I've done it. I'm a Facebook dweeb. I post there regularly. I reply to other people's posts. And I now have more friends on Facebook than I've ever had in real life; a definite sign of loserhood, if you ask me. But anyway, I posted a decent response to one of my "friends" complaining about something they read in a Charles Krauthammer column criticizing Obama's decision to cancel Bush's stupid moon mission. I thought I'd share it with you. Enjoy!
Our space program has always been a joke; akin to early sailors who never left the coastline and imagined themselves to be great merely for getting past the big waves. Sure, getting to the moon was a huge achievement, but it was stupidly ahead of it's time. Purposelessly so.
So we sent some dudes there to look at rocks. And? That was a pointless PR endevour. Cool? Yes. Lasting achievement? No. The truth is that from a technological perspective, we're many decades away from doing anything real with the moon and anyone who tells you differently is selling something. And the moon isn't real space travel. I want Star Trek, guys. I want REAL space exploration. And sending a few dudes to the moon at huge cost and risk is just stupid. We only went there because we hated the commies and we stopped going because the commies realized what a stupid, pointless achievement it was.
None of this is to suggest that I don't like space travel. I LOVE it. Hell, I'd give your left nut to go into orbit and I'd give both of them to get to Mars. But until we make some real technological breakthroughs, we're just dumb sailors who can't build ships good enough to cross a small lake. And while those breakthroughs would happen a lot sooner if we really pushed for it, we've got more pressing needs. I said that when Bush announced his pie-in-the-sky moon plan which he wouldn't fund properly and I say it now. We're just not ready for real space travel and going to the moon serves no other purpose than to do something cool.
Beyond that, Charles Krauthammer is a brainless hack and you should be ashamed for ever linking to him. Surely you could have found someone whose intent wasn't to unfairly smear Obama. Bush's moon program was over-budget, wasn't scheduled to work for many years, and might never have been feasible. Obama isn't to blame for our lack of space travel and his shift from lofty PR missions to more realistic space goals has been praised by many. Krauthammer will have you believe that Obama somehow cancelled active space travel (he didn't); while failing to mention that Obama increased NASA's budget. What a hack.
For a more informed view of where things stand on space travel, I recommend Bad Astronomy:
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Agnostic Truthers Asking Questions
We're all idiots. Simpleton dummies who don't know what words mean. That's all that can be construed from anyone who says things like:
Because people just don't talk this way normally, even about things they're not sure about. Like me, I'm agnostic on religion. I don't know if there are any gods or any sort of real system that puts this all together. And so I just say that I don't know. I abstain from making a judgment on the matter. I find religious discussions to be extremely interesting, but only from an academic standpoint and really won't commit myself to any of it. Because I simply can't make judgments about things that aren't knowable.
But that's not what Medina did. For as much as she's pretending to be keeping an open-mind about it all, she's clearly not agnostic on the subject. Because she not only is willing to entertain these questions, but thinks they're good questions. And that there are "very good" arguments supporting it. And she outright states that there's evidence supporting the position. And that's not agnosticism, folks. That's statement of belief.
And trying to hide behind the guise of open-minded questions doesn't fool anyone. I mean, if I suggested that there were good questions which suggest the existence of God, I'm not agnostic. And if I think there is evidence of God's existence, I'm a believer. There's just no two ways about it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.
Answering the Questions
And sure, I'll entertain questions about whether the government was involved in 9/11, just as I'll entertain questions about the existence of gods. But only from an academic perspective. And once the hypothetical debate is over, I'll go back to not knowing about the existence of gods and think it's batshit crazy that anyone might imagine a government which wanted an excuse to attack Iraq would do so by attacking its own citizens and blaming it on people with no connection to Iraq. That'd be like if Hitler burned down the Reichstag and pinned it on the Americans as an excuse to attack anti-American communists.
I mean, if attacking Saddam was the purpose of 9/11, they would have pinned it on Saddam. Duh! But instead, they wasted large amounts of credibility in vain attempts to connect Saddam to the attacks; which would have been unnecessary if they had planned the attacks. And so yeah, sure, maybe there are questions we can't answer about 9/11 (though I've generally found that many of these questions have been answered, which the questioners refuse to accept), but until they can answer the question of why we pinned it on Al Qaeda when Iraq and Iran were our targets, I don't see how they have any questions to stand on.
And hey, if the 9/11 Truthers insist that Cheney works in mysterious ways and all this can only be accepted on faith, I guess I'll just have to become outright agnostic on the issue. After all, logic's all I've got and if you insist it's not good enough, then I'm not going to fight you. But if they expect us to think they've got reasonable questions, they've got to act reasonable. And that means they've got a lot of answers to give too.
I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.That was Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina talking to Glenn Beck about whether she thinks the government was involved in 9/11. And this is total horseshit. I mean, I have no idea whether she actually believes that the government was involved or if she's just trying to impress the folks who do, but it's obvious that she's playing a simpleton's game with words here and imagines we're all too stupid to see it.
Because people just don't talk this way normally, even about things they're not sure about. Like me, I'm agnostic on religion. I don't know if there are any gods or any sort of real system that puts this all together. And so I just say that I don't know. I abstain from making a judgment on the matter. I find religious discussions to be extremely interesting, but only from an academic standpoint and really won't commit myself to any of it. Because I simply can't make judgments about things that aren't knowable.
But that's not what Medina did. For as much as she's pretending to be keeping an open-mind about it all, she's clearly not agnostic on the subject. Because she not only is willing to entertain these questions, but thinks they're good questions. And that there are "very good" arguments supporting it. And she outright states that there's evidence supporting the position. And that's not agnosticism, folks. That's statement of belief.
And trying to hide behind the guise of open-minded questions doesn't fool anyone. I mean, if I suggested that there were good questions which suggest the existence of God, I'm not agnostic. And if I think there is evidence of God's existence, I'm a believer. There's just no two ways about it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.
Answering the Questions
And sure, I'll entertain questions about whether the government was involved in 9/11, just as I'll entertain questions about the existence of gods. But only from an academic perspective. And once the hypothetical debate is over, I'll go back to not knowing about the existence of gods and think it's batshit crazy that anyone might imagine a government which wanted an excuse to attack Iraq would do so by attacking its own citizens and blaming it on people with no connection to Iraq. That'd be like if Hitler burned down the Reichstag and pinned it on the Americans as an excuse to attack anti-American communists.
I mean, if attacking Saddam was the purpose of 9/11, they would have pinned it on Saddam. Duh! But instead, they wasted large amounts of credibility in vain attempts to connect Saddam to the attacks; which would have been unnecessary if they had planned the attacks. And so yeah, sure, maybe there are questions we can't answer about 9/11 (though I've generally found that many of these questions have been answered, which the questioners refuse to accept), but until they can answer the question of why we pinned it on Al Qaeda when Iraq and Iran were our targets, I don't see how they have any questions to stand on.
