self-imposed isolation. Three days before his first inauguration, George W. Bush sent a message to 42 friends and relatives that explained his predicament.
Maybe he can use the cleaning staff to smuggle messages back and forth between himself and Bombing Billy Ayers.
“Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace,” Mr. Bush wrote from his old address, G94B@aol.com. “This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you.”
Thus ruling out the Clinton Precedent of having people meet with accidents when they become inconvenient.
But in the interceding eight years, as BlackBerrys have become ubiquitous — and often less intrusive than a telephone, the volume of e-mail has multiplied and the role of technology has matured. Mr. Obama used e-mail to stay in constant touch with friends from the lonely confines of the road, often sending messages like “Sox!” when the Chicago White Sox won a game. He also relied on e-mail to keep abreast of the rapid whirl of events on a given campaign day.
But now that he has ascended to office, he can feel free to communicate through his mental telepathy, when he isn't using to root out those who resist his onerous brand of "Hope" and "Change".
Mr. Obama’s memorandums and briefing books were seldom printed out and delivered to his house or hotel room, aides said. They were simply sent to his BlackBerry for his review. If a document was too long, he would read and respond from his laptop computer, often putting his editing changes in red type.
In otherwords, he acted like a "newstyle" attorney. Less to shred, but God help you if you get hacked.
His messages to advisers and friends, they say, are generally crisp, properly spelled and free of symbols or emoticons. The time stamps provided a window into how much he was sleeping on a given night, with messages often being sent to staff members at 1 a.m. or as late as 3 a.m. if he was working on an important speech.
I tend to think that if he can email all the time without an emoticon, then he probably isn't a very complex person...not that I find that very surprising. The singular drawback of email is that there is no facial expression or body language to be read. That rules out humor, sarcasm, and irony, which any "executive" worth the title will have in their quiver of arrows.
He received a scaled-down list of news clippings, with his advisers wanting to keep him from reading blogs and news updates all day long, yet aides said he still seemed to hear about nearly everything in real time. A network of friends — some from college, others from Chicago and various chapters in his life — promised to keep him plugged in.
I understand. When I do not get to read my normal daily blogroll, I get a little testy myself.
Not having such a ready line to that network, staff members who spent countless hours with him say, is likely to be a challenge.
Kind of like a heroin addict needing a fix kind of challenge. Good luck to them.
“Given how important it is for him to get unfiltered information from as many sources as possible, I can imagine he will miss that freedom,” said Linda Douglass, a senior adviser who traveled with the campaign.
Again, I'm not surprised. I'm not so foolish as to believe that there is any source of information that doesn't come with a bias; I just want to be able to select the bias. He's losing that choice.
Mr. Obama has, for at least brief moments, been forced offline. As he sat down with a small circle of advisers to prepare for debates with Senator John McCain, one rule was quickly established: No BlackBerrys. Mr. Axelrod ordered everyone to put their devices in the center of a table during work sessions. Mr. Obama, who was known to sneak a peek at his, was no exception.
A big difference between a meeting and years.
In the closing stages of the campaign, as exhaustion set in and the workload increased, aides said Mr. Obama spent more time reading than responding to messages. As his team prepares a final judgment on whether he can keep using e-mail, perhaps even in a read-only fashion, several authorities in presidential communication said they believed it was highly unlikely that he would be able to do so.
Duh!!! His time is no longer his own.
Diana Owen, who leads the American Studies program at Georgetown University, said presidents were not advised to use e-mail because of security risks and fear that messages could be intercepted.
Besides, its always better to have his surrogates communicating with Hamas. That way he can continue to toss the bodies under the bus when convenient.
“They could come up with some bulletproof way of protecting his e-mail and digital correspondence, but anything can be hacked,” said Ms. Owen, who has studied how presidents communicate in the Internet era. “The nature of the president’s job is that others can use e-mail for him.”
And as long as someone else is talking to Hamas, it isn't his problem.
She added: “It’s a time burner. It might be easier for him to say, ‘I can’t be on e-mail.’ ”
Should Mr. Obama want to break ground and become the first president to fire off e-mail messages from the West Wing and wherever he travels, he could turn to Al Gore as a model. In the later years of his vice presidency, Democrats said, Mr. Gore used a government e-mail address and a campaign address in his race against Mr. Bush.
Yeah, copy from Algore...that's inspired!!!
The president, though, faces far greater public scrutiny. And even if he does not wear a BlackBerry on his belt or carry a cellphone in his pocket, he almost certainly will not lack from a variety of new communication.
Even better! Hook him on something new, so you can take that away from him, too in a few years. Cruel Bastages!
On Saturday, as Mr. Obama broadcast the weekly Democratic radio address, it came with a twist. For the first time, it was also videotaped and will be archived on YouTube.
Not exactly the Sermon on the Mount, but wow! They will get the word out.
I love this band, although in reading up on them, I think it is fair to say it is all about her, since she is the constant and the rest of the line up continues to change. Best heard through the car stereo. Turned up so the bass is rattling the mirrors, of course.
The thing I love about youtube is sooner or later, everything ends up on it. Like this little ditty. I stumbled on this song when I was 35 and I find that it speaks volumes to me. You might consider it my theme song.
Jars of Clay singing their reflection on the human condition, Trouble Is:
Friday, November 14, 2008
...so put my stuff down, dammit. You can't have it yet.
Seriously, I was just kind of on chill mode in the aftermath of the election. While some things never change (politicians lie and do things that they shouldn't or are suspicious), sometimes I have to step back for a bit and reset my focus. The problem with doing that is that I then start asking all sorts of uncomfortable questions. I can direct the first one to my fellow conservatives. Hey! You guys! WTF??? I mean, WTF??? Have you listened to yourselves? Zero hasn't taken office yet, and still, any utterance is treated as a done deal. Yeah, I read about his plan for compulsory voluntary service, and his civilian army that he wants to have better funded than the real Army. But right now, its just that. A plan. Yes, I know that his party will have a majority in Congress, and yeah, I know party leaders are so far left that they bleed hammers and sickles, but not everyone in Congress is an idiot. These people will remind the others of the little problems they have with their plans, like the 13th Amendment. Then there was the howling over the memory-holing of the detailed agenda on his website. Duh. What do you think would happen if he actually tried to rule from the left, where that agenda sat,instead of from the center? Yeah. That's what I thought. As for the analysis of every single word, and every announcement? I see us sounding like THEM. I'm not saying that we do not need to be vigilant. I'm not saying we need to trust him. I'm not saying that he isn't out to revoke the 2nd Amendment and change our government. I'm not an idiot. I am saying the pointing and howling at every little thing is not really worthwhile. Having solid plans to react to certain activities? That is worthwhile. Speaking out when he is clearly wrong? That is worthwhile. Ridiculing every moronic move made? Worthwhile and satisfying. I'm not saying that criticism is bad. You should know me better than that. What I am saying is that it won't hurt to wait until he and the Keystone Kommunists in Kongress actually DO SOMETHING.
