Sunday, October 31, 2010

All Things Considered

Welcome readers from House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News!  And thanks to Morgan for the link.  Sit a spell.  Poke around.  The beer is cold, the musings crunchy.   Think of them as pretzels.

Just an idea that came to me over the weekend, brought to life...

Yeah, I couldn't help myself. :-)

This after I took a stab at illustrating Morgan's NOW&IHAPBEY post .... This is for all the concerned liberals who can't seem to practice what they preach.

(why is it that the first thing that comes to mind when I read NOW&IHAPBEY is "Don't Worry, Be Happy"?)

Not One Word, and I Hope a Polar Bear Eats You!

Thursday, October 28, 2010

I was afraid of that Mr. President

The President still thinks we're just don't understand what he's done for us.  I agree with the rest of the pudits who say that oh yes, we do understand it all too well and we don't like it.

Start paying attention about 5:15 into this clip.

Obama: "We have ... done things that some folks don't know about."

Reallllly? That doesn't sound good.

Stewart: "What have you done that we don't know about? Are you planning a surprise party for us?!"

Well, he did tell us he was working on a revloution "transformation". You know... Change we didn't ask enough questions about...

Anyway, the rest of the clip, the Rock Star waving, "thank you! thank you! thank you!" ... and the message This has been really hard, and that being said, we've done a whole lot and people just don't appreciate us.

No. No we don't.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Money Hole

I know. Lotta videos lately. This one apparently from a couple of years ago from The Onion. Gotta love The Onion.

I can't eff'ing believe this!!!!!!!!

Here’s an interesting thing being kicked about on Capitol Hill.

I mean, on some level I’m not surprised, since my eyes have been opened to the fact that government is a hungry monster with an ever-growing appetite that is constantly looking for more lunch money to steal, like a school-bully crack-addict.

It is a myth that the funds we pay into social security are sitting there, invested in markets and things to grow for us and be there for our retirement (actually, it never would have been enough anyway, it was meant as an insurance program to help people who somehow couldn’t afford retirement to get by after they could no longer work … but I digress.)

No, politicians decided long ago that it would be safe to use all that money that would otherwise just be sitting around for other pet projects to sell to the public and thus buy re-election votes for all the wonderful things they “gave” you using money you thought you were “giving” them for something else.  They'll just use the next generation's money to fund this generation's social security, and if we run out of their money, well, pass it on to the next.

Well now that that’s totally bankrupt, and Medicare is bankrupt, and we’re in debt to our eyeballs to the point where we’ve begun to “buy” our own debt … apparently some politicians and academic policy wonks are saying “heeeyyyy!!! Look at all that money laying around in people’s private retirement plans and IRA’s!!!! Mmmmm. Muunnnnn-nnnney.”

Now, to come up with a plan to grab that cash in the name of “protecting” it and “insuring” it will be there for people and “leveraging” and … buzzword, buzzword, buzzword. End result, Government has control over it. And we all know (or we should by now, anyway) know what happens when government has money in it’s pockets today. Of course, it finds all kinds of wonderful ways to spend it, and then some. Like they did with that Social Security money they were saving for us. But don’t worry. We’ll take GOOOOOOOD care of it.

Did I show you my deed for swampland in Florida?

Not Paying Attention? You Wish!

Great David Harsanyi article on the Tea Party's eyes being wide open.

;"Not Paying Attention?   You Wish!

This is the sound of desperation

The President is in a rut.

What is this incoherent drivel about a car and a ditch?  The ditch!  With the car!  And the slurpees!  

This analogy is just ... not only lame, but it's long, and tedious, and it keeps getting longer, and everybody's eyes are glazing over.  And here's Al Franken, taking it another 10 miles down the ditch.

Bush "Jumped out of the car" in January, 2009? Wasn't he Constitutionally prohibited from driving the car anymore? This is getting completly inane.

And they were sipping a slurpee! It think it was cherry flavored! Cherry for all the red ink they put us in! And before we started pushin', we loaded the trunk with 300 gallons of cherry kool-aid, for the road, you know!  Because it's hard work! And we knew we'd get thirsty! And our shoes... our shoes are all covered in this mud... and it's heavy, heavy mud ... mud from the ditch ... that the car is in!  And we're workin' hard. In the ditch!  'Cause we're the Workers of the World! Uniting! Against the slurpee drinkers! On the top of the ditch!

