Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Never mind the rest of the crap she spewed. Blatant HYPOCRISY, and proud and unabashed about it.
I am stunned. It was bad enough when I thought maybe they paid some people a few bucks to go to one of these things.
And I would still like to see the evidence that ANY oil company or pharmaceutical company or what have you paid ANYBODY to any of the Tea Partiers or Town Hall protestors. Just vague but sweeping accusations. That’s all I’ve heard.
$33,400 … Really??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am steamed.
Thanks, Morgan ... for steaming me.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
29. I much prefer people who have standards and sometimes fail to live up to them over people who never fail to because they have none.Update: A comment I added after Morgan expounded a bit.
Of course I'm talking about moral standards and the Saul Alinsky rule concerning them (rule #4, I believe). Sarah Palin's a hypocrite because her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and the Palins are Christian believe abortion premarital sex are wrong. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is just fine because getting blow jobs from interns in the Oval office as well as being married ... well, see he's a liberal and pre and extramarital sex are just fine for liberals because ... well they just are. I mean, if they weren't that would be so puritan.
In the words of Jesus himself, even the just man sins seven times daily. In other words, we are weak. We fail. But if we have standards we try to live up to, we are better people. Christianity has some pretty good ones. The vast majority of the raps against Christianity are actually examples of people failing to live up to it.
It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the standards.
Ever hear the term, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water?"
If I had to pick between the Palins and the Clintons to be my neighbors, the Palins would win hands down.
That's it. Not trying to refute any of the actual charges Glenn has leveled. Just the name Glenn's using. Along with CNN. And Rachel Maddow (at 6:12-6:15 - "What's your response to that both politically and as a budget Czar?"). And the Christian Science Monitor. And Business Week, when the Bush Administration was in (referring to the same position).
Of course, this is all meant to keep us from further inspecting the important part of what Beck is saying. That the patients have taken over the assylum. That however paranoid McCarthy may or may not have been in the 50's, he'd certainly spontaneously combust if he were around today, because they're not even denying it.
Of course, this focus on a technicality, perhaps even a preference (depending on who is speaking) -- is meant to keep us from further inspecting the important part of what Beck is saying. That the patients have taken over the assylum.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
We broke 1,000 for the month today on our humble blog that truly nobody reads (as opposed to the original, which a lot of people read now). Not that you're nobody. About 10 after 2 this afternoon. Well that's a big thing for me. 1,000 hits in one month, and it isn't over quite yet. A record month here in the Clue Batting Cage.
No, that's not 1,000 hits today. It's this month. We're closing in on 18,000 ... like, "ever", since I put this stat counter thingy on it a few years ago. Can't remember how many. But it was definitely before the mid-term elections.
At any rate, I've also pumped out a record number of posts this month for me. Gotta wonder... coincidence?
Well, I started this thing mostly as a place for me to collect my thoughts and shout out into the emptiness to get things off my chest. Nice to know there are people out there getting something out of it besides me.
Thanks for dropping by. Not that you're nobody.
Well your nobody called today
She hung up when I asked her name
Well I wonder -- does she think she's bein' clever?
You say nobody's after you
Fact is, what you're sayin' is true
But you can read me like nobody can
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. "
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325
Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers on why he should be fired.
So, don't read the bill, and then vote on it. And brag about your vote so you can get re-elected to vote for more things that you don't know what they mean.
Sent this to one of my senators this morning:
Go to http://www.downsizedc.org/, sign up, and write your congress critters.
I will not be able to make it to this evening's town hall due to a family obligation.
However, if I were there, I would emphasize my belief in the Founders' view of Limited Government, and pass along this quote to Congress:
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…” - The Federalist #62, James Madison
At the very least, I think members of Congress absolutely should read the bills, and they absolutely should be heavily involved in writing them -- rather than having Think-Tanks submit bills for approval. I don't have a problem with Congress taking advisement from such organizations, but Congress needs to be responsible for what is in the bills.
And if the bills are too long to read... write shorter ones.
Read the Bills. And One Subject At A Time.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Much of the political rhetoric is concerned with presenting issues as isolated problems to be solved -- not as trade-offs within an overall system constrained by inherent limitations of resources, knowledge, etc. The issue is posed as one of providing "affordable housing", "decent jobs", "adequate health care" and the like. The cost problem is often waved aside by some such general statement as, "Surely a country that can put a man on the moon ..." or fight a war in the Persian Gulf, or build a nationwide highway system, etc., can afford to do whatever is proposed. From a trade-off perspective, however, all these expensive activities of the past are reasons why we have less to spend on other things, not reasons why we can spend more.
Quoth Undercover Brother:
"There's times for fallin' apart, and there's times for gettin' funky. This is one of those funky times."The battle is for the hearts and minds of those going with the self-described progressive flow ... in order to reverse the flow. Change their minds (and it won't be overnight) and they'll help you change who gets sent to Washington and with what mandate.
Many are doing this at the Tea Parties and Town Halls right now. And it's working. It needs to keep working, which means we need to remain diligent in our daily lives. They wish to re-make society in their image from the top down. We wish for society to re-discover itself and re-make itself from the bottom up.
Hope and change, man, hope and change. ;-)
Oh, remember how, because Mr. Evil BushHitlerCheneyHalliburton would only allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing lines? (Yeah, just federal funding. Private funding, even state funding ... not against the law at the federal level. Nor the research itself. And you could always even get federal funding for research on existing lines).
Well now that The Messiah, Barack Obama -- Savior of the Universe is president, and his administration is here to save us from those crazy religious zealots... you know, and base policy on science and not those pesky, arbitrary "morals" ... Science. So he's appointed a Science Czar. John Holdren. Who has written stuff like this:
"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction."There. Don't you feel better now?
"In the United States individuals have a constitutional right to privacy, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But that right's not unlimited. Where the society has a compelling subordinating interest in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed."
Oddly, the Constitution is also bereft of any "right to health care". But that doesn't seem to bother the administration at all.
This is more than just a camel's nose in the tent, a foot in the door. This is specifically designed to take full advantage of that foot in the door to implement things nobody would vote for over the next several years.