On a lighter note, I spent the day getting Continuing Legal Education credits in Tacoma. It was an unusual CLE. They actually fed us real a breakfast and lunch. I also learned more about issues to address when your client inherits real estate that may be polluted.
All better now? Good, 'cause you were all starting to sound like KosKids.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
I have to say that I am a bit surprised.
Many of my internet friends have expressed that they are going to proceed to vilify and condemn the new President just because of the crap that left has spewed 24/7 for the last eight years. This exhibition of Obama Derangement Syndrome is disturbing, not because I think he is going to be a great President. If you have been reading my page for very long, you know that isn't true. No, I find it disturbing because people that I respect, people I like, people I consider very rational and logical have apparently lost their minds and have expressed a willingness to attack purely for the sake of attack. I have seen a threat of the banhammer leveled at a commenter who I think fails to get it consistently, but is worthwhile because he will actually debate and defend what he says, simply because he expressed an opinion, that while apparently idiotic, was not worthy of such an attack, especially in a forum where the one true sin is making threats against another. I watched as person after person pledged to exhibit symptoms of ODS starting now simply because all we have heard is BDS for the last 8 years. And this was coming from people who generally had feelings for Bush the vacillated between outrage at his positions on spending and border security/illegal immigration and indifference on nearly everything else. Now, I like a good dogpile as much as the next right-wing deathbeast, but I am disturbed by this willingness to spend so much time in wasted effort. 8 years of these loons spouting endless stupidity and venom about Bush did nothing to change our minds; there is no reason to think doing the same about Obama for the next four will achieve a different result. That is not to say that I will not generously apply ridicule and criticism in liberal doses when Barry the Blessed™ screws it up. That is my right as an American, and he seems to have gotten there already with his plans for mandatory "volunteer" service and taking a swipe at Nancy Reagan at a press conference. Congratulations there, speedy, way to demonstrate that brilliant intellect that we keep hearing so much about.
Having said that, I think we are further ahead doing the following:
1. Get behind young conservative politicians. Do what it takes to get them elected, support them if they have already been elected. We have to stop putting up candidates who are getting the nomination as a lifetime achievement award. (I wish I remembered where I heard that. I would love to give the attribution.)
2. Continue to support conservative principals.
3. Criticize the foibles of the left's leadership, but stay on message, and keep it so simple that even an Obama supporter like Peggy Joseph can understand it.
4. Educate, educate, educate.
5. Make the mainstream media irrelevant. They are on the ropes already, but we can put them under by continuing to report the news that they won't.
I started some of this already. Today, I dropped a three-page handwritten letter in the mail to Governor Palin. I thanked her for her decision to run, I thanked her for shattering the Left's carefully cultivated perception that we need to have a ruling class, and I thanked her and her family for dealing with some truly uncalled for and inexcusable attacks leveled at her and her family. Then I asked her to run again, because I truly believe that she is an excellent leader and is well qualified to run the country.
What's it gonna be guys and gals? Our own change we can believe in, or the same song only us singing it?
Thursday, November 06, 2008
I was flipping through the local legal journal this week, and came across a charming little tidbit on our State Supreme Court supporting a new initiative in the legal community of our state. It seems that someone got looking around and determined that the legal community did not represent the diverse make up the state's population, and since our bar is always quick to embrace notions of diversity and political correctness, it was decided that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! That something was the spontaneous formation of a consensus that we must diversify the legal community to reflect the population of the state, or PEOPLE WOULD LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE PROFESSION. Therefore, the state supreme court, and prominent members of the bar set up a group to help make this a reality, and even established guidelines to help smaller law firms meet this perceived need for diversity.
Fortunately, the measures are voluntary, for the time being, but I fully expect that we have them mandated to us sooner than I'd like. Why does this bother me? Because if diversity is forced upon us, we lose our freedom of association...I don't get to chose who I do business with, and the diversity will become a moral imperative to override such factors as, say....merit?
I am very tired of an organization that compells my membership requiring me at every turn to accept doctrines and beliefs that I find personally, professionally, and yes, morally repugnant.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
I'm going to get this part of it out of the way first:
To the Obama supporters, do not come crying on my shoulders when the Government's sticky fingers, emboldened by your Dear Leader, and lengthened by Pelosi, Reid, and a Democratically controlled Congress unleash a confiscatory process the likes of which has not been seen in decades upon your wallets, your 401(k)s, your IRAs, and your wages.
Do not come crying into my presence when you realize you traded your potential for what your government decides to let you have.
Do not weep in my hearing when you realize the "fairness" of the HOPE! and CHANGE! you sought places us all in the tyranny of mediocrity, an equality not of opportunity but of condition, which will lower more than it raises.
Do not sniffle in my arm's reach when you discover that some are more equal than others.
We warned you. We told you at every opportunity, and you refused to see.
I went into a Cub Scout meeting this evening, and came out to find that Americans had rejected their birthright. No longer content to be the pioneers and cowboys that changed the world, we have chosen to serve a government, rather than choosing a government that serves us.
To those who supported Obama, congratulations. We get the government we deserve. You don't realize yet what that means, but you will. To those of us who see the man for what he is, rather than what he wants us to see, take heart. Without Jimmy Carter, we could not have had a Ronald Reagan. The eagle took a beating tonight, but our symbol is not a chicken, or lemming.
The eagle will soar again.