And hey, if the 9/11 Truthers insist that Cheney works in mysterious ways and all this can only be accepted on faith, I guess I'll just have to become outright agnostic on the issue. After all, logic's all I've got and if you insist it's not good enough, then I'm not going to fight you. But if they expect us to think they've got reasonable questions, they've got to act reasonable. And that means they've got a lot of answers to give too.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Small Stories for Small Minds
The AP just published a 461-word piece which essentially said: Associated Press writer Nancy Benac is an idiot. It was titled Obama, Palin trade telling jibes over crib sheets, which can be summed as: Republicans attack Obama for using a teleprompter, Democrats attack Palin for writing notes on her hand, and this is important because "small things take on big meaning when they become emblematic of larger truths."
Her other evidence of this is that the media made a big deal about John Edwards' hair and Joe the Plumber. Are we to imagine that other politicians don't have their hair done by professionals? Or that Joe the Plumber really was an average Joe looking for answers, rather than a typical conservative moron who tried to embarrass Obama by his own lack of intelligence? Perhaps Palin has Joe cut her hair and do her cribsheets as a testament to her averageness.
Because I've got a better theory about why these small things are imporant: Because reporters are small-minded twits who abhor larger truths. They focus on these little things because that's all they see. And they'd rather talk about teleprompter attacks and palm smackdowns because it's far more interesting to them than healthcare policies and the economy; and they wouldn't even be interested in politics at all, were it not the top beat in their profession. And if celebrity news could get them the street cred they desire, they'd be walking the streets of Hollywood looking for dirt and would leave D.C. the hell alone.
So we're stuck with stories about personal attacks, in which it's now considered "out of touch" to use teleprompters, and where Obama's use of a telepromter to give speeches is the same as Palin needing a cheatsheet to remember her core beliefs. And the fact that Obama has left no doubts that he's extremely brilliant even without a teleprompter couldn't be included in the article at all.
Her other evidence of this is that the media made a big deal about John Edwards' hair and Joe the Plumber. Are we to imagine that other politicians don't have their hair done by professionals? Or that Joe the Plumber really was an average Joe looking for answers, rather than a typical conservative moron who tried to embarrass Obama by his own lack of intelligence? Perhaps Palin has Joe cut her hair and do her cribsheets as a testament to her averageness.
Because I've got a better theory about why these small things are imporant: Because reporters are small-minded twits who abhor larger truths. They focus on these little things because that's all they see. And they'd rather talk about teleprompter attacks and palm smackdowns because it's far more interesting to them than healthcare policies and the economy; and they wouldn't even be interested in politics at all, were it not the top beat in their profession. And if celebrity news could get them the street cred they desire, they'd be walking the streets of Hollywood looking for dirt and would leave D.C. the hell alone.
So we're stuck with stories about personal attacks, in which it's now considered "out of touch" to use teleprompters, and where Obama's use of a telepromter to give speeches is the same as Palin needing a cheatsheet to remember her core beliefs. And the fact that Obama has left no doubts that he's extremely brilliant even without a teleprompter couldn't be included in the article at all.
Why Does Congressman Ryan Love Obama So Much?
My Informal Logic teacher from college (who I owe a great debt of gratitude for making me the brain I am today) once said that it's a fallacy to argue that your plans shouldn't be attacked if the attacker can't come up with a better plan; as a bad plan is bad, even if the alternative is worse. And that was one area of disagreement I had with him, as I've always found that, no matter how flawed a plan is, if the alternative is worse, then the flawed plan obviously isn't so flawed. After all, it's easy to criticize a bad solution to a tough problem if you don't have to bother solving it yourself.
And that's one big reason Republicans find it so easy to attack Democrats: They don't have to offer a plan of their own. They just bash the Democrat's plan while pointing to a mythical plan that is supposedly located in the room behind them; if only Obama would agree to do it, sight unseen. And I'm confident that they truly believe they've got some great answer to all our problems, but won't actually bother mentioning what it is because it's not relevant to their attacks on Obama's solutions. But of course, the reality is that it's easy for them to criticize Obama's plan, as long as they don't need to talk about the alternative.
Well...it seems many Congressional Republicans are getting high on their own supply, as one of them actually got around to proposing an alternative budget to Obama's, and what do you know, it's a giant pinata, just begging to be busted open for Democrats to grab the goodies. Because yeah, sure, Obama's budget is flawed. It's not what we want. It's far from ideal and it's easy to attack. But once Republicans explain to us what the alternative is, Obama's budget looks golden by comparison.
And geez, I'm not sure Republicans could have made a worse budget. I mean, privatizing Social Security while replacing Medicare with vouchers? Holy turdball, why not include a 500% tax on apple pies and really piss people off. Even their patron saint Reagan knew better than to screw with these programs, and he ran on a platform of destroying them. And privatization was one of the big things that derailed Bush and essentially made their party headless.
Then, to add insult to injury, he's apparently ending corporate taxation and shifting the burden to the People. Yeah, that'll win a lot of votes come November. Oh, and does it need to be mentioned that only large corporations pay the corporate tax, so all the small businesses that do more to add jobs won't get any benefit from this? Perhaps some day someone will explain to them that the Capital Gains tax cuts only help people who sell their assets; and doesn't give any direct benefit to those who buy stocks or investment property. And once again, we're assured that there are tons of wealthy people just sitting on tons of money they'd like to invest, if only they got to keep a bit more of their earnings.
And yeah, this budget couldn't have been a bigger gift to Democrats unless it included a ban on puppies and kittens. Not only does it give them a strong club to beat Republicans with, but it makes Obama's budget look better in comparison. And fortunately, attacking Republicans for trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare is a time-worn tradition with them; made even better now that Republicans have ranted about how awesome Medicare is. I can only hope that Ryan keeps his budget out there as long as possible, so each Dem gets a turn taking a whack at it.
So thank you, Congressman Ryan, for explaining to the American people how, despite the flaws inherent in Obama's budget, it's the best option we've got. Now we just have to help him get that message out.
And that's one big reason Republicans find it so easy to attack Democrats: They don't have to offer a plan of their own. They just bash the Democrat's plan while pointing to a mythical plan that is supposedly located in the room behind them; if only Obama would agree to do it, sight unseen. And I'm confident that they truly believe they've got some great answer to all our problems, but won't actually bother mentioning what it is because it's not relevant to their attacks on Obama's solutions. But of course, the reality is that it's easy for them to criticize Obama's plan, as long as they don't need to talk about the alternative.
Well...it seems many Congressional Republicans are getting high on their own supply, as one of them actually got around to proposing an alternative budget to Obama's, and what do you know, it's a giant pinata, just begging to be busted open for Democrats to grab the goodies. Because yeah, sure, Obama's budget is flawed. It's not what we want. It's far from ideal and it's easy to attack. But once Republicans explain to us what the alternative is, Obama's budget looks golden by comparison.
And geez, I'm not sure Republicans could have made a worse budget. I mean, privatizing Social Security while replacing Medicare with vouchers? Holy turdball, why not include a 500% tax on apple pies and really piss people off. Even their patron saint Reagan knew better than to screw with these programs, and he ran on a platform of destroying them. And privatization was one of the big things that derailed Bush and essentially made their party headless.