I hope he keeps it up. Because this can do nothing but drag them down further.  This is what the King of Eloquence and Enlightened HopeyChanginess has been reduced to.  There is political hay to be made here with the strained nature of this odd strategy.

This is something that will live in parodies of Obama for many years to come.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Titles of Nobility

In my America, this would be THE most effective ad in the attempt to evict "Senator" Boxer's royal behind from her royal seat.


How Government Hinders Us

Just ran across an example from my own life.

I used to use a styptic pencil to quickly stop bleeding from shaving nicks and other minor surface bleeds.  Several years ago I ran across a product, Nik+Aid, which is essentially a styptic ball-point pen.  With a really big ball-point.  It was more convenient, faster, didn't break, and it worked great.  It lasted quite some time, apparently.

We recently ran out, and my wife and I (she used it too) have been looking for it all over and can't find it.

So I recently looked it up to see if I could find some for sale on the web.

I found this:

The manufacturer of Nik+Aid stopped making it. Here's their explanation as to why (from an inquiry by another befuddled customer):
Thank you for your inquiry and your kind comments regarding Nik+Aid . Unfortunately The U.S. FDA has changed the requirements on the OTC category that Nik+Aid falls under and they have asked us to prove (via clinical trials), that Nik+Aid meets its claim to "stop bleeding fast". The time off the market that it would have taken and the expense involved were beyond our budget. Therefore a decision was made almost 3 years ago to discontinue.

Unfortunately we do not have any inventory left and I don't know of any retailer anywhere that does. I'm truly sorry for the inconvenience this has caused. I have saved your email and you will be contacted if we find a way to bring it back to market. While we are still approved in Canada, our market penetration was not big enough at the time of the FDA's request to make up the volume needed to make the product viable. We are looking for an entity with deeper pockets and resources than ours who wants to pick up where we left off. If you or an entity you know of has an interest we'd be happy to talk.

Thank you again.

Steve Cohen
Leib Research
So in the government's valiant effort to protect us, a great product is off the market because they didn't have the money to spend on "clinical trials" to prove that the product "stops bleeds fast".

Well, see, if it didn't, you'd buy it once, it wouldn't work, and you wouldn't buy it again. Plus word would get around, and people wouldn't buy it anymore, and the product would die.  This is the way it's supposed to work.

Fact of the matter is, I used it, and it worked great on me.  It worked great on my wife.  And I imagine it worked great on just about everbody else who ever used it.

Thus the FDA squelches new products, and keeps competition down for up and comer competitors.  It probably keeps other people from even trying because of superfluous and expensive regulation.  It costs jobs.  It costs competition (which leads to lower prices and better products).  And it costs jobs.

Not sayin' all regulation is bad.  But overregulation is definitely bad.  And here's a good example.

Obama Admin Goes After Tea Party Seniors

Saw a blatant, bald faced ad starrng Andy Griffith a week or so ago that gave me pause.  And I've seen it a few times since, plus another, new one starring someone else.  And I heard a similar one on the radio today.

Andy, all friendly and folksy like.  "Naaaint-taiiin'  sexxtay faaahv.... Lotta good thangs came out that year...", trying to hit the nostalgia button with that and Andy Griffith. "This year, like always, we'll have our guaranteed benefits!"

The thrust of the ad -- which has the verbiage "An Important Message From Medicare" and talks about all the goodies they'll get with the "new health care law", which is just around the corner.  "Good things are coming."
  • Free Checkups
  • Lower Perscription Costs
  • Protection for Medicare and "us" from Fraud

For a stronger Medicare.  They know Medicare is popular.   This is just an ad about Medicare, and how it's not going away, and it's going to be stronger, and this new health care law is just a nice extension and enhancement to it.   What are you worried about, grandma?

See, there are a lot of seniors in the Tea Party.  Because most of them are distrustful of socialism, and protective of their grandkids.  Most of 'em know.... TANSTAFL!

They want to blunt backlash against Democrats in this demographic.  Don't think it's gonna work.

Did I mention the ad cost $700,000?  Taxpayer money.  To push more government, and subtly help the Democrats.  Or so they hope.

Update: Loved this comment:
You know, I was opposed to the plan initially.

But after they used my money to fund government advertisements that lie to me to try to persuade me to like something they're going to force me to buy anyhow.

Yeah... still opposed. Weird how that works

How Much for Nina?