Thanks to my brother Alex, I got to read the NY Times Article about the press still calling the election before the voting is done. The RCOB moment:
Similarly, the editor of the Web site Slate, David Plotz, said in an e-mail message that “if Obama is winning heavily,” he could see calling the race “sometime between 8 and 9.”
“Our readers are not stupid, and we shouldn’t engage in a weird Kabuki drama that pretends McCain could win California and thus the presidency,” Mr. Plotz wrote. “We will call it when a sensible person — not a TV news anchor who has to engage in a silly pretense about West Coast voters — would call it.”
This would be the same Slate that jumped on the bandwagon of anyone not voting for Obama being "RACIST!!!1!!", so we no how authoritative and impartial they are.
As one of those West Coast voters, suggest that Mr. Plotz go play in traffic. Blindfolded.
After getting the boys out the door and fixing my hair, I got in the car and drove to my polling place. I stood in line, and before long, an elderly black gentleman in an "Obama for President" shirt and a Purple Heart baseball cap came up and stood next to the front door, so everyone could see his shirt. An older gentleman in line in front of me looked at the RCW section posted on the door, and said to the other man standing by the door "You're standing too close."
The elderly black gentleman pretended not to hear. The gentleman repeated himself. This time the elderly black gentleman said "I paid my dues, sir."
The gentleman said "I never said you didn't, but the law says you have to stand 300 feet away from the polls." A poll worker saw what was going on and told the elderly black gentleman that he was violating the law and standing too close to the door. They needed more voters from the back half of the alphabet, so I went in. He wasn't there when I came out. If I see him on the 11 o'clock news bitching about "being intimidated at the polls", I just might scream.
Monday, November 03, 2008
I realize that it is probably early for this, but the featured quote below struck me more than I was ready to admit. Dirty Harry has a post on the Breitbart article on Bush's legacy. DH's wife added this insight:
In defending Bush, Breitbart hits the main points, but there’s something my wife frequently reminds me of: Between world events, the monstrous behavior of the opposition and an unrelenting biased media, no president since Lincoln has ever been so personally vilified. Eight years of sustained poison and venom hurled at a man never allowed to do anything right even when he does something right.
I had never thought of it that way before, but I can see the wisdom in the comparison.
The AP still refuses to pay bloggers who direct traffic to their stories, but once again, the story is worth noting, so I guess I'll just put this on their tab. The Iranians are celebrating their take over of our embassy in 1979, by letting kids out of school to chant, and burn U.S. and Isreali flags.
They continue to justify this act of war by declaring the act the end of U.S. hegemony in the world and an act of defiance. The money quotes:
Today, some of Iran's leaders see Barack Obama as a harbinger of much-wanted change in U.S. policy toward their government. Iranian state radio broadcast a commentary Monday in a positive spin toward the Democrat.
"Obama entered the race under the slogan of change," it said. "The American people expect their government to put aside neo-conservative policy of unilateralism and return to dialogue in their dealings with the international community."
Game. Set. And Match.
Free sex toys — and much more — for voting
Businesses across nation ready to reward citizens for casting their ballots
By Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor
Just when you thought it was safe to focus on the issues in this historic election season, a chain of sex toy shops has joined retailers, restaurateurs and other businesses across the nation in the time-honored tradition of rewarding Americans who go to the polls.
Because nothing makes me think of sex like politics.
Babeland, with stores in New York, Los Angeles and Seattle, is offering a pair of self-gratifying incentives for voters who present their registration cards, ballot stubs or “word of honor” that they voted next Tuesday.
How will they deal with multiple stubs from the ACORN-registered voters?
The rewards are no-so-subtle reminders of this year’s campaign rhetoric. For men, it’s the “Maverick,” a "sleeve" for self-pleasuring. According to a press release, “He’s always there to lend a hand, he works for every man, and he bucks the status quo.” Women can choose the “Silver Bullet” mini-vibrator, which is “a magical solution to difficult problems” and “a great stress-reliever during these troubled economic times!” The promotion lasts through Nov. 11.
The idea for an Obama-related toy was abandoned. No one has yet found a way to successfully sell being slipped a mickey, and waking up alone and sticky in a hotel room with an empty wallet. They can always consult David Axelrod after the campaign. He seems to have found a way to successfully sell something similar.
Babeland spokeswoman Pamela Doan told msnbc.com in an interview that the promotion is a first for the company, which she describes as “a sex-positive, women-friendly retailer for sex toys and accessories.”
I don't think anyone is truly "sex-adverse", although more than a few of us would prefer not having it occur within sight of our children, especially when its guy-guy- or girl-girl.
Although the company is relying on press releases and bloggers to get the word out, “We’re expecting a good response,” Doan said. “Both of these toys are very popular. The Maverick retails for $20 and the Silver Bullet retails for $15. It’s a good reward.”
I think there is a message here somewhere...something about getting screwed by an important act and still having to do all the work.
'Sex crosses party lines'
As to whether Babeland expects voters who take them up on the offer to lean one way or the other politically, Doan said, “Sex crosses party lines. … We’ve tried to make this into a nonpartisan reward because we welcome everyone. That’s our philosophy and our mission. We didn’t want to reward only Obama supporters. We have a lot of Republicans who shop at Babeland too.”
Actually a smart thing. They cater to a universal market. I wonder how much they'll dig an Obama tax scheme.
If the sex toys don’t float your vote, there are plenty of other less racy rewards to choose from in the afterglow of casting your ballot.
"Afterglow?" Voting conjures many different concepts in my mind, but it has never made me orgasmic. I think the author is going to choke on his own purple prose.
How about a free cup of Joe? Starbucks stores across the nation and Eat’n Park outlets in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia are among many U.S. restaurants offering complimentary coffee to anyone who presents a ballot stub or “I Voted” sticker.
I like the whole "incentive for voting" thing, but I do it 'cause its important, not because Starbucks will give me a bitter cup of coffee for my trouble.
Voters can get a beer on the house at Todd Conner’s pub in Baltimore’s historic Fells Point neighborhood.
I predict he'll have a busy night.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
H/T to NiceDeb
From the evil AP, who still refuses to pay bloggers for directing traffic to their pathetic excuse for a news organization comes a story of a Grosse Pointe Woods resident who refused to give Halloween treats to "Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters."
Naturally, this story is so newsworthy that the AP had to report on it. It was after all a lesson for such people in choices. You make a choice that will take away from me, I can do the same. But my absolute favorite part?