Then, to add insult to injury, he's apparently ending corporate taxation and shifting the burden to the People. Yeah, that'll win a lot of votes come November. Oh, and does it need to be mentioned that only large corporations pay the corporate tax, so all the small businesses that do more to add jobs won't get any benefit from this? Perhaps some day someone will explain to them that the Capital Gains tax cuts only help people who sell their assets; and doesn't give any direct benefit to those who buy stocks or investment property. And once again, we're assured that there are tons of wealthy people just sitting on tons of money they'd like to invest, if only they got to keep a bit more of their earnings.
And yeah, this budget couldn't have been a bigger gift to Democrats unless it included a ban on puppies and kittens. Not only does it give them a strong club to beat Republicans with, but it makes Obama's budget look better in comparison. And fortunately, attacking Republicans for trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare is a time-worn tradition with them; made even better now that Republicans have ranted about how awesome Medicare is. I can only hope that Ryan keeps his budget out there as long as possible, so each Dem gets a turn taking a whack at it.
So thank you, Congressman Ryan, for explaining to the American people how, despite the flaws inherent in Obama's budget, it's the best option we've got. Now we just have to help him get that message out.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Mocking Conservatives Hurts Liberalism
And speaking of loser progressives who think we lose no matter what we do, what is up with the belief that we lose when we mock Sarah Palin? Apparently, it now makes people more credible if you make fun of them for being stupid, as evidenced by comments made after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote a list on his hand to get a few laughs from the media. And while most liberals were amused by it, we were still treated to the same loser liberals who insist that this hurts us.
Here's a sample:
And hey, I understand that there are different people in this world with different priorities, but why do these people insist upon lecturing us if we're obviously the dummies? I could understand if Gibbs was mocking some smalltime blogger like Erick Erickson, but a sizeable chunk of the media seems to think Palin might be our next president. It never hurts to get them laughing at her.
Here's a sample:
"No, Gibbs is the one jumping the shark by giving Palin attention and thus credibility. I'd much rather they start calling her the leader of the Republican Party like they did Rush Limbaugh."Yes, apparently things are so dire for us that Gibbs can't take thirty seconds in a one hour press conference to make a joke on a topic that everyone's joking about. Not only is this unnecessary, but it's somehow detrimental to us. As if America would all be hyped up about getting healthcare reform passed, if only Gibbs had mentioned that instead of his palm list. And yes, someone actually suggested that Palin was "popular," which is why we shouldn't mock her.
"This is so sad. Gibbs should use his precious air-time to present and defend the Administration's policy agenda as best he can and to respond to GOPers' talking points, not to poke fun at a politician however stupid she is, which is the job of political columnists, bloggers and political comedians."
"This just feeds into Sarah's "I'm a victim" and "They're afraid of me" schtick. She's best ignored."
"It was a mistake for gibbs to make fun of palin publicly. The entire administration seems to be tone deaf about the mood of the country. Not only was it undignified for someone from the president's office to make fun of her, or anyone, but taking on a popular figure like palin in such a childish way won't improve the Dems' image among any group. They should leave the snark to Stewart, Colbert, and The Onion."
"This is a waste of everyones time. Focus on the reason and direction of where the WH is headed. Leave the party of NO with their talking points."
"Gibbs poking Palin with a stick doesn't move any agenda forward. He isn't using his little bit of media time for constructive use (unless he can lump it in the same breath so it can't be made into a sound bite). And trying to rebuff the noise machine is also a waste of time. The majority is supposed to LEAD, not respond to all the fake issues."
And hey, I understand that there are different people in this world with different priorities, but why do these people insist upon lecturing us if we're obviously the dummies? I could understand if Gibbs was mocking some smalltime blogger like Erick Erickson, but a sizeable chunk of the media seems to think Palin might be our next president. It never hurts to get them laughing at her.
Republicans Always Win
Back in the day, Karl Rove was considered by many to be some sort of political mastermind; a man so clever that he could devise strategies in which you already lost before he even implemented them. And as I've always argued, Rove was little more than a thug in a suit.
For as much as he strategized and schemed, it was only his insults and dirty tricks that did any good; while the strategies often blew up in his face. And now the dude is resigned to hack political analysis in which he accuses everyone else of doing what everyone already knows he did, and outside the world of conservative hackdom, he's as untouchable as poo on a stick.
And I assumed that this fear of Republicans would die once Rove was gone. But no, apparantly it wasn't Rove that these people feared; but any sort of hope that we might possibly win. And so no matter what the political story is, they'll assure you that Democrats suck and will lose again, even after they've won.
The Shakey Liberals
And here's a case in point: The Shelby Shakedown; in which a desperate conservative senator completely overplayed his hand and gave Dems a stick to beat Republicans with. When this story came out, we were assured by progressives that Democrats would lose because we suck.
As one commenter stated:
And another:
Like this commenter:
And here we are, a mere five days after the story inititally broke (which included a weekend), and Shelby has already retracted his hold and is now lying about what transpired. And so you'd think that people might actually give Dems a little credit for doing what they should have done and you'd be wrong. While most commenters knew at least to ignore this story, we still got comments like:
Dems Win Too
And what's maddening is that, yes, I understand the reasoning behind what they're saying. Yes, Republicans are tricky bastards and you can lose simply by playing the game. But that doesn't mean this is always happening. Republicans aren't always winning. In fact, I daresay that they lose far more than they win. Yes, they're loud and proud, and no, they don't admit defeat or slink off into disgrace. Shelby isn't going to suffer greatly from this and after a few days, everyone will forget that this even happened and some Democrats will insist it never does.
But all the same, we won and they lost. And we won because we hit Shelby for his stupid move and the media reported it. Did they report it as much as they should have? No. But it did get reported and we won. And this is generally par for the course. Democrats actually have many of these little victories. And for as much as we're assured that they always lose, history shows we win big victories too.
And the reason these people insist that we always lose is because it gives them an excuse to be cynical and abstain from playing the game. It's much easier to sit on the sidelines criticizing everyone, than getting involved and trying to win. And for as much as they insist that Dems are weak for not attacking Republicans more, it is obvious that their real targets are Democrats.
Apparently, these people won't be satisfied until the Republican Party dissolves itself and the entire progressive agenda is implemented until the end of time. Anything short of that is total defeat and you're a fool for not seeing that.
For as much as he strategized and schemed, it was only his insults and dirty tricks that did any good; while the strategies often blew up in his face. And now the dude is resigned to hack political analysis in which he accuses everyone else of doing what everyone already knows he did, and outside the world of conservative hackdom, he's as untouchable as poo on a stick.
And I assumed that this fear of Republicans would die once Rove was gone. But no, apparantly it wasn't Rove that these people feared; but any sort of hope that we might possibly win. And so no matter what the political story is, they'll assure you that Democrats suck and will lose again, even after they've won.
The Shakey Liberals
And here's a case in point: The Shelby Shakedown; in which a desperate conservative senator completely overplayed his hand and gave Dems a stick to beat Republicans with. When this story came out, we were assured by progressives that Democrats would lose because we suck.
As one commenter stated:
Dems are really lousy spinners and this will somehow be turned on it's ear and become Obama's fault for attempting to cut waste fraud and abuse from the huge republican created deficits the Republicans are so worried about.