DrRich gets a sidebar, too, and this James Madison quote he posted sealed the deal:
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…” - The Federalist #62, James MadisonWhich is what we have here. And it's no accident.
And I heard Jimmy backed Big "O" for president, and I believe that. It saddened me, but ... yeah. What are ya gonna do?
But at least back in 2002 in a surprise visit to one of his Margaritaville Cafes, he told the crowd "I'm a Jeffersonian. Thomas Jefferson understood what America really was."
Well I'm with ya there, Jimmy. I read his biographical books. I believe him. Not sure how he thought Big "O" was going to get us there. I know a lot of people were fooled.
Yeah, and I still like Bonnie Raitt, too. Sue me. (looks like the pics and video were taken by cell phones)
Monday, August 24, 2009
Perhaps a few suggestions might be in order for seeing through much of the rhetoric of the anointed. Some of the tings discussed in previous chapters, as well as this one, illustrate some general principles of common sense, which are nevertheless often widely ignored in the heat of polemics:It's not the use of these tactics during a debate that is ultimately the problem ... it's using them in lieu of actual argument. If you've got stuff to back it up, by all means, back it up. But these tactics are typically used by the Left to end, no, pre-empt actual debate. This IS their argument.
1. All statements are true, if you are free to re-define their terms.
2. Any statistics can be extrapolated to the point where they show disaster.
3. A can always exceed B if not all of B is counted and/or if A is exaggerated.
4. For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert, but for every fact there is not necessarily an equal and opposite fact.
5. Every policy is a success by sufficiently low standards, and a failure by sufficiently high standards.
6. All things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities.
7. The law of diminishing returns means that even the most beneficial principle will become harmful if carried far enough.
8. Most variables can show either an upward trend or a downward trend depending on the base year chosen.
9. The same set of statistics can produce opposite conclusions at different levels of aggregation.
10. Improbable events are commonplace in a country with more than 250 million people.
11. You can always create a fraction by putting one variable upstairs and another variable downstairs, but that does not establish any causal relationship between them, nor does the resulting quotient have any necessary relationship to the real world.
12. Many of the "abuses" of today were the "reforms" of yesterday.
* There are no death panels in HR 3200 because creating them there would have been entirely superfluous. If we are to have death panels, or any entity that might pass as one, the provision for such a panel is already the law of the land. It was made so earlier this year (conveniently, before anybody started paying attention) in the Stimulus Bill, which created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.On the other hand, the fact that it got people's attention is important.
I'm going to look at the bit I highlighted in bold, and marry it with what I find out about what Beck's been talking about ... this Apollo Alliance ... and the fact that it had a big hand in writing both the Stimulus Package and HR3200. And the fact that the alliance is between the green movment (Greenpeace), the community organizers (ACORN), and labor unions (SEUI, etc).
I am not sure of it yet, but I think that stinky smell we've been smelling has a rat-like form, this might just be where it is hiding.
It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."
She discusses, among other things, the relationship between problems we have with our health insurance "system" and the already existing government regulations, that, among other things, shrink the size of insurance pools due to prohibitions against buying insurance across state lines.
The truth is, Progressives object to the term “Death Panel” because they’ve got their heads in the sand about where this leads. That is the most misleading thing about this whole “debate”. We’re debating the effects with respect to human nature, sociology, and the nature of government power, and the philosophies of the people who want to implement this so badly.
They, as progressives believe, are trying to craft a bill to legislate responsibility, and human nature/sociology and the nature of government power are going to be dictated by what’s in the bill. Therefore, they debate only what’s in this bill.
If it doesn’t say “death panels” … if it doesn’t say there will be a body deciding who will get treatment or who won’t. Therefore, it’s “misinformation” (according to them) to say that it does.
But it’s completely disingenuous of them to point just to the language in the bill UNLESS there is language specifically stating that rationing and quality-quantity of life “triage” won’t be done as a part of it, ever, by law. And that’s not in there because they know it can’t be in there. They know it would restrict the government’s power to control every aspect of health care. And they wanna tinker.
See, Progressives — the leaders of the ideology, anyway, are academics at heart. They have these theories they want to try, and tinker with and somewhere deep down they really do believe they can make everything better for everyone. But academics in the “soft sciences” is theories built upon theories built upon theories and rife with circular arguments and incestuous self-reference …. and none of those theories can ever be proven in an ethical manner because they involve just the kind of experimenting … that Roosevelt and Obama and lots of other people wanted/want to do ON REAL LIVE PEOPLE’S LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS.
So they get around this little problem by focusing only on their intentions. And anyone who argues with them must, by definition in their pointy little heads, must have BAD intentions. Greed, power, whatever. Anything but a recognition that humans have their flaws and it’s best to let us all work things out for ourselves while having laws keeping us from killing or forcefully coercing each other to one or the other’s advantage. And if they failed, it’s because the Evil Ones foiled their plans, and anyway, their intentions were good so it doesn’t matter how many people were treated unfairly, or died, or had to be killed in order to get everybody with the program for The Greater Good™.
Of course, all of this was thought about and discussed extensively around 240, 250 years ago by some very bright men who happened to be male and white — which unfortunately means they’re on the outs right now and that’s no accident, either. We are not to “worship” their work … the work that founded the country that we all supposedly love (but some of us want to Change™ very badly, apparently) … after all, they are Old Dead White Men™.
But … I digress. As I often do. The deal is, the language clearly laid the foundation for a group of coercers, and Palin seized on it and used it to make the larger point that this is where single-payer health care will ultimately lead. I applaud her for it.
That language is now gone, now, thanks to her, but as I’ve said before… they’ll strike whatever language they need to from it to get enough popular support to pass it, and it will be a foot in the door to single-payer health care. And as I’ve said over and over and over again … EVERYBODY knows it. Everybody. The people pushing it will obfuscate and even deny it in public, but in private they’re rubbing their hands together in anticipation. The people fighting it will be called “___-mongers” and every name in the book in an attempt to dismiss them to short circuit any rational debate. In a debate, they lose. And they know it.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Better Argument concerning government health care (It's where the bill leads, not what happens the day after it passes)
And this one on the Angry White Liberal was a good read as well.