"When asked about children who were turned away empty-handed and crying,"
That damn sense of entitlement rears its ugly head again. Turned away crying? Seems like a bit much to me. Last time I looked, we still had a choice about who we share our bounty with. Another reason to look forward to Obama's HOPE! and CHANGE!, I guess. Mandatory Halloween Candy for all!
Saturday, November 01, 2008
The post from Wednesday has taken some interesting turns. I had a client in my office yesterday, and of course, the conversation turned to politics. I told him "Hold on, I wrote and posted on my internet site the other day something that I think you might like." and I printed off a copy of Wednesday's post. I handed it to him, he scanned it for two seconds, and he said "I have this. Somebody emailed it to me." I looked at him with shock, and said "Really?"
He said "Yeah. I know this guy up in Arlington, and he's emailing it to people."
To that I say "Guy in Arlington: Its important stuff, so emailing it? Ok, but I ask that you either give a link or attribution. It is an original work, and that particular post actually took a little time to write. A nod to the author, at the least, is in order, and if you have already paid me this courtesy, then Thank You. It's nice to know you thought it was worthy of sharing."
Another part of this conversation? This client sees a whole lot more people in a day than I do. He says he cannot believe how many people he talks to about the election who seem very invested in one issue, but then know nothing about the others. Nothing at all. I thought about that a lot last night and today. The idea bothers me quite a bit. How the Hell did we get to the point where people would be so ignorant about something so important? I realize that it is a combination of factors, but it still irritates me. There is enough ignorance involved with this election, from the people who say "What's wrong with social and economic justice? Then things will finally be fair!!1!" to the geniuses who think that the Constitutional requirement that a person be a "natural born citizen" is either an archaic concept that doesn't fit with modern day standards, or that it is a "nebulous term" that has never been defined in any applicable way, or both. Leave it to members of my tribe to create the perception of ambiguity where none actually exists. If we are to survive as a republic, we cannot allow this standard of ignorance and narrow focus to continue. However, if we are going to turn this course back to a thinking and informed body politic, then we will have to put conservatives back in to the classrooms and newsrooms of this country. We cannot allow these professions to remain as the last resort for those among us who were capable of little else or those determined to execute the leftist strategies of taking our children and corrupting them early with concepts corrosive to our unity as a nation and our tradition of excellence. Concepts like "Diversity" which celebrates the attributes of the individual and teaches that the whole is lessened without each of us retaining and demanding recognition for our respective racial and national identity, rather than adopting the identity of the nation that is our home. Or "Moral Equivalence" which teaches that every philosophy, religion, and culture is no better or no worse than any other, ignoring the fact that this simply isn't true, and there is a wealth of empirical evidence demonstrating the hollowness of this belief. Better yet, we have the cornerstone of newspeak which the left needs to destroy us: "Political Correctness". Political Correctness is the idea that certain people should be forbidden from saying certain things, because someone might get their feelings hurt. This is the wellspring for idiotic notions that everyone should be a winner, or that everything must be fair. It also hampers any real discourse on any matter of consequence because serious people will never be able to make their points. Serious people call things what they are. The acolytes of PC will demand that ephemisms be substituted, and if they still hit too close to home in any conversation, then the person trying to make a point or engage in a serious discussion must further circumvent conversation in an effort not to hurt someone else's feelings. This ignores the fact that sometimes, feelings should be hurt, and feelings should take a backseat to truth. The acolytes believe that this makes them more enlightened; I believe that it makes many of them marginal intellects at best, as they have surrendered the ability to do something in the pursuit of good feelings. As for the rest, they sleep at night secure in the knowledge that they have spawned a whole new shibboleth for serious people to contend with on a daily basis, and have shaped and warped an entire generation of young minds into a de facto police force to monitor and denounce the thought crimes of the rest of us. Think I'm wrong? How many times have Obama supporters or the Press (but I repeat myself) called us "Racist!" because we have expressed the idea that we will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Better yet "You CAN'T say HIS middle name!!!11!!! That's racist!!!11!!" or "You're implying that he is a Muslim!!!11!!" You and I both know that no matter how many President's middle names we can name, or how many perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with Obama's race we give for not voting for him, or the fact that no matter how many years he sat in the pews at Reverend Wright's "Hate Whitey" church, even he can't seem to recall for moment to moment if he is a muslim or not. Their politically correct analysis demands that you be declared guilty of the crimes they accuse you of, because if they ever had to move beyond feelings, then they might just have to consider the idea, even for a microsecond, that they might be wrong in their enthusiastic support for him, and in their presumption of your guilt.
This is the real reason why we need to all become educators. Sure, I'm as guilty as the next conservative of simply lowering the boom on the lefties where ever they sprout up and mouth their talking points, but really, our best offense is also our best defense. Educate them. Innundate them with facts, with logic, with reason. Sooner or later, all but the hardest of the hardcore true believers will no longer be able to ignore the elephant in the room, especially when you introduced them and told them its name. And teach your children well, because no one wants to retire to a socialist workers paradise.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Regrettably, we have met. Your barely contained enthusiasm for THE ONE™ is as undeniable as it is unexplainable. Emotion and a belief in vague and hollow promises for things like CHANGE! and HOPE! have propelled a man who believes that he is a messianic figure to the top of the Democratic Party's ticket and reveal just how much you failed to learn in your civics/government classes in high school. Most of you have been sold a bill of goods, and cannot or will not see the mistake you have made. I fear that revelation will not come until you have gotten us all into a fine mess.
I know. You have your reasons, all of which are important to you and motivated you to cast your support to a man who wants to radically alter this country into a nation that our founding fathers would be incapable of recognizing. You see him as the fulcrum to affect those things which have elicited your pledge. You might be right, but if he's elected, you might get what you hoped for, and that will bring results that you neither want nor expect.
For some of you, the war is your issue, and THE ONE™'s statements assure you that the "unwinnable" war will be brought to a close. If you are easily offended, stop reading now, because I'm going to tell you things you are not going to like reading.