And another:
How many of you folks want to make a bet on the number of "senior" Democrats who will get on the air on TV and say something about this and get mad? My guess is "0".And another:
Reid will be out there worrying himself to death again. Obama will have some elegant, but totally detached rhetoric against it, I'm sure.But of course, in reality, the Whitehouse did respond sharply; as did Reid's office. And it was reported in the media. Yet even on a post which cited multiple attacks on Shelby, we were assured that Democrats were going to lose because, "as usual," they couldn't get their message out.
Like this commenter:
I am so over my parties inability to govern. Calling out the opposing party and getting that message out is a part of governing and we are failing miserably....The 'megaphone gap' is our own damn fault.And yes, he wrote that on a post which cited multiple senior level Democrats calling out Shelby and using it as a club against Republican obstructionism; as reported in the NY Times. And when I pointed that out, I was assured that these Dems just weren't important enough and that Obama himself was going to have to attack Shelby directly for this to have any effect.
And here we are, a mere five days after the story inititally broke (which included a weekend), and Shelby has already retracted his hold and is now lying about what transpired. And so you'd think that people might actually give Dems a little credit for doing what they should have done and you'd be wrong. While most commenters knew at least to ignore this story, we still got comments like:
I disagree. The Republican strategy has always been to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. If Shelby had been successful, he'd have successfully derailed Obama's ability to make nominations with an absolute minimum effort.That's right, even in a story in which a Republican got called out and embarrassed for his actions, forcing him to lie about what he did to cover his own ass, Democrats lose. And if they even think they won, it's even worse for them. We fell for their trap, yet again, as evidenced by the fact that Shelby didn't resign or shoot himself on the Senate floor...or something.
[....]
That is not progress for the Democrats. The fact that the Democrats might be patting themselves on the back for this is evidence that the Republican strategy is working just fine.
Dems Win Too
And what's maddening is that, yes, I understand the reasoning behind what they're saying. Yes, Republicans are tricky bastards and you can lose simply by playing the game. But that doesn't mean this is always happening. Republicans aren't always winning. In fact, I daresay that they lose far more than they win. Yes, they're loud and proud, and no, they don't admit defeat or slink off into disgrace. Shelby isn't going to suffer greatly from this and after a few days, everyone will forget that this even happened and some Democrats will insist it never does.
But all the same, we won and they lost. And we won because we hit Shelby for his stupid move and the media reported it. Did they report it as much as they should have? No. But it did get reported and we won. And this is generally par for the course. Democrats actually have many of these little victories. And for as much as we're assured that they always lose, history shows we win big victories too.
And the reason these people insist that we always lose is because it gives them an excuse to be cynical and abstain from playing the game. It's much easier to sit on the sidelines criticizing everyone, than getting involved and trying to win. And for as much as they insist that Dems are weak for not attacking Republicans more, it is obvious that their real targets are Democrats.
Apparently, these people won't be satisfied until the Republican Party dissolves itself and the entire progressive agenda is implemented until the end of time. Anything short of that is total defeat and you're a fool for not seeing that.
Study: Unhealthy People Live Unhealthy Lifestyles
God, I can't wait for the day when health researchers' licenses can be revoked. The Headline: Sugary soft drinks linked to pancreatic cancer: study. The Proof: People who drink soda, who also happened to be "younger men who smoke, drink alcohol, eat higher-calorie diets and are less physically active" are at a higher risk of getting pancreatic cancer.
In other words, soda drinkers in Singapore are an entirely different group of people than non-soda drinkers in Singapore, and are more likely to do many other things considered to be unhealthy. Oh, and soda drinkers were also more likely to eat red meat; which has been linked to pancreatic cancer. But don't worry, they "adjusted" for these other factors; so they can assure us it's just the sugar that did it, though they can't explain why or even tell us how much more at risk we are for drinking soda.
And of course, this sort of study is utter crap. The very fact that they adjusted out the smoking, drinking, fatty, lazy, and red meat eating attributes in these people in order to focus on soda is proof positive that this is all they were looking for. They designed their study so it would find that soda increased pancreatic cancer, and whooptidoo! They found what they were looking for. This sort of research is sheer blasphemy to true science, and shouldn't even pass muster at a high school science fair; let alone being blasted to the world as fact.
And seriously, two or more sodas a week? Are they shitting me? People who only drink two sodas a week shouldn't be grouped with people who drink six sodas a day. Hell, a Supergulp from 7-11 is eight fucking servings! And there are plenty of people who drink those on a regular basis. If soda is a problem, that's the group you ought to seek out. Those guys should be a fricking death ward if soda causes pancreatic cancer. But no, they make these categories as broad as possible; not because they're trying to find a link, but because they're trying to scare us out of drinking soda. After all, they wouldn't have designed their study as they did unless they already knew soda was dangerous.
And it's the same thing they do when they do studies on alcohol which group casual drinkers with alcoholics, or the study on pot smokers that supposedly included people who smoke fifty joints a day; or when they group the mildly overweight (which includes muscle-y people like myself) with the morbidly obese and insist that we're all going to die unless we lose a lot of weight. Crap. Just crap. Any researcher who does this sort of thing should hang up their lab coat and get laid, because they're obviously too obsessed with controlling people's lives to get their job done.
And when they come back, maybe they can do some real research. The sort that doesn't involve "adjusting" out all the negative lifestyle choices besides the one that they're focusing on. And then maybe, just maybe, they can finally get around to warning people about the high levels of saturated fat in milk. Remember, your recommended daily serving of 2% milk has as much saturated fat as a serving of bacon. Bacon; and they're still pimping the shit like it's health food. I think I'll take the fat-free soda, thank you very much.
In other words, soda drinkers in Singapore are an entirely different group of people than non-soda drinkers in Singapore, and are more likely to do many other things considered to be unhealthy. Oh, and soda drinkers were also more likely to eat red meat; which has been linked to pancreatic cancer. But don't worry, they "adjusted" for these other factors; so they can assure us it's just the sugar that did it, though they can't explain why or even tell us how much more at risk we are for drinking soda.
And of course, this sort of study is utter crap. The very fact that they adjusted out the smoking, drinking, fatty, lazy, and red meat eating attributes in these people in order to focus on soda is proof positive that this is all they were looking for. They designed their study so it would find that soda increased pancreatic cancer, and whooptidoo! They found what they were looking for. This sort of research is sheer blasphemy to true science, and shouldn't even pass muster at a high school science fair; let alone being blasted to the world as fact.
And seriously, two or more sodas a week? Are they shitting me? People who only drink two sodas a week shouldn't be grouped with people who drink six sodas a day. Hell, a Supergulp from 7-11 is eight fucking servings! And there are plenty of people who drink those on a regular basis. If soda is a problem, that's the group you ought to seek out. Those guys should be a fricking death ward if soda causes pancreatic cancer. But no, they make these categories as broad as possible; not because they're trying to find a link, but because they're trying to scare us out of drinking soda. After all, they wouldn't have designed their study as they did unless they already knew soda was dangerous.