Of course, at the time the Governor was Republican Mitt Romney, and the senate seat in question was Democrat John Kerry's.
It used to be, by the way, that federal senators were appointed by state governments, either by state congressional votes or by governor appointment.
Well, now that the governor is a Democrat and his own Democratic seat may be left empty due to his demise, he wants his own law reversed so that the state government can appoint his successor ... since it would likely be a Democrat.
Hypocrite, defined. The
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Despite President Obama's statements that he is not advocating a "single payer" system for medical care-- which is to say, a government monopoly of power over life and death decisions-- just a few years ago, he was telling a union audience that he was in favor of a "single payer" system. At that time, he pointed out that it was unlikely that such a system could be put in place all at once, that it might take a number of years to advance, step by step, to that goal.Call me nuts. That's what I've been saying.
In other words, Barack Obama fully understood the "entering wedge" political strategy that has allowed so many government programs to start off small, and apparently innocuous-- and then grow to gigantic size and scope over the years.
Everybody knows this is about Socialized, Single-Payer Health Insurance, and Government control over the medical industry.
Ann was sure of her facts, and willing to back them up. Her opponent said "it is not", and she said "I'll post the link on my website."
She did. Here's the document she linked. The Private Express Statutes.
Basically, private carriers can only deliver letters and packages in certain defined instances, and they are not allowed to charge less than the post office. She also mentioned a figure about "twice the postal rate" for the same service... and yup, that's in there, too:
443 - It will be conclusively presumed that a letter is extremely urgent and is covered by the suspension if the amount paid for private carriage of the letter is at least $3 or twice the applicable U.S. postage for First-Class Mail (including Priority Mail), whichever is greater.Did I mention the Post Office is $6 Billion in the hole and thinking about cutting a day of delivery out of the week?
But don't worry. Medicare isn't "technically" bankrupt. There won't be rationing. There won't be rationing. There will be no denials of service to seniors. There will be no denials of service to seniors. Private Insurance will not be outlawed. Private Insurance will not be outlawed. Government will not meddle with it. Government will not meddle with it. These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business.
It's not in "The Bill".
Guess now we're one-upping. There are, apparently, four health care bills floating around. So when we're talking about what is in "The Bill", we have to be careful which "The Bill" we're talking about.
"It's not in The Bill". Which bill?
"There's a provision in The Bill ..." Which bill?
And then to weather criticism telling us "how can we criticize 'a' bill when it's not even written yet?"
So let me get this straight. Congress has 4 (or more?) bills floating around, and we're not allowed to criticize anything in any of them because they're not finished yet, but one of them needs to be passed as soon as possible or the country will go bankrupt, and we'll all die and go to (the non-existent) Hell because we're immoral for not passing it. We're not allowed to extrapolate from what has happened to every other government social program (gets massively expanded in scope and cost, and interpreted in more and more broad ways).
It is disingenuous to talk about the specific language in this bill (which bill, again?) as being restrictive in nature because of what it doesn't say specifically, or because of what it does say rather vaguely.
Deception and dismissal is the game here.
And as I just heard a woman call it, "Philanthropic Strong-Arming". Should the government really be telling me what's moral and what isn't, and demand that I behave that way? Isn't that what all the screaming about separation of church and state is all about? Unless ... the state has decided to become the official church.
Which is another marker of which political philosophy? (hint. starts with an "F". And ends with an "ascism")
Neo-Neocon addresses Angry White Male Syndrome.
According to Neo-Neo, my wife is also an angry white "male". And Lawrence is an angry white male, even though he's Asian, and of course Asians are "White" because they're not black or hispanic. Or sometimes Arab. Or East Indian. Unless we need to demonize people with less pigmentation.
My head hurts. That makes me angry. And since I'm white, I must be angry at the black half of Obama, to follow their logic. *Sigh*.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The story was about a guy who went next door to a neighbor's house to complain about noise and he brought a shotgun. And he was arrested. That's all the information given.
Now ... at first "glance" ... one might agree. But ... think about it. I've had neighbors who were noisy, and I later (after they moved out) found out they were drug dealers. Now, suppose I wanted to go next door and ask them to please be quiet, and they pulled a gun on me? Or a crowbar?
If I take the gun, and carry it casually, pointing at the ground or over my shoulder ... really shouldn't be against the law. My right to keep and bear arms is at least half about my own self preservation.
Now me, it would've been a hand gun and it would've been concealed unless something came of it threatening life or limb. But ... what about the poor schlub who only has a shotgun?
UPDATE: New details. Reports say he was "waving the gun" "in a threatening manner". And they're right. You can't do that -- unless you (or someone you wish to protect) have been threatened.
Dennis Miller ... I can't say responding to this, specifically, but obviously to similar blather,
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Here's raw video and more back story about what was going on. This is the same day Kenneth Gladney was beaten up by SEIU thugs ... who were also arrested.
24th State, huh? My state. Gonna have to sidebar it, I think.
What? Suddenly the crowds all want the Public "Option"?
And then ... I remembered that in at least 3 town hall meetings, there were charges that ACORN and SEIU activists were being let in early to take the front of the room. In one case, a man who said he got in with the SEIU people because they assumed he was one of them and actually heard coaching to this effect. Surround the stage, & shout down anyone who speaks against the plan. Dana Loesch of St. Louis said she found a way in to the Hillsborough, MO town hall early, and again it was assumed that she was one of "them" because she WAS in early ... and she was candidly told by one of the early birds that they bussed in from ... Kentucky. To a Missouri "Town Hall" meeting.
Which leads one to wonder ... it appears to me that the Community Organizer Professionals were asleep at the wheel on this in the beginning, and the response by actual grass-roots Americans took them by surprise. But now they have scrambled the troops and have taken the Town Halls back from the people.
Am I crazy?
Well ... watch this and see if you still think I am. Or if you're more convinced I'm not.