This is too good not to post, from political cartoonist Chip BokHT to Morgan.  Chip is now sidebared.

Monday, October 25, 2010

We Don't Need Your Stinkin' Permission

At a political debate sponsored by the league of women voters, the sponsors got ambushed – this is the Left getting some of their own medicine.

At the beginning, an audience member asks if they are going to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  The moderator says “No” (emphatically, with an authoritarian tone).  Upon hearing the audience reaction, which I’m sure took her aback because in their little bubble, they assume everyone agrees with them – she backpedals … some, but still tries firmly to squelch the request.  She tries to convince them that hey, she doesn't have a problem with the Pledge one way or another -- but her tone and emphatic denial betrays her. 

The audience just takes over, and good for them.  This is America.  We don’t do as we’re told, and we don’t need your damned permission to say the Pledge.  This is political activism, the kind we should engage in to show our self-appointed leaders who is in charge here.

I understand video cameras had been banned from the debate.  In this day and age of video cell phones, you can’t hide!  This is one reason why the first amendment is so important!  (yes, I understand this is a privately put on event and they have the right to request that ... but I file this under whistle-blower citizen journalism.  Just because it's not the New York Times doing it doesn't mean it isn't.)

More audio in this video -- what a smug, arrogant ... bitch, sorry, that's the best word for it. Methinks she protesteth too much.  She clearly does have a problem with it.  And the debate, and the election is not about you, lady, I don't care if you are putting it on.  Your protests are transparent.  If you don't have a problem with it, why not do what is usually done when someone makes such a suggestion, and say "ok, let's do it."  Unless, for some reason ... you don't have any such allegiance.
I find this to be part of a disturbing pattern.  There was Obama not holding his hand over his heart as is customary during the pledge during the campaign.  His subtle dropping of the American Flag lapel pin until he was pressured back in to wearing it.  The dropping of certain phrases, like "by their creator" from the Declaration of Independence verbiage. First time Michelle was proud of her country was when her husband was nominated.  We've seen displays of the flag and recitation of the pledge banned in several schools, or wearing of clothing expressing pride in America punished when other children are wearing clothing expressing pride in their ... non-American ... countries.   IN AMERICA.  IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS.  There's more.  And each, taken by itself -- is not alarming.  But as I said, this is a pattern, and it's undeniable, and it is alarming.

These people on the Left do NOT like America.  Which is why they want to Fundamentally Transform it.

These people are not representative of you and me -- and they think they know better and should be allowed to just impose their new culture on us for our own good.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Why So Much Ado About O'Donnell?

David Paul Kuhn (there does often seem to be a degree of pretension in people who insist on going by three part names, doesn't there?) asks "Why So Much Ado About Christine O'Donnell"  -- in an article that makes more ado about Christine O'Donnell.

She's so behind in the polls, why are people making such a big deal out of her?

Who, me?  An agenda?

He then goes on to paint her as just another attention whore in reality TV show who is in it for the attention and money.

You know, as opposed to Barbara Boxer who worked so hard for her "title" of "Senator", rather than a respectfully meant, but degradingly taken, "ma'am".  But I digress.

I had a better explanation:
If progressive members of the media (which constitutes the vast majority of the media) can use O'Donell to paint the Tea Party and the candidates they support with a broad brush dipped in O'Donell paint to distract America from the Democrats' agenda of ever-growing government and its accompanying intrusion on everyone's lives & liberty, they will.  Just as they played diversion games to keep America from focusing on Obama.   Change we didn't ask enough questions about.

The media has all kinds of pointed questions about candidates whose ideology opposes theirs, but the focus goes soft on Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank, et al.  Meanwhile, it distorts and subjects the smallest details to ridiculous myopia -- or just flat making stuff up about people like Palin and O'Donell,   It has gotten so transparent, it's really hard to see past it.  

Friday, October 22, 2010

Williams is Right, O'Rilley is Wrong

According to Whoopie Goldberg.

Just days after she walked out on Bill O'Rielly after protesting and calling bullshit on his comment that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" .... Whoopie says that NPR was wrong to fire Juan Williams over saying that he feels a pang of fear when he boards airplanes with people in traditional Muslim garb.

I'm confused, Whoopie.

And What About Mara Liasson?