And it's the same thing they do when they do studies on alcohol which group casual drinkers with alcoholics, or the study on pot smokers that supposedly included people who smoke fifty joints a day; or when they group the mildly overweight (which includes muscle-y people like myself) with the morbidly obese and insist that we're all going to die unless we lose a lot of weight. Crap. Just crap. Any researcher who does this sort of thing should hang up their lab coat and get laid, because they're obviously too obsessed with controlling people's lives to get their job done.
And when they come back, maybe they can do some real research. The sort that doesn't involve "adjusting" out all the negative lifestyle choices besides the one that they're focusing on. And then maybe, just maybe, they can finally get around to warning people about the high levels of saturated fat in milk. Remember, your recommended daily serving of 2% milk has as much saturated fat as a serving of bacon. Bacon; and they're still pimping the shit like it's health food. I think I'll take the fat-free soda, thank you very much.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Football as Political Metaphor
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating to deal with liberals who INSIST that Democrats are losing because we're not getting everything we want. That, because we're not stomping Republicans into the ground and getting every American to agree with us that Republicans suck, we're losing. Sure, Obama enjoys majority support and Republican approval ratings haven't topped 40% in over two years; but all the same, Americans aren't listening to us because they're stupid and Republicans are reaping huge benefits from this stupidity...or so we're told.
But in the current political landscape, Republicans have no chance of winning. It's impossible. The best they can possibly hope for is to prevent us from scoring as much as they can, and hope that a tight score on Election Day will help put them in a position so that they might be able to score next year. But this year, they don't even have the ball and can't put any points on the board.
And sure, we haven't gotten our healthcare reform or scored any major victories, but we have scored. And a team that wins 3-0 still wins. And it should be obvious from Obama's Q&A with Congressional Repubs last week that they absolutely HATE being labeled as obstructionists and realize that a stalemate doesn't necessarily bode well for them in November. Almost every question they put to Obama involved them INSISTING that they had great ideas, if only Obama would implement them. And Obama did an effective job of squashing that absurd theory while embarrassing them in the process.
And these liberals insist that Brown's victory in Massachussetts proves that America is turning against us. Yet...data isn't the plural of anecdote and one election isn't enough to determine a trend. That's why we generally look to general elections to see what the people are thinking, as they have a big enough sample size to see where things are heading. Had Brown's victory occurred during a general election, it would barely have received any notice. So ironically, it was BECAUSE Brown won on a day that couldn't have shown us a trend that so many decided he was proof of an anti-Dem backlash.
And so conservatives latched onto that election as proof that they're finally back in the bigtime, while liberals insist that it's 2003 all over again and Dems are huge losers. And lost in all this is the probability that Brown won because he ran a better campaign and was better liked than his opponent. Not because it's true, but because it confirmed the expectations and desires of the people watching. Conservatives are small-minded bozos who need popularity to soothe their easily bruised egos, while liberals like to be underdogs talking truth to power.
And that's why we're stuck with so many liberals insisting that we're losing in a political landscape that we can't possibly lose in. Not because we can't stop Republicans from scoring, but because we're not scoring enough. Somehow, these people just don't feel comfortable with victory.
But in the current political landscape, Republicans have no chance of winning. It's impossible. The best they can possibly hope for is to prevent us from scoring as much as they can, and hope that a tight score on Election Day will help put them in a position so that they might be able to score next year. But this year, they don't even have the ball and can't put any points on the board.
And sure, we haven't gotten our healthcare reform or scored any major victories, but we have scored. And a team that wins 3-0 still wins. And it should be obvious from Obama's Q&A with Congressional Repubs last week that they absolutely HATE being labeled as obstructionists and realize that a stalemate doesn't necessarily bode well for them in November. Almost every question they put to Obama involved them INSISTING that they had great ideas, if only Obama would implement them. And Obama did an effective job of squashing that absurd theory while embarrassing them in the process.
And these liberals insist that Brown's victory in Massachussetts proves that America is turning against us. Yet...data isn't the plural of anecdote and one election isn't enough to determine a trend. That's why we generally look to general elections to see what the people are thinking, as they have a big enough sample size to see where things are heading. Had Brown's victory occurred during a general election, it would barely have received any notice. So ironically, it was BECAUSE Brown won on a day that couldn't have shown us a trend that so many decided he was proof of an anti-Dem backlash.
And so conservatives latched onto that election as proof that they're finally back in the bigtime, while liberals insist that it's 2003 all over again and Dems are huge losers. And lost in all this is the probability that Brown won because he ran a better campaign and was better liked than his opponent. Not because it's true, but because it confirmed the expectations and desires of the people watching. Conservatives are small-minded bozos who need popularity to soothe their easily bruised egos, while liberals like to be underdogs talking truth to power.
And that's why we're stuck with so many liberals insisting that we're losing in a political landscape that we can't possibly lose in. Not because we can't stop Republicans from scoring, but because we're not scoring enough. Somehow, these people just don't feel comfortable with victory.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Tea Party Threatens Republican Party
I just wanted to highlight TPM's recent article 'We Might As Well Be Able To Vote For Disney': Tea Partiers Slam Citizens United Ruling, which is about how many in the Tea Party "movement" are realizing what a lousy development this was for them. And yes, this is something I predicted twelve days ago, in my post Tea Party Money Becomes Irrelevant.
And the reason should be obvious: The Tea Party movement isn't some popular uprising against Obama or the Democrats. It's a faction of the Republican Party which has existed for decades, but only recently adopted an official name and identity. But these people have always existed, have always believed roughly what they believe now, and have always hated liberals as much as they hate liberals now; which is the only thing that really defines them. They're not Big Business Republicans, or Social Conservative Republicans; and don't really have any specific agenda. They just hate liberals and they've finally found a banner to wave in front of themselves.
And now that the Republican-hype machine has inflated their egos, the faction is splintering off from the Republican Party and claiming a distinct identity. And for as much as they're identified as being a thorn in Obama's side, it should be obvious that they're really a huge threat to the GOP Establishment. Just as the Naderites were a threat to Democrats, the Tea Partiers are pulling Republicans apart. They're sick of being taken for granted and now need to be appeased. It's all about a quest for power; they've tasted blood and now they want their political party to do their bidding; whatever that happens to be.
And in that light, the Corporate Cash ruling is a huge blow at their position of power. Right now, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of little Tea Party organizers trying to make a name for themselves within the movement; while the GOP leadership continues to play with fire by building them up without letting them loose. But these people are generally contrarians and like to imagine that they're free-thinkers, and the more Republicans try to box them into the party, the more they're going to resist. They're not looking to be cogs in the GOP's machine; each of them wants to be the leader of the movement. And the more the Republicans try to use them as cogs, the more these people will resist.
As things were, these little Partiers were finding themselves to be important; even being quoted in the media and whatnot. But an influx of Corporate Cash into politics will drown all that out. Some of these little guys are already realizing that, and the more impotent this Corporate Cash makes them, the more angry they're going to get. As evidenced in the New York recently, these people don't care about political victories; they just want to be heard. They don't want to put Republican leaders in power; they want the power for themselves. And for as much as Nader lost credibility when he relished in giving Bush the Whitehouse, the Tea Partiers only get more aggressive in defeat.