A Texas Obama Delegate and "Community Organizer" shows up to a Texas Democrat's Town Hall and poses as a doctor (which she's not) ... to make a plea for the President's plan on behalf of family practitioners (which again,she's not). That ... is Astro Turf, from the professionals.
Then, of course, you have Dr. Brian Hill accused by his Congressman of not being from his district. He is.
Congressman Scott gets all self-righteous, strongly insinuating that he's a plant from outside his district, and that Dr. Hill should've called his office (which Dr. Hill says he did, several times, and was told no, Rep Scott would not have a meeting on Health Care) to set up a meeting on health care (which this wasn't, but it was opened up to general questions at the end when Dr. Hill asked his question) ... instead of "hijacking" this town hall meeting set up by people who had called his office to set it up.
I smell something fishy. Where do I report it?
People can still submit "fishy" information about health care reform through the "reality check" Web site, set up by the White House last week to rebut health care rumors.Oh.
Phillips said the e-mail account was closed and the public was redirected to the "reality check" site to "consolidate the process."
Macon Phillips is Obama's "media director".
Update: The "reality check" website says: "Please refrain from submitting any individual's personal information, including their email address, without their permission." -- So ... off the hook, I suppose.
He also said in the same blog post:
Email updates from the White House have played a central role in our effort to push back on misinformation and get the facts out about health insurance reform. These updates will continue to be an important source of information about the President, his priorities and opportunities for public participation.In other words, Major Garrett was not a crazy "Fox News Liar™" nut in his questioning of Gibbs last week. Yes, the White House is carefully confirming, between the lines and with much spin, that unsolicited "push back" using the addresses gathered was in fact, being done.
It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our email lists without their knowledge –- likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes -– and we regret any inconvenience caused by receiving an unexpected message. We’re certainly not interested in anyone receiving emails from the White House who don’t want them. That’s one reason why we have never -- and will never -- add names from a commercial or political list to the White House list.
At the bottom of every message is a link to unsubscribe from emails that anyone can use to avoid this in the future. We have also implemented measures on WhiteHouse.gov to boost the security of the mailing list and we will carefully evaluate signups already received to work toward preventing this problem in the future.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Success! Hey, I hear that email@example.com is being pulled, the "non-existent" clause alluding to Death Panels (when rationing starts) has been removed (thanks, Sarah!), and ... the public option appears to be on the run as well.
Maybe we can start talking about reform that is compatible with our system instead of trying to change the essence of America in to quite something else.
But don't let your guard down. I expect the weasels to try a bootleg or two, and several end-run attempts.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tack B: "But George W. Bush left this big mess to clean up. I can try anything I want and you can't blame me if I fail."
As far as "A" goes, the fact of the matter is they (Progressives) don't hear anything they disagree with, and if we happen to agree with them on something, they assume we are a part of they.
They think that GWB's low approval ratings meant that everyone had become Progressives. The fact of the matter is, GWB showed himself to be more progressive than much of his base cared for. If we criticized GWB, it didn't fit in with the narrative that all conservatives are Republican Parroting "goose steppers", so that evidence to the contrary was ignored.
And as far as "B" goes ... "Yes We Can" only gets you to the starting line. If you bring all of your failed baggage of assumptions with you and run with it, you won't get far before you fail.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I think I'm going to have to find a more stable solution, though ... I'd like to drag my comments along with.
So. All these wealthy Progressives (George Soros, are you listening? Pelosi? Any other well-meaning rich Progressives who want to get involved?) could, theoretically, get together and start up a separate company that does the same thing. And, since, after all, the insurance companies are gouging the rest of us, they ought to be able make a small profit even with drastically lower rates, correct? Of course, being the truly charitable people they are, they should work for no profit at all, but that's beside the point.
Now... what is the difference between that and a Public Option, the way it's being sold as a true competitor to, as they say, "level the playing field"?
Well for one thing, this company would have to play by the same rules everybody else does, and if it doesn't like the rules it can't change them or selectively enforce them. That's a plus. A big plus.
The other thing? Oh, the evil profit motive would be removed, then, presumably from this new charitable private option for the unwashed masses.
But we want to cut costs, right? We're all gonna save money.
Tell me, what is the effective difference, in the end, between the profit motive and the cost-cutting motive? To make more money or to lose less money ... it amounts to screwing the customer in the end ... unless the customer can find someone who will screw him less. And make no mistake ... Obama and the rest of the Progressives want a single payer system, no matter what Barack Obama says now to sell you this big foot in the door.
In the end, just a "public option" can't be the the long-term plan. Very tight government regulation of the entire medical industry(ies) in the end is a part of the plan. It goes beyond insurance.
Nah. Couldn't be. That's obviously "misinformation". Got news for ya. To the Left, "misinformation" is anything that doesn't jive with The Vision.
Oddly, swastikas and Hitler signs were conspicuously absent from these things UNTIL Pelosi said they were there.
Possibly to prime people to start looking for them ... and suggesting to Obamacare supporters to plant themselves (known apparently as "watering the plants") to further discredit the Moms and Vetrans and computer programmers like me who are going to these things?
Sadly, we do have the Alex Joneses on our side that we have to distance ourselves from, and it does feel a bit icky to have the LaRouchies milling about among us. Although they mill about the Democrats as well, as Lyndon has historically been a Democrat. They are actually leftists who feel Obama is selling them out on more radical, far reaching Public Health Care. Apparently Obama is not Fascistic enough for the LaRouchies.
Obama wants this to lead to where the LaRouchies want it to lead. Obama's just more patient than they are, and more likely to succeed with his approach.
Big hattip to theblogprof ... and please go check out the entire post. There's more.
Frankly, I don't like employer-based coverage because of that gap, and just when you can afford it the least, you can't afford to buy it yourself at the higher prices you pay when you're not pooled with other employees. And I really don't like government being the solution ... still ... I could imagine some sort of basic medicaid/medicare type program for people between jobs - who lost their insurance with their job. I'm not uncompromising. There may even be a free-market solution for this. Especially if the market, were, you know ... really free in this area.