I would never ask or call for Mara to resign.  She's had a good gig at NPR for a long time, and it's part of her identity.  I can see that.  Journalism's a tough place to make a living (especially when you can be fired for being truthful about your emotions ... emotions most other people share ... but I digress).

But if she could resign that job and keep her career... boy, I'd sure think about it if I were in her shoes.  (Because, for one thing, her shoes would look silly on me and it would be quite embarassing.  Thank you, I'll be here all week.  Whaddaya know, it's friday!)

Anyway, I brought it up in my previous post ... Fox brings Liasson on to provide a balancing, counter point of view to the right.   Question is now, how can we ever be certain again if her opinion hasn't been tempered by the threat of being fired?

It seems to me that it's an instant devaluing of her opinion on these shows.

She does have a lot of name recognition.  She's been on NPR since 1985.  Her resignation would send a strong signal to NPR that they have, ahem, "crossed a line".

Thoughts on Juan

Today I am going down to the payroll office to terminate my monthly support for NPR.  I’ve been giving for 19 years.

I have been thinking about it for quite some time.  And one of the forces keeping me from doing it has been that I do what they apparently don’t.  I constantly question my own attitudes.  It’s my way of keeping myself honest.  Mind you, I don’t change those attitudes unless, upon that inspection I find one to be off the mark.  Constantly changing your attitudes does not constitute questioning them any more than being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment does.  It’s more likely a sign of appearing to question them so that others can be impressed about how deep and introspective you are.

Of course, the last straw was this Juan Williams thing.  It really brought into clear focus (what I already deeply suspected) that NPR is nothing more than a publicly funded, leftist PAC, organizing the academic Left and those who like to see themselves as “intellectuals” by aligning themselves with the academic left.   I’ve got no problems with the idea of PAC’s.  But they shouldn’t be publicly funded.

And when their political action runs counter to mine, I don’t have to fund them, either.  So I won’t.

Now what lit the fire under my butt to do it today was NPR CEO’s Vivian Shiller (oh, here’s a cheap shot, guys, but shouldn’t “Shill”er have tipped you off?  If you can’t take it, Vivian, don’t dish it out.  Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled post) saying that Williams’ views should stay between him and his psychiatrist.

In other words say certain things even though they are the truth and 90% of Americans (and probably French and Brits) feel the same way – if you say them out loud, you have a mental problem.  I don’t know about you, but I find this to be Orwellian, especially in light of the fact that Mark Lloyd (Obama FCC appointee) has tipped his hand as being an admirer of Chavez and notes that in Chavez’s first revolution attempt he failed because he didn’t take the Venezuelan media seriously enough.   We’ve seen this administration directly take on Fox News, trying to castigate it as a network of lying crackpots with extremist views – even though they regularly have people like Juan Williams and Mara Liasson from NPR, Kirsten Powers and people active in the Democratic Party on giving opposing views every day.  This is, I more than just suspect, is the crux of the matter.  In its arrogance, NPR feels that Williams and Liasson are lending the massive “credibility” of their name to the Evil Fox Network™.

Add to this at $1.8 million donation by George Soros to NPR and givien Soros’ statist, socialist agenda, one might even suspect that Soros himself may have pressured NPR to get them off of Fox, or, failing that, get them off of NPR.  Back in the fall of 2009, NPR hauled Liasson herself into the principal’s office and encouraged her to stop appearing on Fox.

The fact of the matter is, Fox’s opinion programming – the hosts, mainly … is undoubtedly conservative, especially when compared to NPR and probably more especially when you compare it to MSNBC.  But when you compare it to the American People’s point of view, it’s pretty mainstream, and the ratings show it.  Fox New’s programming consistently beats all the other major players in cable news combined.   Hate to break it to ya. That’s not extreme.  That’s America.   Yet Fox is constantly referred to as extreme by those on the Left and by those who don’t watch it because those on the Left keep telling them it’s extreme and only crazy people watch it.

Crazy people like Juan Williams, who should keep his honest fears that 90% of America shares between him and his psychologist.

Leaders should be very careful about calling half of their population crazy.  The results of this upcoming election will be due in at least some part to that.

If Fox had fired Williams, for whatever reason -- it would have been deemed "racist" and that story would have run on NPR.  If Murdoch came out and said verbatim what Shiller said about him, there would be calls for his head, and more shrill charges of racism.