To the aging hippies seeking that one last "Hurrah!": You didn't change the world. You wrapped yourself in cowardice, and pushed for a change in policy to prevent you from paying for the liberty that kept you safe and brought you through your adolescence. Your actions brought the change that got numerous people on the other side of the world killed because they took us at our word and trusted us, but you couldn't see past the ends of your own noses long enough to understand that the world isn't about you, and that being right, and standing up for what is good and right requires real sacrifice. You reveled in your "accomplishments" and spit on those who answered when their country called, denying them the honor they earned and so richly deserved. You aren't heroes and the blood of too many people who sought their freedom with our assistance stains your hands. Sleep well. I have it on good authority that cowards serve an eternal watch without respite in the outlands of Hell.
To the dreamers who believe that violence never solves anything: You get to cling to this childish belief because of violent men doing violence to protect this country and its people from those who want us dead simply because of who we are. Your beliefs are yours to hold because of the freedom that these brave realists shed their blood to preserve.
To those who believe that we have engaged in an illegal/unjust war: War is diplomacy by other means. The UN itself passed numerous resolutions in the wake of Desert Storm, all of which were ignored by Iraq, which was paying a bounty to the families of suicide bombers and providing a safe haven for some of the most villainous terrorists on the planet. You can scream about Bush! Cheney! Haliburton! all you want at the top of your lungs. When the rest of the world talks about doing something, it falls on us to actually DO something. The UN was never actually going authorize real action. The kleptocrats of that august body were making too much money from the Oil for Food scam to actually stop Sadam's gravy train. The fact is, we have done yeoman's work in Iraq, the country enjoys a level of freedom today that it has never enjoyed before, and their people are willing to do their own fighting to keep it that way. Another inconvenient fact is that by fighting terrorists there, we have not had to fight them here. Whine all you want. There has not been another attack since 9/11, and taking the fight to the terrorists has had EVERYTHING to do with that.
To those who want to adorn themselves in sackcloth and ashes because of Bush and the war: Get over it, and get over yourselves. Fighting terrorists is not like fighting a conventional army, because although they may receive support from states, they are essentially stateless. Such a battle takes a long time, even under confined conditions. Your childish whining and stomping your feet over the actions of a man who has labored to keep this nation, and you, safe, doesn't make you brave or intelligent. It merely makes you appear to be the worst kind of ingrate, and it makes me embarrassed to call you my fellow countrymen. If you cannot bring yourselves to say the appropriate thank-yous, then at least do the rest of us the courtesy of shutting up, because we're tired of the childish derangement you continually exhibit.
For some of you, race is the issue. While I do not agree, I can at least understand. However, voting for race in this campaign may set race relations back a great deal, rather than achieving a pinnacle in the Black Experience in America. For white people who have this feeling that they are somehow responsible for slavery and subsequent injustices, I assure you, you are not. The last 40 years brought an end to Jim Crow, segregation, and inequality of opportunity. Good people, black and white, sacrificed, and in some cases, died to bring these promises to fruition. Not only was opportunity opened to all, remediation was imposed in education, admission to colleges and universities, and the job market in the form of lowered standards, quotas, and affirmative action, and today's trendy belief, diversity. Add these to the blood shed in the Civil War, and the debt is paid. Guilt is not a good reason to make a decision, because you end up making the decision for the sole reason to assuage that guilt, oblivious to other facts or information that would inform you that choosing that person would be a bad choice. If your guilt prevents you from being honest with yourself when you ask "If everything about him was the same except he was white, would I still vote for him?", then you are not thinking clearly.
To those who would vote for him because they too, are black:
Time for some hard truths here. The years since the Civil Rights Movement have not seen all the promise that everyone might have hoped. The good news is that this can be fixed. The bad news is that you have to decide to step up and claim your birthright as an AMERICAN, and reject your victim rights as African-Americans. The doors were opened to you, but by and large, you decided to continue to select leaders who put their best interests first, and their lip service to your needs as the bones they will toss to you. Many of you chose the slavery of the attitude that the government owes this or that, and when members of your own community step outside of that mindset and build success, and then tell you that you can do the same, you berate them and belittle them as sellouts, or call them "Uncle Tom's". The real pioneers of the civil rights movement, the ones who shed blood to give you the chance would be horrified at how you rejected the hand up for the hand out, and chose on your own to re-segregate yourselves at various levels of society. Voting for him because primarily he is one of you spits in the eye of Dr. King's dream of men being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Why do I attack his character? Because he has demonstrated time and again that he does not have any. He has friends of dubious character. Because he has a preacher who has preached racial hatred for more than 20 years. Because he has been the candidate talking about race, and using it to make himself out as the victim in this campaign. Do you want a leader, someone who represents you, to be someone who claims to be a victim, or someone who decided to overcome history and succeed in spite of it? What does that choice say about you? If doing it because he is black is your standard, then you validate the racist aspect of the nation's past, and it will never be washed from Liberty's Garments. You will have failed those who fought for the promises of this nation to be extended for all citizens, and more importantly, and sadly, you will have failed yourselves. History has been made by this election, and I have every confidence that we will someday elect an African-American President. I think we all deserve to have one that we can all be proud of and look to as a great leader. This first-term Senator who's greatest accomplishments are writing two memoirs is not that man.
To the ones who believe that Obama and a Democratic Congress will fix the economy:
The evidence is there for the finding. You just have to look carefully. Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? These two entities mushroomed because the Democrats under Clinton thought that it would be a wonderful thing if people who could not afford homes got to buy them anyway, because Fannie and Freddie would be there to back the loans. Only thing is, WE THE PEOPLE backed Fannie and Freddie. While companies like Countrywide got to originate these loans and pocket the exorbitant fees that went with them, the taxpayers were left holding the bag when the music stopped. For the last eight years, Bush and McCain both made multiple attempts to call this impending disaster to the attention of Congress so that the bomb could be defused before it went off. Democrats, like Senator Obama, blocked any attempts at reform. Why? Because there was still money to be made. The former head of one of those agencies, Franklin Raines, walked away with tens of millions of dollars...for sticking US with the bill. This same man is one of Obama's campaign advisers.