But this particular quote stuck out to me:
"Remember, to us, slavery and tyrrany are far-fetched concepts that history has righted -- but to history, the far-fetched concept is the idea that men should be free."Be a watchman for Liberty. Do not Shut Up, no matter what Maureen Dowd and Barack Obama say.
Instead of a multicultural tableau of beaming young idealists on screen, we see ugly scenes of mostly older and white malcontents, disrupting forums where others have come to actually learn something. Instead of hope, we get swastikas, death threats and T-shirts proclaiming “Proud Member of the Mob.”Yep. There is a huge campaign afoot to paint us as Die Meckerer, "The Complainers" -- shown in the Nazi propaganda poster above (hat tip to Mr. Beck). Note the characterization of them as a few, ugly people in contrast to the crowd of pretty red flags and ... ahem, "well dressed" people behind them all "gittin" with the program and stuff.
President Obama has proven quicksilver instincts, but not in this case. You would think that a politician schooled in community organizing and the foul balls of a presidential campaign would be ready to squash this kind of nuttiness.
... it just occurred to me there's even more presumptuous arrogance in Maureen's language.
"disrupting forums where others have come to actually learn something."It sounds to me like she expects a one-way "conversation", whereas I thought a town hall was supposed to be multi-directional in nature.
The Progressives have completely taken over the Democratic party. The Progressive movement has a history of promoting and even practicing eugenics, and seem to be bent ... removing peoples' religious morals from society and replacing them with "Science Based" and State morals, making the state the official state religion. Science is a great TOOL for informing moral decsions, but those decisions and discussions about them are best left up to ourselves and our families. Science itself is has no morals. It can also be used to put forward a moral-free view of a situation and sell it.
Everyone knows this bill is just a foot in the door to a path to Single-Payer Government health care. Our concerns are entirely justified, even if this bill does not explicity authorize the behavior we fear. Never mind the inherent conflict of interest when a competitor also makes and enforces the rules.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
SECOND UPDATE ... below as well.
Well, it didn't really help our cause any, but a guy (one William Kostric) in the crowd, apparently an anti-Obamacare protester -- was legally open-carrying outside on a nearby church ground where he had permission to be, and of course at least the folks at MSNBC went ape. This was a couple of hours before Obama showed up, and I'm sure his gun was not present by the time Obama got there.
Never mind the fact that 90 dishonest criminals could have been carrying concealed -- no, this one guy open-carrying -- he's the bad guy.
As I understand it, Obama spoke in a school, where it would be illegal for him to carry the gun concealed or unconcealed.
I realize that the gun helped make the point on his sign, but the message that got out was unfortunately counter-productive.
While I defend and vigorously support his right to do it, this is really, really bad timing. The Administration, the DNC, and the Media (but I repeat myself) are going out of their way to paint us, We, the People who don't want to go down this road to Socialized Health Care and gigantic government .... as nuts. We're not, with guns or without them.
Let me just add that if anybody goes out there and shoots anybody at one of these things (not countering an immediate threat to life or limb - in other words, illegally), much less the President of the United States ... I'm gonna be really pissed.
UPDATE: Ok, there was a real numbnut there as well (one Richard Terry Young) who apparently took his inside the school. Bad, illegal move.
UPDATE 2: Geez, you can't trust professional journalists to get even the basic facts checked out -- It turns out Richard Terry Young was only inside the venue with a pocket knife, which led to the search of his car, and he had an unregistered loaded gun in his car. Again, the gun was never inside, and I doubt there was intent to bring the gun inside -- as a matter of fact, I'll bet the guy was wishing he'd thought to leave his pocket knife in the car as well.
"I think private insurance should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean ... ih .. ih ...ih " [oh qurap, going off Teleprompter now, look out!] "If you think about ... if you if you think about it ... uh ... you know, UPS and Fed Ex are doing just fine ... right? They, uh ... no, they are! "Ah, made my point. Good. Next question? But no .....
"It's it's the Post office that's always having problems."Oooooooh .... might have left that part out.
I believe UPS and FedEx sprang up to compete with the post office because the post office couldn't or wouldn't provide fast, reliable services that were in demand.
Obama himself has said more than once that he wants a single payer system, even though yesterday he has "never said" that. But I've seen the video tape. I don't think there was ever a push by the government to go to a single "carrier" for packages and documents.
But government health care in other countries has discouraged or outlawed private alternatives. He's lying when he says he isn't trying to get us there.
Thank God for this latest FAIL of his.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
#25 Dangers to a society may be mortal without being immediate.Incidentally, I'm a big Sowell fan anyway, but... the title sold me on the book.
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
"Their attitude seems to be that if there's enough of a division between Congress and the people then we just have to get a new 'people.'"
Interview is here.
Racist: /ray' sist/ 1. n White person arguing against a liberal on any subject. 2. adj Any argument a white person puts forward that any liberal disagrees with. 3. adj white or caucasian.
Mysoginist: /mis ah' jin ist/ 1. n Male.
That second one inspired by a recent post over at Cassy's place.
I smell a new series of posts coming on. You can all join in, of course.
Then the Tea Parties Started.
Well at least "ignore" isn't working anymore. The others continue.
Found the graphic below linked from the home of St. Louis Talk Radio Host Dana Loesch (who is going to be my new poster girl for the Tea Party Movement. I mean, wow!)
Check out her speech at the St. Louis Tea Party.
The graphic speaks volumes.
It came with some good Tea Party/Town Hall advice:
- Do not engage supporters of socialized medicine–they come to strike, not to speak
- Do not offer to shake hands, as they’ve been trained to charge us with assault for handshaking
- Do not look them the eye, as they will take this as a challenge (we don't like this one)
- Do not respond to their taunts
- Do not comment on their attire, attitudes, or words
- Do NOT raise your voice–volume or pitch
- Do NOT raise your hand–except to deflect and incoming blow
- Do NOT retaliate to provocation or attack–others will come to your aid
- Do talk about the substance of this hideous legislation
- Do decry the White House and DNC attempts to quash free speech with violence and threats
- Do demonstrate your disgust with White House, DNC, and SEIU campaigns against the First Amendment
Monday, August 10, 2009
On the other hand, remembering Sun Tzu and using your enemy's force agains them... consider Alinski's Rule #4 "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
In their book of rules, Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism. Well that's what they told us over the previous 8 years.