The rest of the flock in “the middle™” who don’t watch it because they don’t want to be viewed as “extreme” by people they think are “intellectual” – will go ahead and echo the “extreme” charge not because they’ve watched it and come to the conclusion that it “extreme”, but because they have been instructed to believe that it is extreme.

Just as they have been instructed to believe that the Tea Party is “extreme”. 

They, if they’ve even paid any attention to this … are probably stunned to find out that Juan and Mara or anyone ideologically like them  appear regularly on Fox News, because they’ve been instructed to believe that Fox only offers one point of view, and it’s not theirs.

NPR asked Juan if he would have said what he said in the O’Rielly interview on NPR.  Juan said “of course I would”.   I’m not sure he would have.  I believe he believes he would have, and that at least he shouldn’t have felt so constrained in any venue.  But the words we choose are often affected by the least tolerant of those in our presence, and Juan had to know that most of those around him in front of NPR microphones are politically correct to the point of denial.  Like Whoopie Goldberg (Noooooo!!! Oh my GOD, that is such bullsh*t!).  

My point here isn’t that it is somehow less noble for him to have said it on Fox than it would have been for him to say it on NPR.  My point is the chilling effect political correctness has on free speech and what journalists can and can’t say.  No, firing him is not a violation of the first amendment, but it sure shows a tremendous amount of disrespect for the spirit of The First from one of the named entities in it that benefits from it.

Now put yourself in Mara Liasson’s chair next time she’s on Chris Wallace’s Fox Sunday Morning Show.   Knowing that NPR might fire her (and how long has she been with NPR?   As long as I can remember.  I know, Juan’s “only” been there 10 years) … anyway, knowing that her career is on the line if she says something that displeases the publicly funded and Soros funded NPR … and having a recent example of a colleague who was just fired for it … Mara’s opinion on the opinion show – through no fault of her own necessarily – is now devalued.   Is she saying what she’s saying, or not saying what she’s not saying – because it’s not something that meets NPR’s Standards?  Standards that do not allow you to even acknowledge a bare fact because it doesn’t fit the PC narrative?

No more of my funds will be going to support that standard.

Let this be a lesson to those who are under the illusion that because something is "publicly funded" its motives are somehow more pure and objective than a privately funded entity.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Politically Correct? We'll show you Politically Correct!!!!

In a monumental display of irony, NPR fired Juan Williams yesterday over the example he used to make point on political correctness.

I’ve disagreed with Juan on a lot of things. And agreed with him on a few.  He's right, here.

And NPR re-enforced his point in a profound way.

This has finally lit the fire under my arse to go discontinue my monthly support for our local NPR station.  Should have done it years ago.  If they ask me why, I'll say it's over the firing of Juan Williams.

Update:  In a breathtaking display of arrogance, NPR's CEO says Juan's views should stay between him and his psychiatrist.

Another way of saying anyone who disagrees with your worldview is mentally unstable. Just as our illustrious president blames the current backlash on people "not thinking straight". 

I sense a pattern here.  Re-education camps, anyone?

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm...."

I'll fill you in a little more on why and how I ran across this later, but ...

What Churches and the Media Missed on the ACORN Scandal

Really another bookmark post mostly for me. But feel free to go read.  You might find it ... enlightening.

Robo Signers

Got my Downsize Daily Dispatch from today.  Being a daily dispatch, I get one every day.  Anyway, they sent a link to a guy who is making an excellent point over at Cafe Hayek.
If the robo-signing of mortgage-foreclosure documents justifies a moratorium on foreclosures, surely the robo-voting for, say, Obamacare justifies a moratorium on the implementation of that legislation – a massive legal document that was approved with the votes of many legislators who cannot possibly have read the entire bill before voting for its enactment.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Because I can't lose this quote

From a comment over at Morgan's place the other day from someone that goes by Severian ... this (the last sentence, in bold) was priceless:

.... For instance: some philosopher raises an interesting, and valid, question about the epistemological underpinnings of science or math. Actual scientists, engineers, etc. don’t care, since 2+2 will still equal 4 no matter how many fancy words like “unfalsifiability” and “paradigmatic” you throw at it. But then some history professor gets ahold of it, and all of a sudden it becomes “’science’ is a social construction.” And then some English professor gets ahold of it it and it becomes “’science’ is just a social construction.” Then some Womyn’s Studies professor jumps in with “reality (gravity, whatever) is only a social construction”…

…and this, filtered through the pot-addled brains of several generations of pretentious, perpetually indignant undergrads, allows idiots like Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to blithely dismiss honest-to-god, slap-you-in-the-face facts that don’t fit their politics. And that, in turn, allows them to remain Smarter Than You, no matter how great the gap between your respective IQs or your relative command of verifiable data

And if you don’t believe me, that’s because you’re just in thrall to the reified paradigmatic hermeneutic cisgender phallocentric neo-colonial praxis.
Yes, those are all actually defined words (though I suspect many are neologisms
;-) ), and used in context.