Other prominent Democrats also bailed out of these entities before the crash, but not before they received compensation packages in the Millions of dollars. And the Senator himself? He was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie/Freddie campaign dollars in the Senate...in his first term. This man has proposed a ruinous tax plan that will punish success, discourage small businesses from hiring more employees, and will cost this country jobs and opportunities. He has proposed that by mandating certain technologies, he will create jobs, but this is an unsuccessful strategy whenever it has been tried. He proposes measures that will strengthen unions and impose tariffs. These measures succeed in stripping working Americans of more of their pay and opportunities, while robbing workers and businesses of the incentives to be innovative and productive. He has advocated for redistribution of wealth, under the guise of social and economic justice. This will simply remove any incentive for producers to produce if they cannot be the beneficiaries of their labor. Equality as enforced by the state kills merit and ambition, and robs us all of the benefits that they bring.
To those of you who are seeking something to believe in, or a government to give you things: Grow up. Really. I mean that. If your life is so empty that you need to have a politician to believe in, then you need to work on yourself, because something is sorely lacking in you. Politicians, and especially Obama are not to be trusted. They will whisper pretty words in your ear, and tell you all the things they will do for you, in order to get your vote. They will make you slaves for that all-important vote. If you think that the government's purpose is to provide you with things, then you too, have a problem, because you get what you pay for.
You want guaranteed employment? Move to Europe. See how that works for them. You want government health care? Be ready for rationing and poor quality of care. Don't listen to what the man with the teleprompter tells you. It will be rationed. It will have to be, because if a cost benefit analysis is not applied, then there simply will not be enough to go around.
What it comes down to is this. Obama believes that you can't. You can't be successful without his help. You can't overcome bad things in your life without his help. You can't provide for your families without his help. You can't be trusted to make your own decisions without his help. This is not what America is about. If everything is handed to you, then you value nothing, and only want more to be given to you. America is about the freedom to decide what you will do, about how you will do it, about who you choose to help out with your money and your time, about how you will live. America is about choosing how to live your life without state interference. Obama believes you can't be trusted to make your own choices, and that government can spend your money better than you can.
Stand up next Tuesday and cast a vote for your own choices. You can choose to continue to choose, or you can choose to surrender all rights and responsibilities and settle for what the government chooses to give to you. It really shouldn't be a difficult decision.
More transcript from that 2001 interview with Barack Hussein Obama:
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
He can think of a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts???
Still think he isn't a Socialist? There is nothing in the Constitution, its Amendments, or interpretive caselaw that would justify a ruling encompassing "economic change" as BHO envisions in this interview.
As I pondered this on the drive in, along with his slip in front of Joe The Plumber, his past association with radicals, and his wanton interference with the last elections in Kenya, which contributed to many deaths there as a result of tribal violence, a thought occurred to me. Zimbabwe.
In 2000, Robert Mugabe, the country's only leader since independence embarked on a program to redistribute the wealth of his nation, that wealth being the farm land that helped Zimbabwe actually produce enough food to feed its people and contributed to a functioning economy. However, it was seen as necessary to promote "social and economic justice" to redistribute this once productive farmland from the largely white land owners to black citizens who lacked the requisite knowledge, equipment, and resources to maintain the farms as successful going concerns, especially since many of them were more interested in furthering their own social justice programs, which included rape and murder of many former white land owners. Criticism of Mugabe's administration has adverse consequences for those who dare oppose him, especially after the 2002 elections which he rigged in his favor. Opposition voices are silenced, and violence against those who do not favor his rule is widely sanctioned. His policies have been ruinous for a nation that was once considered one of Africa's successes, and strangely enough, it appears that some parallels could be drawn with the vision for this nation that Obama has shared, and his past activities in African politics. I'd like to think that I'm wrong, but frankly, anyone who thinks that he can justify court mandated wealth redistribution under the Constitution as written, and has been caught lying as many times as he has, and continues to arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that he has done so, and to "punish" any journalist who even dares to ask a "difficult" question is capable of many unthinkable things, and we have people in this nation who are willing to empower him to do more. I see some scary things ahead.
Monday, October 27, 2008
From a radio interview with the 'community organizer':
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Team Obama is, predictably, using the "it has been taken out of context" canard. The problem with this lame justification is that I can think of no context where such words would be appropriate for someone running for President of the United States of America. If you can think of one, please feel free to let me know.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The media has kicked fully into spin cycle., doing their level best for their candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. The days till the election are almost gone. The pollsters are calling two and three times a day with their obviously slanted questions. And they all hope that the American People have forgotten The Secret™. What's that, you ask? Wow, you must be a journalist. I guess I'll have to tell you. No amount of pictures drawn in crayon will help you get it otherwise. The Secret™? Character and judgment matter.
"So what?" you ask. "Americans know this" is my answer. When properly informed, everyone in this country can make a smart choice. And despite the best efforts of the press in this particular election, people still have more than enough evidence of both candidates' character and judgment before them to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama sufficiently lacks both to be a reasonable choice for President.
In the article fisked below, Jonathan Alter makes the accusation that the Republican party has become "the party of cynicism." In so doing, he adopts the first part of the Democratic playbook for this election: Projection. Their chosen candidate sat in the same church with a "Hate Whitey" pastor preaching this message for twenty years, doing his part to retain victimhood and the bondage that goes with it instead of rising above it. When exposed, we got an idiotic rationalization and a trusted figure in his life for over 20 years got flung under the bus. The message: You know that associations matter, but I think you're stupid enough to believe a silly excuse and the sacrifice of someone who had been an important figure in my life for over 20 years. The real meaning: I think you're stupid enough to believe my outlandish reassurances, and I do not have the courage to openly be who I actually am in public. And the press, seeing that Obama's pastor was a problem, decided to play moral equivalence and attack prominent pastors who had endorsed John McCain. It wasn't the same, but the press has never been above implying what it could not prove, as long as the message was served.