They call you a hypocrite when you occasionally fail to meet the goals your values set, as though Christ himself didn't say even the just man sins seven times daily. A good, real Christian knows he is imperfect and yet doesn't abandon his moral goals because he fails from time to time, and what these Progressive Community Organizer people profess to hate (especially in Christians, which is why I used that example) is other people cramming their morals down their throats ... while they do precisely the same thing and either can't see it or choose not to.
Meanwhile, they feel they are free from hypocrisy precisely because they have (supposedly) no such moral goals.
But they do, they just usually avoid calling them that.
When they dissent, it is The Highest Form of Patriotism™, when we do it is Un-American. When they organize, the people are speaking out and doing their duty as citizens using their first amendment rights when they burn things, block traffic, shout down speakers, start fights, and even blow things up (like Bill Ayers and his buddies tried to do). When we organize, we're angry mobs, and Nazis even though we refrain from these things.
When we suggest that perhaps constant, vocal condemning of everything any American soldier does anywhere and all but sides with our enemies during war might not be in our country's best interest, we're squelching dissent. But when we oppose massive government expansion domestically it's time for us to shut up. When we support letting the CIA track international call patterns to and from potential terrorists, it's domestic spying. When they call on citizens to report "fishy" arguments against Socialized Healthcare, its .... not.
In their arrogance, they have exposed themselves to their own tactics.
Hillary Clinton, at a passionate, screaming fever pitch during the Bush administration: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Bill Whittle -- my favorite grass-roots blogger turned minor celebrity, joined Pajamastv a while back.
I recommend his essays highly -- but now he's doing video essays on PJTV, which I also recommend. I just went back and watched his Independence Day broadcast. He gets wound up, and for good reason.
Friday, August 07, 2009
On the other hand in St. Louis:
"The back and forth between factions within the crowd created a carnival-like atmosphere inside and out between members of the movement opposing President Barack Obama's policies and groups who came to show support for the president's proposals."So you mean the other side is organizing people to go to these events, too? Huh. No kiddin'.
Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them.Well I'll guarantee you Gladney wasn't with the Progressive side, or attacked by the conservative side. So there's the first violent act I've heard of, and it wasn't by my side.
And in Denver (same article)
"Just say no!" yelled those demonstrating against health care reform."People shouting from both sides? But I thought these meetings were being "stacked" by the conservative side.
Yes we can!" shouted back those who support Obama's plan.
I think the problem is, the progressive side is used to stacking these things unopposed, and they're upset to encounter opposition.
Boener's spokeswoman lays it down the way it is, though. See if this makes sense to you and squares with bunches of opponents showing up at these things:
"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the President's health care plan"Which jives with all of the polls I've seen in the past month or so. So why the surprise?
In Tampa, in Kathy Castor's defense, she said all the right things about welcoming a healthy debate, and I, for one, don't approve of the shouting down bit. I understand if you get agitated during an exchange and your voice raises because your adrenaline is high, but remember My Ten Commandments for Conservatives. Anyway, from the article.
Political groups on both sides also recruited members to attend.
Opponents included the 9-12 Project, the Free Republic Web site and the Hillsborough County Republican Party, Proponents included unions involved in sponsoring the event and Organizing for America, a liberal organizing group that grew out of the Barack Obama presidential campaign.
Advocates on both sides said they urged their members to behave respectfully at the meeting.
"Be courteous while anyone is speaking, including Castor. We don't want to sound like an 'angry mob,' " advised the Web site of the Tampa chapter of the 9-12 Project, a meetup group founded under the influence of Beck, a television and radio host.
Yes indeed. Be courteous. Please.
"And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."So, no, Obama is not saying "Kill Granny". Not outright. And we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's not his intent. But let's take a look at what he is saying.
"... we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves."
Not really "Kill Granny", but we as a society need to start maybe making decisions that granny might not want to go along with about how long she will live or with what functionality.Obama & Co as President, Congress, & Empathetic Judges, doesn't get to tell us what "we as a culture" need to do. We as individual free men and women get to decide what we need to do with the resources we have. It's none of the rest of our concern until we start involuntarily paying for others' choices.
Once this happens, The Collective has a say in what care you get. Period. And as has happened in other countries, once the inevitable shortage that invariably comes from "free" things that people want arrives, there will be rationing. There will be pressure to cut costs by the collective. It's simple economics. It's human nature, and there are plenty of examples to look at. Care will be denied. And government doesn't take kindly to being shown up by private health care plans. The people behind this have a basic philosophical hatred for the idea that A can afford something and B can afford something better. They are here to enforce equal outcomes. It is a basic tenant of their religion. And they see their chance here with Obamacare.
When the responsibility for payment resides with the individual and those around him who volunteer their support, we can make peace with our own decisions. When the decisions are out of our hands
Thursday, August 06, 2009
It was not that long ago that Barack Obama told a crowd of 1,500 supporters in Elko, Nev., to challenge those who disagree with them and him: "I want you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independents or Republicans. I want you to argue with them and get in their face"I don't recall seeing, in any of the video clips, anything more than some people raising their voices in anger when being patronized at what they thought was a public forum for politicians to give and take with their constituents. I've sure seen plenty of Acorn types literally getting in people's faces all over the internet and on the news for the past several years.
Malkin had a good rebuttal a couple of days ago. An excellent rebuttal, with video tape of what real mobs look like. Matter of fact, she's kinda been on fire lately with her response to Boxer: How to Dress Like an Authentic Grass Roots Activist.
Oh, and of course, if you do find people in opposition to Obama & the Democrats (sounds like some Motown group, doesn't it? Groovy!) make sure you email it in. Snitch on your neighbors like good little brown-shirts! Crank up that Civilian National Security Force now!
And, of course, whine and complain that people are comparing them to ... wait for it ... Nazis! (Because nobody on the Left has ever made that comparison, no.) Or making allegations that people who are protesting socialist policies and runaway spending as Nazis. So they call us Nazis while complaining about us allegedly being Nazis and/or calling them Nazis. Rich.