I may need to use that in the future.

Praise for The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration is a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.
Just a nice quote.  I like it.

There's more.  I like this bit, too:

Working from the principle of equality, the American Founders asserted that men could govern themselves according to common beliefs and the rule of law. Throughout history, political power was—and still is—often held by the strongest. But if all are equal and have the same rights, then no one is fit by nature to rule or to be ruled.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "[T]he mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." The only source of the legitimate powers of government is the consent of the governed. This is the cornerstone principle of American government, society, and independence.

America's principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.
As I've said before. I'm not a terribly religious guy. But I recognize its importance and I reject the idea that non-establishment means the suppression of its expression -- especially because the non-establishment clause is expressly thus balanced by the free exercise clause.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Open letter to Christine O'Donnell

When people who believe in our constitution are asked what programs we would cut, the asker is not interested in hearing our solution to excessive government spending. He is trying to create a sound bite to play to voters that will prevent you from winning office.

Sharron Angle wants to kill Social Security! Sound familiar? Now she's "backing off", even though killing Social Security is the right thing to do.

The right way to answer is to say something like the following:

"I want to gradually, methodically eliminate all government activity that enslaves citizens to the government. When money is taken by force from people who earn it and is given to those who don't (either by choice or circumstance), both groups are enslaved. While the enslavement of the first group is obvious, some people have difficulty understanding how the second group is enslaved. They are essentially forced to vote for representatives who will continue their payments, and must take whatever other distasteful policies that come with these representatives in order to maintain their livelihood. This perverts a republican government."

"In no way do I want the truly unfortunate to be left to suffer. I want them to be helped, but the constitution does not allow that help to come from the federal government. Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world, and we do not need coercion to help those who need it."

Good luck getting that out before the questioner tries to change the subject.

Krauthammer Shoots, he Scores!

Many of my conservative colleagues are quick to condemn some of our conservative-ish brethren (and sistren) in the Republican party when they say something we disagree with -- like when Rove and Krauthammer went off on O'Donnell winning her primary.  I thought they were wrong.  But they are entitled to be wrong.  On the flip side, Rove, Krauthammer, and Cheney have also been responsible for some of the sharper arrows in our quiver ... when they're wrong I'll respectfully disagree with them.  But when they get it right, it can be a beautiful thing:
Most shameless attack campaign (national). President Obama suggesting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is secretly using foreign money to fund its campaign ads. There's not a shred of evidence that this is true. When Bob Schieffer asked David Axelrod for evidence, he responded, "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?" That's like some lunatic claiming that Obama secretly says Muslim prayers at night that no one can see and no one can hear. You ask: What's your evidence? He says: What's yours that he is not? You say: No one's ever seen or heard him do that. He says: Aha, that's exactly my point.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

socialists in Denial

Last night while I was touching up paint around the soffit in the kitchen, I was thinking. I do that. Hard to turn that ole noggin off. Now I knew this, but sometimes you have to re-arrange thoughts in your head like furniture in your living room until you see something that really works for you.

I was thinking about the fact that progressives get so defensive when you call them or their desired policies “socialist”. They’re like a cat surprised by a grizzly bear. Back arched, hair standing straight up, claws out, deep yowls and a lot of hissing. I’ve often noted before that the first reaction you get when you call something dear to them “socialist” is that they deny it. And the second reaction is usually some sort of defense of socialism. Usually ridicule for your “out-dated” ideas of personal liberty.

“I ain’t drunk, and what’s wrong with drinking anyway?”

Progressives are by and large Socialists in denial. You say “socialist” and they see those failed states and draconian systems just like you do. Only they’re convinced that it was just the wrong people in charge, not something inherent in socialism that is incompatible with human nature and a prosperous society. The Little Red Hen (ironic that that came from Russian folklore) should want to feed all of the animals who wouldn’t do the work to make the bread, and so she shouldn’t mind that the Government forces her to, and everyone will feel this way once they see the light. They don’t see that productivity will fall without coercion, and will probably fall even with it.