The lack of the two necessary traits became painfully obvious again when the question of William Ayers came up. Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, participated in a series of bombing across the country with the intent of bringing down the US government and replacing it with a marxist-hippiocracy that would stick it to "the Man", and imprison and kill those who did not conform to their "new" way of thinking about America. Ayers escaped prosecution, has admitted to his guilt, and has publicly regretted not doing more. Obama's spin on this association would be entertaining if it was not so telling. As the inconvenient facts keeps sprouting up like daisies, Obama continued to change his story on the campaign trail while brazenly lying about it in the last debate with McCain. Ayers was a guy in his neighborhood. Then, they served on a board together. But they also shared an office...for three years. They served on two boards together. Obama, his protests to the contrary in the last debate, kicked off his political career in Ayers' living room. Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book. We know these things. They have been proven. And yet, he refuses to own up to these things, preferring the lie, spoken reassuringly but firmly, in his ordering an arugula and lobster voice. This demonstrates bad judgment in choosing his friends, regardless of what he wants to call them, and it demonstrates an appalling lack of character to get caught in a lie, repeatedly, and only alter the lie to accommodate the finding, rather than the whole story.
But perhaps the most callous lies are those Obama has uttered with regard to his record on abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Obama did not just stake out a pro-life position, he actively advocated denying any health care to babies who survived their mothers' attempts to abort them. Think about that for a minute. He didn't just want women to be able to kill their kids as a method of birth control. He wanted make sure the ones who survived still died. This from the man who doesn't want his kids "punished with a baby if they make a mistake". These are people. These are citizens who are unable to speak for themselves, and if they somehow survive the attempt to kill them, he still wanted them dead. Is this the person you want making decisions that could influence your life? When he finally could not deny his position on the matter any longer, he elected to lie again, stating that he would not support a measure requiring that such children receive health care because "there was already a law requiring it". Except there wasn't, and even if there were, he elected to go on record as declining to vote for a law giving these children any such lifesaving treatment. No character at all.
On the campaign trail, candidates have so few opportunities to do anything that demonstrates their judgement. Perhaps the most illustrative event is when the candidate chooses their running mate. For Obama, it was a career politician with a history of saying mildly racist things and a track record of being wrong on very nearly every foreign policy matter he has offered an opinion on. A selection who had made remarks endorsing his opponent earlier in the campaign and who had referred to Obama himself as "Clean" and "articulate." A candidate who continues to say things on the trail that do not help his boss, and embarrasses anyone who is listening.
In contrast, John McCain chose a fresh young face, one with real executive experience, and a track record of conservatism, and challenging corruption,even when it was in her own party. The left and the press decided that they had to attack her on the issue of experience, despite the fact that Obama has none, other than the dubious "running for office" experience that they tried to transmute into serious credentials.
On McCain's credentials, they decided to imply that he was a disaster in the cockpit as a Navy pilot. An implication that did not find an audience. They tried to diminish his POW experience, one that left him crippled and broken to this day into a liability by saying that he aided the enemy with a bamboo confession, despite the fact that he turned down an early release, knowing others had been in captivity longer than he. They tried to turn his divorce upon his return from Vietnam into a character issue. This particular issue demonstrates they did get one thing right, but still fail to identify redemption of the same sort that they so desperately want to confer on William Ayers with their "It was 40 years ago" comments. McCain has remained married to the same woman since that time, and has expressed regret. Ayers has emphatically denied regret for his actions, instead regretting that he had not done more. As for the moral failing that the act symbolized, it was somewhat disconcerting to hear it from the same quarters defending Bill Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office from an intern while he was married. And then there is the allegation of racism. Obama himself raised this spectre himself, telling us that if we don't vote for him, the only possible explanation is racism. He is the one who trots out this straw man and makes him dance whenever anyone wants to have a discussion about facts. He can't do this with world leaders. They will not give him a pass, and they are delighted at the prospect of an America headed by someone with his bad judgement and poor character. Let's not give them the chance to roll him, and us, in the process.
BETWEEN THE LINES
Why McCain Won
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: how that scenario could (but likely won't) play out.
By Jonathan Alter | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 25, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 3, 2008
The conventional wisdom, which I share, is that Barack Obama will win this election, perhaps by a healthy margin. But Democrats are nervous wrecks; they're having nightmares that defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory. To add to their misery (and guard against complacency), here's how that horror film could play out:
Of course, having done everything you could to get us to this result, including joining with campaign in a cabal dedicated NOT to report or to minimize any accidental reporting of stories that might not go away, including the candidate's scary and crazy friends, and all the votes that they paid ACORN work long and hard to register for them.
In the end, the problem was the LIVs. That's short for "low-information voters,"
And yet again, it is time to insult the voters for not "seeing the light" and voting Obama.
the three fifths of the electorate that shows up once every four years to vote for president but mostly hates politics. These are the 75 million folks who didn't vote in the primaries. They don't read newsmagazines or newspapers, don't watch any cable news and don't cast their ballots early. Their allegiance to a candidate is as easily shed as a T shirt. Several million moved to Obama through September and October; they'd heard he handled himself well in the debates. Then, in the last week, the LIVs swung back to the default choice: John McCain. Some had good reasons other than the color of Obama's skin to desert him; many more did not. In October, a study by the Associated Press estimated that Obama's race would cost him 6 percent. The percentage was smaller, but still enough to give the presidency to McCain.
I don't suppose that you might consider that all of Obama's wrapping himself in the cloak of racist victimhood could have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Oh, yeah. I forgot, he is divine, but his failure is our fault. We dumb voters who have managed to elect persons of color who have character, and were pleased when the current President appointed other persona of color to his cabinet.
Obama's field organization was superb, so it was no surprise that most of the 18 million Hillary Clinton voters came home to the Democrats; the person-to-person voter contact (and significant resentment about the selection of Sarah Palin) made a big difference. But the huge swath of more than 30 million independents broke heavily for McCain. By piling up overwhelming margins in big blue states like California, New York and Illinois, Obama carried the popular vote, but he ended up like Al Gore in 2000—denied admission to the Electoral College.
More hating on Sarah. Listen Johnny, we know why you and the Democrats hate her so. She destroys the carefully cultivated perception that we have to have a "ruling class" which has trained their entire life to lead us. She is beautiful, has a family, and is pro-life. If the ruling class isn't a necessity, then maybe the Fourth Estate is no longer a necessity either, and with that responsibility goes great power. We get it. She threatens you and your friends. We like her anyway, and when she finds others like herself, you are really going to be upset. As for the Independents, I'm hoping that they can see through the fog of bullshit surrounding Obama and vote the way you fear.