Not that Nationalizing big parts of the economy while moving unapologetically toward Socialism while trying to margingalize, intimidate, and silence the opposition... National .... Socialism ... where have I heard that term before?
I've heard them accused of behaving like this:
But I've seen no evidence of it.
I think the left is guilty of a severe case of projection.
What is telling about this is it is posted on a pro-single-payer "channel" on YouTube. The asshat making the video is proud of what he's doing.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
You got to answer the questions with 5 degrees of agreement, along with a weighting of how important the issue was to you. My real answers were too often more like "none of the above".
I decided to reproduce the quiz here and actually answer the questions for real.
1. The state should restrict abortion in all or most cases.
Yes, I think it is the taking of a human life, and the state should protect human life. I would be willing to compromise to the first trimester, though, knowing what I know about the physical development of the human embryo and to get rid of the practice of late-term, especially partial-birth abortions all together. Not my ideal solution, but then again it hasn't been the anti-abortion side that's been the least compromising, either.
2. Unions were indispensible in establishing the middle class.
Probably, but unions were not originally institutionalized by the Government, nor should they be given special consideration by the government.
3. In nearly every instance, the free market allocates resources most efficiently.
A straight, strong, "yipper" on this one.
4. Public radio and television funded by the state provide a valuable service the citizens.
Public radio and television should be funded by those members of the public who find it valuable. If it is valuable in and of itself, the government doesn't need to fund it.
5. Some people should not be allowed to reproduce.
In practice, or by law? ;-) But seriously, it should not be against the law for individuals to reproduce.
6. Access to healthcare is a right.
No more than access to food or housing is.
7. The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class.
I don't see any reason for this except to satisfy the egos of those with Robin Hood syndrome.
8. School science classes should teach intelligent design.
Schools should be private, and private schools should be able to teach whatever creation theories they desire. As long as schools are public, I see nothing wrong with presenting alternate theories as such that can be explained as "yes, this is one theory" and lay it out. Of course, they should do that with all theories, including anthropogenic global warming.
9. Marriage must be heralded for the important role it plays in society.
Yes. But not by the government.
10. Sometimes war is necessary, even if it means you strike first.
Sun Tzu was right. Often the best defense is a devastating offense.
11. Patriotism is an overrated quality.
Blind, blanket patriotism is bad. Patriotism, in general, is good. Reflexive anti-patriotism, on the other hand, is at least as bad as blind, blanket patriotism. Probably much worse.
12. Radio stations should be required to present balanced news coverage.
Radio stations should distinguish between opinion and news, but let the market decide what it wants to listen to.
13. Government should do something about the increasing violence in video games.
No. Parents should, if they think it's important.
14. If our leader meets with our enemies, it makes us appear weak.
Way overly simplified question. But if we're talking about Ajmadenijad, the issue is is it makes him look strong. If we're not going to get anything out of it -- and we're not, we and others have tried again and again and again -- we should let them rot in isolation.
15. We must use our military from time to time to protect our supply of oil, to avoid a national crisis.
That in and of itself is not a good enough reason. If there are other compelling reasons to protect a country that happens to be a supplier, there is nothing wrong with that.
16. Strong gun ownership rights protect the people against tyranny.
Absolutely. The founding fathers went on at length about this with very compelling arguments. We as individuals have an inalienable right to effective self-defense, as well as, as a group -- recourse to redress a tyrannical governmnent.
17. It makes no sense to say 'I'm spiritual but not religious.'
I'm not sure what this has to do with politics. No, I don't think it makes no sense. But I think it's often a dodge.
18. It is not government's responsibility to regulate pollution.
This is one place the government probably should be involved, but it should be subject to scientific and not political oversight as well.
19. Gay marriage should be forbidden.
Gays can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. However, Government doesn't have any business defining Marriage as it is a social institution and not a government institution. It is free to recognize whatever unions it needs to for the enforcement of contracts.
20. It should be against the law to use hateful language toward another racial group.
No. Which is why this violates the first amendment, plus "hateful" is far too subjective. Whether or not I think people SHOULD use "hateful" language ... that's an entirely different question.
21. Government should ensure that all citizens meet a certain minimum standard of living.
No. This is the realm of individuals and groups in society. It's a very slippery slope when Government gets involved, and we're already way too far down it.
22. It is wrong to enforce moral behavior through the law because this infringes upon an individual's freedom.
Murder is immoral. It is not wrong to have and enforce laws against murder. Some people consider wearing short skirts in public immoral. It is wrong to have and enforce laws against wearing short skirts in public. Most people consider public nudity immoral. This is why laws like these should be left to local communities, the way the country was initially designed. Pretending laws don't enforce moral behavior and -- that laws can be separated from morals is fantasy.
23. Immigration restrictions are economically protectionist. Non-citizens should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay.
This is two different questions. 1) Immigration restrictions can be economically protectionist, but there are other good reasons for immigration restrictions, which is far too vague a term in the first place. 2) Non-citizens being allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay really doesn't have anything to do with immigration, since immigration implies becoming a citizen or at least acquiring some legal status. But the answer is, yes, non-citizens who go through proper channels should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay.
24. An official language should be set, and immigrants should have to learn it.
Absolutely (or get somebody on their own dime to translate for them). There are a few things that a nation needs to have some cultural adhesion. Plus there's the overhead of everybody having to learn a zillion different languages just to work the counter at McDonalds or to have that many copies of government forms and that many more people who can read the answers.
25. Whatever maximizes economic growth is good for the people.
This is too black and white. In general, I'd say yes. But "whatever" is far too inclusive.
26. Racial issues will never be resolved. It is human nature to prefer one's own race.
It is not up to the government to resolve racial issues that do not interfere with the constitutional rights of persons of particular races. It is up to you and me. It may be human nature to prefer one's own race, but it has been shown that this can be easily overcome. It's not about race. It's about culture. And yes, some cultures are better than others.
27. People with a criminal history should not be able to vote.
What kind of criminal history? Crimes past a certain threshhold, I wouldn't have a problem with.