If the Republican Establishment's candidate doesn't tell them what they want to hear, they'll find a candidate who will. These people aren't joing together to storm Obama out of the Whitehouse; as they imagine they are. They're looking for a party to call their own. I hope they find it.
And the reason should be obvious: The Tea Party movement isn't some popular uprising against Obama or the Democrats. It's a faction of the Republican Party which has existed for decades, but only recently adopted an official name and identity. But these people have always existed, have always believed roughly what they believe now, and have always hated liberals as much as they hate liberals now; which is the only thing that really defines them. They're not Big Business Republicans, or Social Conservative Republicans; and don't really have any specific agenda. They just hate liberals and they've finally found a banner to wave in front of themselves.
And now that the Republican-hype machine has inflated their egos, the faction is splintering off from the Republican Party and claiming a distinct identity. And for as much as they're identified as being a thorn in Obama's side, it should be obvious that they're really a huge threat to the GOP Establishment. Just as the Naderites were a threat to Democrats, the Tea Partiers are pulling Republicans apart. They're sick of being taken for granted and now need to be appeased. It's all about a quest for power; they've tasted blood and now they want their political party to do their bidding; whatever that happens to be.
And in that light, the Corporate Cash ruling is a huge blow at their position of power. Right now, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of little Tea Party organizers trying to make a name for themselves within the movement; while the GOP leadership continues to play with fire by building them up without letting them loose. But these people are generally contrarians and like to imagine that they're free-thinkers, and the more Republicans try to box them into the party, the more they're going to resist. They're not looking to be cogs in the GOP's machine; each of them wants to be the leader of the movement. And the more the Republicans try to use them as cogs, the more these people will resist.
As things were, these little Partiers were finding themselves to be important; even being quoted in the media and whatnot. But an influx of Corporate Cash into politics will drown all that out. Some of these little guys are already realizing that, and the more impotent this Corporate Cash makes them, the more angry they're going to get. As evidenced in the New York recently, these people don't care about political victories; they just want to be heard. They don't want to put Republican leaders in power; they want the power for themselves. And for as much as Nader lost credibility when he relished in giving Bush the Whitehouse, the Tea Partiers only get more aggressive in defeat.
If the Republican Establishment's candidate doesn't tell them what they want to hear, they'll find a candidate who will. These people aren't joing together to storm Obama out of the Whitehouse; as they imagine they are. They're looking for a party to call their own. I hope they find it.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
The House Always Wins
As an official spokesman for Obama's newly created Department of Handling Stupid, I'd like to say in response to this article that Obama truly is committed to having financially strapped families gamble away their mortgage payments in Vegas; and when he said "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college," he was really trying to emphasize what a good investment the slots are and how there's no better way to save for your child's future than to play Keno. Keno: Putting Harvard just twenty balls away.
Seriously, when did it become politically incorrect to be sensible? And yeah, it totally makes sense for federal, state, and local lawmakers in Nevada to blame the state's 13% unemployment rate on a few comments Obama made. I suppose that's a lot easier than actually doing something about it.
Seriously, when did it become politically incorrect to be sensible? And yeah, it totally makes sense for federal, state, and local lawmakers in Nevada to blame the state's 13% unemployment rate on a few comments Obama made. I suppose that's a lot easier than actually doing something about it.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Osama Hearts Global Warming
What???
And like, huh? People who listen to Osama are heavy buyers of American goods? That doesn't seem right in the first place. I mean, his followers are pulling jihad on us, yet they're still buying our jeans? Even Americans don't buy American, and we make the crap. And hey, Osama, could you maybe have gone the boycott route first? I mean, you go jihad, then boycott?? What's next, a stern letter? Maybe you'll defriend us on Facebook? Come on, dude. Have a sense of proportion.
And finally, I really think the guy jumped the shark on this one, exposing that he really is a rightwing mouthpiece trying to make liberals look back. "See, even OBL believes in Global Warming," they'll be saying. And now the wingnuts will double-down with their beloved Ostrich Strategy, which has them ignore every problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, deregulation, or bombs.
But now that Osama's picked sides in the Global Warming debate, I have no other choice than to do the exact opposite of what he says. Fire of the factories, boys! Let's smoke this mother out!!
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.My lord, how is this NOT something from the Onion? So when Osama doesn't like our foreign policy towards his people, he's going to kill us and destroy our buildings, but when our policies threaten the extinction of man, he's going to boycott our stuff? That bastard! This means war!!!
And like, huh? People who listen to Osama are heavy buyers of American goods? That doesn't seem right in the first place. I mean, his followers are pulling jihad on us, yet they're still buying our jeans? Even Americans don't buy American, and we make the crap. And hey, Osama, could you maybe have gone the boycott route first? I mean, you go jihad, then boycott?? What's next, a stern letter? Maybe you'll defriend us on Facebook? Come on, dude. Have a sense of proportion.
And finally, I really think the guy jumped the shark on this one, exposing that he really is a rightwing mouthpiece trying to make liberals look back. "See, even OBL believes in Global Warming," they'll be saying. And now the wingnuts will double-down with their beloved Ostrich Strategy, which has them ignore every problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, deregulation, or bombs.
But now that Osama's picked sides in the Global Warming debate, I have no other choice than to do the exact opposite of what he says. Fire of the factories, boys! Let's smoke this mother out!!
Hopelessly Out of Touch
When did this happen?
So why does it take a dumb trip to Hawaii to turn the "out of touch" meme on its head? Dude, Republicans were out of touch when Hoover ignored the greatest economic crisis in our country's history and they haven't looked back. Hell, they still defend Hoover's policies. Calling Republicans out of touch is like calling Lawrence Welk "old school." Yet Politico is acting like this is something new. As if they hadn't noticed that the Republican solution to our economic woes are tax cuts and deregulation for the rich...which also happens to be their cure for healthcare, poverty, crime, and the flu. In fact, the only time they're not trying to help the rich is when they're helping the super-rich; which is most of the time. This isn't something new.
But of course, Politico's idea for this is no better. Sure, Republicans have no practical solutions of any merit as they don't even understand why they need to solve any problems, but...if they could hold their meetings in a crappy place like Baltimore, particularly during crappy weather; the optics would be gold. And that's what it's all about with these dummies. Apparently, it was a big negative for Obama to vacation in Hawaii, but now that Republicans are having a "meeting" there, it all evens out. Finally, the Dems can level the playing field with their Average Joe breathren across the aisle.
And of course, that's where the joke is in all this: The only way the Republican Party could ever look in-touch is by comparison with the nitwit media. And just in case any of my loyal readers are Baltimorians, I'm sure you have a fine city. I just thought it was funny the way Politico used Baltimore as if it's the anti-Hawaii; a place so crappy it makes Republican policies more palatable if they're discussed there. And yeah, the fact that I comfortably wore shorts outside today apparently makes me an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't understand the problems of real Americans. What a bunch of bozos.