The first ominous sign was largely missed amid the Democratic euphoria after Obama outclassed McCain on the financial crisis. While most of the country moved toward the Democratic nominee in early October, Ohio did not. Obama could never close the sale there. In a repeat of the Democratic primary, his big totals coming out of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) weren't enough to offset larger-than-expected losses in the suburbs around Cincinnati and Columbus.
Obama "outclassed" McCain on the financial crisis? How does "Call me if you need me" turn into outclassing anyone? As for Ohio, its funny you should mention it, with all the Democratic voting chicanery, and ACORN issues there, and all.
Florida had looked promising for Obama for a time, but his weakness among seniors caught up with him. One national poll from early October should have been a warning: it showed him up by 7 overall, but down 14 among those older than 65. And Sarah Silverman's "Great Schlep" fell short. Obama easily carried the Jewish vote, but not with the 75 percent won by Gore and John Kerry. As it turned out, the real problem wasn't south Florida, where Hispanics came in surprisingly well for Obama. It was erosion in the critical I-4 corridor near Tampa and in the Panhandle, where the astonishing Republican margins among whites could be attributed only to race.
I would be astonished at such a turnout among Florida Hispanics, since they are largely of Cuban extraction, and they hate Communists. That Joe the Plumber slip? Yeah, they saw it too, I'm sure. As for all of those whites voting for McCain because they're racists? I'm not buying it. There are lots of reasons not to vote for Obama, and lots of reasons to vote for McCain. The fact that they voted for the white candidate doesn't confer a racist motive on them.
Obama shifted New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada from red to blue. But there was a reason Virginia hadn't gone Democratic since 1964. The transformation of the northern part of the state couldn't overcome a huge McCain margin among whites farther south. They weren't the racists of their parents' generation, but they weren't quite ready to vote for the unthinkable, either.
Paging American Voters! Paging American Voters! An Obama surrogate has once again called you racist in order to get your vote!
As McCain closed the gap in the last week with his message on taxes and fear of another terrorist attack, the race came down to New Hampshire (which went for Kerry in 2004) and Colorado (which went for President Bush). Obama needed one of them to get to 270 electoral votes. New Hampshire's fabled independents had long had a soft spot for McCain in GOP primaries, and they delivered for him again. Colorado, after flirting with Obama, simply reverted to form, with Palin's frontier image helping a bit.
Yes, and it certainly is not legitimate to remind the American voters that they have absolutely no reason at all to trust Obama on either of these very important points. Perhaps you can stamp your feet and cry for us, too.
Obama had wired every college campus in the country, and he enjoyed great enthusiasm among politically engaged young people. But less-engaged students told reporters the day after the election that they had meant to vote for Obama but were "too busy." History held: young people once again voted in lower percentages than their elders. Waiting for them turned out to be like waiting for Godot.
You call them "politically engaged". I call them "politically naive". They are kind of like the new girls at the first frat party of the year...yes, you can seduce them easily, but if you don't stick with them, they will slide out of your bed.
The Obama margin among young voters was underestimated a little in some polls because so many 18- to 24-year-olds use only cell phones. But the deeper failure of the polling came from methodology that could not properly account for the nine in 10 voters who won't answer a polltaker's questions. With ceaseless robo-calls and as many as 15 live calls from campaigns to each household in a swing state, even fewer people than normal took time in the last two weeks to respond. Who were the voters slamming down the phone? Disproportionately for McCain. In rebuffing pollsters, they skewed the sample toward Obama, inflating his "support."
Of course, polling disproportionately larger numbers of "likely" Democratic voters in your polls to attempt to suppress Republican votes by making it seem that there was a huge public demand for THE ONE didn't help your cause, either.
At the start of the campaign season NEWSWEEK asked, "Is America Ready" for a black president? The answer: only if Obama proved close to a flawless candidate, and even then, we won't know for sure until Election Day. That doesn't mean Obama lost because all, or even most, McCain voters allowed race to be a factor. But enough did to change the outcome.
Complete and utter bullshit. Conservatives have, at their core of beliefs, the belief in merit. We seek excellence, believing, as did our founding fathers, that the political climate should foster excellence wherever it is found, and if we do that, then the entire nation is enriched. The only people that race truly is an issue for is the left, who are determined to place Obama in the Oval Office as some sort of atonement for the nation's past, ignoring the price paid in blood for that past in the Civil War. Race has been on the lips of the left and the press throughout this entire campaign. The gender equality so often trumpeted by the left was tossed out the window by the left when Sarah Palin was selected as McCain's running mate, and America knows that the campaign was far from perfect, for either side, despite the obvious and irritating bias for Obama that the Press has suffered throughout the campaign.
Democrats are despairing over the results, fearing they might never view their country in the same light again. Even many Republicans are subdued at the news of McCain's victory. Having expected him to lose, they know the GOP has now completed a sorry transition from the party of Lincoln to the party of cynicism. McCain, they're reasoning, might prove a fine president, but it shouldn't have happened like this.
The best thing about this paragraph? It demonstrates how easily you write about a party "afflicted with cynicism" over a "racist" victory over Barack the Devine, without having a single source to support you erroneous conclusion. Many conservatives were voting against Obama before the conventions, not because they are all a bunch of RACISTS!!!! like you so cleverly allege, but because they don't like his Friends, and his stated policies are contrary to everything that they believe is correct for this country. However, Sarah's selection changed that. Many conservatives are now voting FOR the old guy because we believe in her and what she stands for. There's no cynicism there. Its enthusiasm. And if your scenario comes true, it will be elation, knowing that you, ACORN, and Obama did your level best to subvert the process and you failed.
It probably won't. Millions of people in the rest of the world assume that Barack Obama cannot be elected because he is black. They assume that the original sin of American history—enshrined in our Constitution—cannot be transcended. I go into next week's election with a different assumption—that the common sense and decency of the American people will prove the skeptics wrong.
Johnny, when "the rest of the world" gets our tax burden, then they get a say in who leads us. Until then, I really do not care what they say. You might also want to consider all of those other nations that have shown their enlightenment by electing black leaders themselves. I myself remember the celebrations when Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, Japan, and the other countries of the civilized world elected their first leaders who were "persons of color". No wait....I can't, because they haven't. You see, that's where this ridiculous train of thought will carry you if you care too much about what others think, and don't do enough thinking for yourself. But then, I can't expect much from you. You're only a journalist, after all.