So they use another word to distinguish themselves from those systems, even though they espouse the same philosophy.  They see subtle differences in flavors of swamp water and chastize those who don't recognize them as ignorant.  Their swamp water will taste like rosewater.

To me, if it can be traced to Marxism, it's socialism.  Maybe I should stop using "socialism" and start using "Marxism" instead.  But I don't know.  I kind of like "Progressive" Rock, and that doesn't mean the exact same thing either.  So I use "socialism" with a lower case "s", like "libertarian" with a lower-case "l" to distinguish it from Webster's and Orthodoxy.

To them, using "socialist" threatens their defense mechanism, their denial -- that allows them to believe that they aren't what they are.  And that brings out the fright or flight reflex.
There are "S"ocialists who blend themselves into the flock of progressive "s"ocialists ... but the reason this is so easy is there really isn't a whole lot of difference in their philosophies.  The "s"ocialists, though, fool themselves into a separation of the philosophy and the distasteful measures needed to enforce it, as well as the effects it has on prosperity and self-worth.  Most of the "S"ocialists are very aware of this, and they just keep their mouths shut about it unless they're in a "safe" venue where they believe only friendly ears are listening.

But even the "s"ocialists know, on some level, that force will be required.  Here's one of the many slips, candid speech that reveals it -- this one from Michelle Obama during the campagin:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Get that? RequireDemandPush you out of your comfort zone.  To be "better" (according to whom?) and to "engage" (in what?  how?  who decides?)   And he will never allow you to go back to your lives.  And, oh yes, he will make sure that you are informed(By the Ministry of Information, no doubt.)

Monday, October 11, 2010

I Want Your Money

Got to see a kind of a sneak preview of "I Want Your Money" friday evening, conveniently shown at an Inn right across the road from where we live.

It's a bit of a documentary, broken up with cariacature cartoons for comic relief to illustrate certain points.  The leader of the cariacture group who is typically making the point is Ronald Reagan, but we see Obama, both Clintons, Nixon, Palin, Pelosi, and Schwartzeneger as well.

All in all, a decent, enjoyable piece.  It's actually coming to some theaters this Friday.

A few O'Rourke Quotes

From his interview on Dennis Miller last friday:

[on government telling you what you can't buy with food stamps, among other things]
"If you give your power to the political system, the political system will take that power and they will use it on you."
[on the "Ground Zero" Mosque]

To me it was like building the U.S. Cavalry Museum at Wounded Knee.  No matter how tasteful the presentation, no matter how sensitive to the feeling of the Native Americans it was gonna be, it would just sort of be in -- bad taste.
[and about elections]
We need a new ballot system where 'None of the Above' would be a valid [choice] and 'none of the above' would actually clear the chalkboard where everybody who had run, if 'None of the Above' won, none of these people could run again. They'd have to start all over again.
He was plugging his book "Don't Vote -- It Just Encourages the Bastards"

It's all they've got

The DNC is running an ad now accusing "The Bush Crowd" of "Stealing our Democracy".  See, it "appears" (with no evidence to back it up provided) that the Chamber of Commerce or the Better Business Bureau is taking foriegn money and funnelling it into Republican coffers.  [Although, if we're all citizens of the world and all, wouldn't that be appropriate anyway?]  Didn't Obama campaign in Europe? 

And not that I'm excusing foriegn donations, but ... does anyone remember this?  Or this?

The perpeutal Obama Campaign is a broken record.  We're going to fundamentally transform America, which we love. Change.  But don't ask specifics. Just look at Bush.  Bush is BAD.  BAD Bush!  Wad'n't 'e bad?  Well, all of our opponents?  They're Bush.  Yeah, we passed the Health Care bill you hate.  And we're not talking about it.  We're talking about Bush.  'Cause he's bad.

You know how the movie "Up" pegged dogs so well? I think they're hoping "Bush!" works on voters like "Squirrel!" works on dogs.

Friday, October 08, 2010

MSNBC's "Lean Forward"

"Declaration of Forward"

Is this a Declaration for a new country or something? Was ours not good enough? Kinda sounds like it.

Our differences ... are what unite us. (?????!!!!!!!!)

Got it.

Up is Down.  Left is Right.  Freedom is Slavery.  Slavery is Freedom.....