Republicans delight in depicting President Barack Obama as hopelessly out of touch with average Americans, but the decision by the Republican National Committee to hold its winter meeting at a tropical resort is turning the accusation on its head.I'm not sure I've seen anything remotely out of touch or elitist about Obama, while Republicans have been the party of Wall Street for decades upon decades, while its policy ideas are mired in an imaginary foundation that Reagan supposedly established thirty years ago and serve no practical purpose. The bible has more relevant answers to our modern problems than these dummies do and the damn thing was written two thousand years ago by desert-dwellers who didn't even know what bacteria was.
So why does it take a dumb trip to Hawaii to turn the "out of touch" meme on its head? Dude, Republicans were out of touch when Hoover ignored the greatest economic crisis in our country's history and they haven't looked back. Hell, they still defend Hoover's policies. Calling Republicans out of touch is like calling Lawrence Welk "old school." Yet Politico is acting like this is something new. As if they hadn't noticed that the Republican solution to our economic woes are tax cuts and deregulation for the rich...which also happens to be their cure for healthcare, poverty, crime, and the flu. In fact, the only time they're not trying to help the rich is when they're helping the super-rich; which is most of the time. This isn't something new.
But of course, Politico's idea for this is no better. Sure, Republicans have no practical solutions of any merit as they don't even understand why they need to solve any problems, but...if they could hold their meetings in a crappy place like Baltimore, particularly during crappy weather; the optics would be gold. And that's what it's all about with these dummies. Apparently, it was a big negative for Obama to vacation in Hawaii, but now that Republicans are having a "meeting" there, it all evens out. Finally, the Dems can level the playing field with their Average Joe breathren across the aisle.
And of course, that's where the joke is in all this: The only way the Republican Party could ever look in-touch is by comparison with the nitwit media. And just in case any of my loyal readers are Baltimorians, I'm sure you have a fine city. I just thought it was funny the way Politico used Baltimore as if it's the anti-Hawaii; a place so crappy it makes Republican policies more palatable if they're discussed there. And yeah, the fact that I comfortably wore shorts outside today apparently makes me an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't understand the problems of real Americans. What a bunch of bozos.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
I really like to be told when I'm wrong, as well as seeing things from other perspectives; as that's the only way to really keep on top of my game. And so I always make a point of reading the "fact check" pieces that Yahoo cites on their frontpage, as a way of knowing if Obama's lying to me. But unfortunately, they rely upon the Associated Press, which relies upon bozos who have an extremely loose concept of "facts." Apparently, it took six reporters to find nine items to fact check; little of which would require even minor corrections.
I'm not even going to bother doing a line-by-line fact check of this fact check, as almost every "correction" falls into one of two categories: Correcting claims that Obama never said and pointing out that Congress might not do what Obama wants it to do. Like when they cite his claim that people can keep their health insurance under his plan, then call him to task because he didn't explain that insurance companies might raise costs or change the plans. As if he said they wouldn't.
Or when Obama cited Congress's failure to form a Deficit Commission before saying that he's making one of his own; which is "fact checked" because Obama's commission won't be binding on Congress, while Congress's might have been. And that's it. It's not that Obama is lying; it's merely that he didn't explain how his commission might be different from the one Congress would have created.
And another time, they "fact checked" him because not everyone agrees that his policies saved two million jobs. And because the CBO says it can't make such a determination, therefore Obama is wrong...or something. And that's the weird thing about the fact check, in that they really don't seem to feel comfortable with the concept of facts, and seem to be calling him to task for making any factual claims at all.
And I suspect that this is really what their big beef is. It's not that Obama is a liar; it's that he's positing an objective reality, and that simply blows their minds. Apparently, that's not what they teach in journalism school anymore. Six reporters. Six. And this is the best they can do. Is it any wonder an extremely unpopular political party can pretend to be masters of the universe when bozos like this are the gatekeepers of truth?
I'm not even going to bother doing a line-by-line fact check of this fact check, as almost every "correction" falls into one of two categories: Correcting claims that Obama never said and pointing out that Congress might not do what Obama wants it to do. Like when they cite his claim that people can keep their health insurance under his plan, then call him to task because he didn't explain that insurance companies might raise costs or change the plans. As if he said they wouldn't.
Or when Obama cited Congress's failure to form a Deficit Commission before saying that he's making one of his own; which is "fact checked" because Obama's commission won't be binding on Congress, while Congress's might have been. And that's it. It's not that Obama is lying; it's merely that he didn't explain how his commission might be different from the one Congress would have created.
And another time, they "fact checked" him because not everyone agrees that his policies saved two million jobs. And because the CBO says it can't make such a determination, therefore Obama is wrong...or something. And that's the weird thing about the fact check, in that they really don't seem to feel comfortable with the concept of facts, and seem to be calling him to task for making any factual claims at all.
And I suspect that this is really what their big beef is. It's not that Obama is a liar; it's that he's positing an objective reality, and that simply blows their minds. Apparently, that's not what they teach in journalism school anymore. Six reporters. Six. And this is the best they can do. Is it any wonder an extremely unpopular political party can pretend to be masters of the universe when bozos like this are the gatekeepers of truth?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Electables Need Not Apply
A loyal reader recently suggested that the reason Romney won't get a presidential nomination is because he's Republican. But as I've said before, I really don't see how that's an issue. These people would vote for Karl Marx if he promised them he'd crush liberals. No, I think Romney's problem is that he just doesn't have any fire in him and comes off a bit flavorless for the hardcore conservatives (and this is a standard by which Mark Sanford is hardcore and flavored).
Part of this is that the RedState-style Republicans like to imagine that they have standards, and so they automatically place Romney as an Establishment goon that they'd never vote for; not because they wouldn't vote for him (they will), but because they like to pretend they have standards. But if Romney talked a better game, he'd woo them over. But the sort of fire-breathing he'd have to do would make him untouchable for anyone else (plus, he just doesn't have enough soul to pull it off), so that just won't happen. And that's a big reason why he'd be a better candidate than any of the jerks these people want
And that's why Obama has little to worry about: The base simply doesn't want anyone sane enough to be electable. I just wish this was something more apparent to the Dem Establishment.
Part of this is that the RedState-style Republicans like to imagine that they have standards, and so they automatically place Romney as an Establishment goon that they'd never vote for; not because they wouldn't vote for him (they will), but because they like to pretend they have standards. But if Romney talked a better game, he'd woo them over. But the sort of fire-breathing he'd have to do would make him untouchable for anyone else (plus, he just doesn't have enough soul to pull it off), so that just won't happen. And that's a big reason why he'd be a better candidate than any of the jerks these people want
And that's why Obama has little to worry about: The base simply doesn't want anyone sane enough to be electable. I just wish this was something more apparent to the Dem Establishment.
The Solution to my Budget Deficit
I've found lately that I just never seem to have enough money. So I've decided to fix that problem by earning less money, thereby forcing me to spend less. That's just got to work.
Monday, January 25, 2010
AP Boosts Jindal, Despite Facts
I see the Associated Press continues to relish in its role as Republican propagada machine, with a fluff piece titled Anti-tax stance boosts Jindal despite budget woes. But who is Jindal's anti-tax stance giving him a boost with? The article never says. While the article isn't a total fluff piece, the main gist is that he's really moving ahead, yet fails to say with whom.