28. Marijuana should be legal.
Absolutely. You are free to ruin your life (or use it responsibly) as long as you don't interfere with the constitutional rights of others.
29. The state should fine television stations for broadcasting offensive language.
Ideally, parents should be in control of what they and their children view on television.
30. It does not make sense to understand the motivations of terrorists because they are self-evidently evil.
They are self-evidently evil. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to try to understand their motivations. Sun Tzu was right. Know your enemy. But I don't mean "understand" in an "I feel your pain, bro" sort of way. More of an "understand" as in know what your enemy is mentally capable of, what they might and might not try.
31. The lower the taxes, the better off we all are.
Another absolutist question, to which the answer would be "no". But back in the real world, it has been shown that there is a "sweet spot" past which higher taxes mean government revenues actually decline. Taxes are always a drag on the economy, regardless of the question of necessity. And the government has no business taxing for things it shouldn't be charged with in the first place. As for needing taxes at all, one of the things Government is charged with is Defense. This takes revenue. So clearly, there has to be SOME taxation.
32. Minority groups that have faced discrimination should receive help from the state to get on an equal footing.
No, private individuals and groups should organize to convince the population that all men really are created equal. However, my freedom of association should mean I get to hire and fire and include or exclude anyone I want to on whatever basis I want to.
33. It is wrong to question a leader in wartime.
No. But it is wrong to continuously assail the leader with speculative allegations and assumptions for political gain. There's criticism, and then there's what happened to the Bush Administration.
34. Tighter regulation would have prevented the collapse of the lending industry.
Regulation and other government meddling in the market led to the collapse of the lending industry.
35. It makes sense and is fair that some people make much more money than others.
36. Toppling enemy regimes to spread democracy will make the world a safer place.
Probably. Doesn't mean we should go around doing it for that sole purpose.
37. The state has no business regulating alcohol and tobacco products.
38. If an unwed teen becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice.
If the mother's life is in danger or she's in danger of serious bodily harm, it may be. There's no other reason to kill a baby.
39. International trade agreements should require environmental protections and workers' rights.
Depends on the scope of the protections and how you define "rights". I mean, remember I don't think health care is a "right".
40. Gay equality is a sign of progress.
For Progressives, it is. But that is not my religion, it is theirs, and I think the first amendment has something to say about that.
41. The state should be able to put a criminal to death if the crime was serious enough.
42. The military budget should be scaled back.
As with every government program, there is probably a lot of waste. But a strong defense is necessary for the preservation of freedom, for there are those who wish to take it away. Sadly, many of them now live among us.
43. Economic competition results in inumerable innovations that improve all of our lives.
The proof is in the pudding, Jack!
44. It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric.
Sure it is. Why is our perspective any less valid than anyone else's?
45. When one group is slaughtering another group somewhere in the world, we have a responsibility to intervene.
We do not, unless we have a treaty with one of the parties that says we do.
46. We'd be better off if we could just lock up some of the people expressing radical political views, and keep them away from society.
Another loaded question. Sure I think we'd be better off, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
47. Unrestrained capitalism cannot last, as wealth and power will concentrate to a small elite.
Capitalism has never been unrestrained. Wealth and power may concentrate, but it will be allocated mainly to the job makers, the risk-takers, and the hard-workers. No system is perfect, but it's better than allocating it to a self-appointed intellectual and political elite, which is what happens in every socialist country.
48. It is a problem when young people display a lack of respect for authority.
Yes, but it's gonna happen. They're not finished maturing. Many of them never will.
49. When corporate interests become too powerful, the state should take action to ensure the public interest is served.
"Too powerful" is subjective. The public should decide what the "public interest" is. My definition of "too powerful" would be if the corporation were to somehow merge with government interest because the government deems it in the public interest when the public feels differently about it. This is generally called "Fascism". For instance, if the government bought controlling interest in a company, or the company convinced the government to bail it out. Since the government would be involved in this power in either case, the action the government should take in the public interest would be to dis-involve itself.
50. A person's morality is between that person and God only. Government should not get involved.
Once again, there's the murder argument, and the de-centralized local community laws argument.
51. The state should not set a minimum wage.
The market should set wages.
52. A nation's retirement safety net cannot be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market.
The government should not be responsible for any retirement safety net.
53. Offensive or blasphemous art should be suppressed.
Not by the government, nor should it be encouraged by the same, and it definitely should not be funded by tax revenue.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
If I was President, any time a bill landed on my desk I would randomly pick one Congress member who voted for it, call that member into my office and ask him or her to explain the details of the bill to me. IF the member couldn’t do it, I’d veto it.Update 10.26/2011: That came, apparently, from TrogloPundit, Lance Burri's blog -- from guest blogger Mister Pterodactyl. I likely unceremoniously snagged the link from Morgan's blog and didn't even really see TrogloPundit... because if I had I would have remembered it. He has an awesome banner.
And that's too bad (that I didn't see it) because he had something nice to say about me.
Yours truly struggled a bit when I renamed the blog from "philmon" to the current name, thinking the new name sounded a bit too cocky. But blog brother Morgan assured me it wasn't, and said he liked it. Truthfully, I liked it, too -- it's exactly what I felt like doing, and reflects the inspiration behind my starting the blog in the first place. Yelling at NPR in the car, talking back to CNN, and muttering things under my breath in response to dumb sh*t progressive family and friends said. I felt like I needed to get out there and start swinging a Clue Bat around -- albiet mostly for batting PRACTICE, which I sorely needed. I still need it, but not as badly. It has helped me tremendously.... and now instead of 40 hits a month, I'm up to around 1,500 to 1,700 (this month it has hit 2,300, but 500 of those were in one day. I'm guessing on my 53% post.He didn’t link to me, exactly. He linked to something
Grandpa SteveMister Pterodactyl posted while I was gone last week. So I don’t know if that counts.
On the other hand, his blog does have a great name, which is really the most important thing about blogging. Wisdom of that kind should be rewarded.
But philmon thanks TrogloPundit for the kind words, and will link him under "friends of this blog" and check his out for a while. It looks pretty good from here.