We are the "United States of 'Come As You Are'????"   And of course we'll leave out the whole "are created equal" part, because we wouldn't want to beg the question that they were created and bow to those theocrats, you know.  Endowed by their Creator.  Scary, scary words, to the Left.  Why all the fear? ;-)

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Aligning Money With Mouth

Just to help send a message, and to put some of my money where my mouth is, I donated a small amount to the Heritage Foundation's Repeal Obamacare Money Bomb yesterday.

They're up to $140K, shooting for $200K by the end of the week.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

More of this, please!

More of her, less of him.  Way of thinking, I mean.

I know this was all over the Conserv-O-Sphere yesterday.  But let's bookmark it, shall we?  I think I hear the ghost of Reagan here.




Seen in a comment on a YouTube video of Ella Mae Morse doing "Cow Cow Boogie".

Apparently some guy who has a constant problem with "White" people performing a "Black" art form (oh, the irony there) ,.. to which a couple of replies came:
(1) The fact that this song may be referring to a Black Cowboy from Harlem, does not create a racial issue,nor occasion dragging all manner of racial baggage into the enjoyment of this song.

(2) Ha Ha Ha! Looks like your Race Card, has been swiped & declined! Sorry, it just doesn't impress anymore! LMAO!
It's the second one, the response to the first one that cracked me up. May have to save that one for future use.

In a further irony, the song was written by white people.  So, we have white people upset that white people are performing a song written by white people because jazz came out of a black music tradition and, I don't know, white people aren't qualified to perform it .. er somethin'.  But of course, we're post-racial now, and we judge men by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.


Tuesday, October 05, 2010


Dinesh D'Souza talks about Obama's anti-colonialism, inherited from his father. The idea is that imperialist (or colonialist) countries exploit the rest of the world for their resources, enriching themselves and ruining the colonies.

The United States steals oil from the middle east, timber and cattle from South America, cheap manufacturing from southeast Asia, and so on.

Now the United States needs money, so Obama "borrows" it from China. How do we pay it back? Is there a plan, or did we just exploit China?

[...A Clarification]

I insinuated we have no plan to pay back China, and that probably deserves some explanation. We might try to pay it back with inflated dollars, thus shortchanging China. Or, we could try to increase tax revenue and pay them back without inflation. Right now the government is preparing to tax wealth creation, which means there will be less of it, which leads to the inability to pay at all. Funny how we tax tobacco for the stated purpose of its elimination, but we deny that taxing free enterprise will stifle it.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

BullCrit II

Wow, it turns out I have another "Bullcrit" post from a couple of years ago.

It's a reference to this 1989 article I think I saw in Reason Magazine ... however, maybe it was originally from New York Magazine, because this is basically the article I remember.  We'll get to the Bullcrit part in a minute.

Right now I'm reading Dinesh D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage".   Now I wouldn't have picked this book up on its title alone ... as a matter of fact, I probably would have avoided it.  But I've read several editorials by this author over the last few years that were excellent, sound, level-headed dissertations.   The other is I saw him interviewed over the book, and was impressed by his approach.

I'm about halfway through it and I can't reccomend it enough.  If you want to understand where Barack Obama is coming from, get this book.  It gives us a good picture of Obama's influences and how they affected him throughout his childhood and college years up through his trip to Kenya.

A lot of the book is Obama's own words.   Most of those right out of "Dreams From My Father", his first autobiography.

On Fox & Friends the other morning, though, Geraldo Rivera was on (not long after Dinesh himself was on plugging the book) and he completely trashed it, bringing up "birthers" and "this concept of 'other'" and said it was "lazy" and I think "stupid".  Geraldo hasn't read the book.  I call Bullcrit!

Apparently Robert Gibbs the other day lashed out at the book, also lumping it in with birther conspiracy theorists.  It is nothing of the sort.  D'Souza very clearly agrees that Obama was born in Hawaii.   D'Souza is clearly no fan of Progressivism and thus no fan of Obama, but he did start out as the traditional loyal opposition when Obama was elected.  Yes, much of it is unflattering.  Some of it makes you feel a little sorry for the guy.   But this book provides needed context ... much of which should have been provided by our free press during the campaign process ... to make sense of what Obama says and does.

I have to admit, it does bring the man and his actions into sharp focus.  When I see that in my camera, I know I've got it about right.

I give it two thumbs up,