It cites his high approval ratings in Louisiana, but those were already high; and are now a little lower than they were last year. And if that were the case, you'd think the article might have mentioned his actual approval ratings; highlighting how they're now higher because of his anti-tax stance. But no, many assertions of high approval, but nary a number in sight. And after fifteen minutes of searching, the best I could find is an article which mentions him having 63% approval rating; though it fails to cite the source for that claim.
The AP article even suggests that Obama's approval rating of 56% is a "dip"; yet that's only eight points lower than Jindal's rating. And Obama's approval rating is national, while Jindal's is only for his home state; which is overwhelmingly conservative. Yet the AP posits this as if this bodes well for Jindal, because he's remaining popular in his state, while Obama's popularity also remains steady.
But perhaps they're talking about a boost with Republicans. And if they are, you'd think they'd include some sort of statistic to back up that claim. But again, nothing. And the latest poll of national Republicans I found showed that only 1% of them would vote for Jindal in a Republican primary; less than the 2% Newt Gingrich received. Well, that wasn't the latest poll of Republicans, but merely the latest that included Jindal. A more recent poll in January only included Palin, Romney, Gingrich, and "a candidate from the Tea Party movement." To Fox News, who conducted the poll, Jindal was less mentionable than a generic candidate from an imaginary movement. Ouch.
So basically, a half-term governor with no accomplishments, low national recognition, and a looming budget fiasco is getting a "boost," based on his anti-tax policy which deserves partial blame for the budget fiasco. Brilliant work, AP. At a time when your profession is becoming increasingly irrelevant, you stick with fluffy analysis pieces that any blogger could have tossed out; assuming they didn't like doing research or including facts. And if this article has any influence, it'd be to give Jindal the boost that it asserted he already had. I suspect that this was the point.
It cites his high approval ratings in Louisiana, but those were already high; and are now a little lower than they were last year. And if that were the case, you'd think the article might have mentioned his actual approval ratings; highlighting how they're now higher because of his anti-tax stance. But no, many assertions of high approval, but nary a number in sight. And after fifteen minutes of searching, the best I could find is an article which mentions him having 63% approval rating; though it fails to cite the source for that claim.
The AP article even suggests that Obama's approval rating of 56% is a "dip"; yet that's only eight points lower than Jindal's rating. And Obama's approval rating is national, while Jindal's is only for his home state; which is overwhelmingly conservative. Yet the AP posits this as if this bodes well for Jindal, because he's remaining popular in his state, while Obama's popularity also remains steady.
But perhaps they're talking about a boost with Republicans. And if they are, you'd think they'd include some sort of statistic to back up that claim. But again, nothing. And the latest poll of national Republicans I found showed that only 1% of them would vote for Jindal in a Republican primary; less than the 2% Newt Gingrich received. Well, that wasn't the latest poll of Republicans, but merely the latest that included Jindal. A more recent poll in January only included Palin, Romney, Gingrich, and "a candidate from the Tea Party movement." To Fox News, who conducted the poll, Jindal was less mentionable than a generic candidate from an imaginary movement. Ouch.
So basically, a half-term governor with no accomplishments, low national recognition, and a looming budget fiasco is getting a "boost," based on his anti-tax policy which deserves partial blame for the budget fiasco. Brilliant work, AP. At a time when your profession is becoming increasingly irrelevant, you stick with fluffy analysis pieces that any blogger could have tossed out; assuming they didn't like doing research or including facts. And if this article has any influence, it'd be to give Jindal the boost that it asserted he already had. I suspect that this was the point.
Corporate Cash Ain't So Bad
I wrote this on request on a comment from a loyal reader who wanted to know my thoughts on the SCOTUS corporate bribe cash decision, and thought I should just make it a post too. And yes, I am posting again, now that I'm not doing the brain-intensive work I was doing for the past month or so; though I make no promises. Frankly, I found no point in writing, as I figure that everything will work itself out; whether I write or not. But after the panicky week some Dems have had, I suppose maybe I should calm things down.
Overall, I'm not worried. Things tend to balance themselves out, so if things get too out of hand, I figure Congress will step in to fix it. Plus, Dems are actually better for Big Business than Republicans are and I suspect we'll see quite a bit of this cash going to the Dem side. After all, it's not as if Big Money hadn't already infected Democratic coffers or policies. And if this drowns out enough little voices that even the Teabaggers feel impotent, we might find ourselves with the sort of campaign finance system we should have had all along.
And the main dynamic is that Big Business uses campaign cash to bribe Democrats to vote like Republicans, while Republicans extort it from Big Business by denying access to those who don't pay up. Sure, there are some conservative ideologue businessmen who willingly cough it up, but most of them don't give a damn who they give it to, just as long as they win. After all, there's no point in contributing to Republicans if they still can't get more than 30% approval ratings.
As things are, Dem politicos play nice because they still want that cash and lack the backbone to fight the system. But if they get beat up enough by corporate money, I have no doubt they'll finally find their spines. But I doubt it'll come to that. Corporate America already supports too many policies which are bad for Corporate America, and the more they let liberals fix our problems, the better it is for everyone.
Overall, I'm not worried. Things tend to balance themselves out, so if things get too out of hand, I figure Congress will step in to fix it. Plus, Dems are actually better for Big Business than Republicans are and I suspect we'll see quite a bit of this cash going to the Dem side. After all, it's not as if Big Money hadn't already infected Democratic coffers or policies. And if this drowns out enough little voices that even the Teabaggers feel impotent, we might find ourselves with the sort of campaign finance system we should have had all along.
And the main dynamic is that Big Business uses campaign cash to bribe Democrats to vote like Republicans, while Republicans extort it from Big Business by denying access to those who don't pay up. Sure, there are some conservative ideologue businessmen who willingly cough it up, but most of them don't give a damn who they give it to, just as long as they win. After all, there's no point in contributing to Republicans if they still can't get more than 30% approval ratings.
As things are, Dem politicos play nice because they still want that cash and lack the backbone to fight the system. But if they get beat up enough by corporate money, I have no doubt they'll finally find their spines. But I doubt it'll come to that. Corporate America already supports too many policies which are bad for Corporate America, and the more they let liberals fix our problems, the better it is for everyone.
What Zogby Asks
I randomly get emails to take Zogby's Interactive Poll and just got this question:
If the election for President of the United States were held today and the only candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Scott Brown, for whom would you vote?
My god, what in the hell is wrong with the media that anyone could possibly imagine this to be a legitimate question? Had this been one of many similar questions positing different Republican opponents against Obama, this would have been silly. But Brown was the only match-up they asked about, as if he's some magical Republican hero now that he won a special election against a lousy opponent. Perspective really isn't the media's strong suit.
If the election for President of the United States were held today and the only candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Scott Brown, for whom would you vote?
My god, what in the hell is wrong with the media that anyone could possibly imagine this to be a legitimate question? Had this been one of many similar questions positing different Republican opponents against Obama, this would have been silly. But Brown was the only match-up they asked about, as if he's some magical Republican hero now that he won a special election against a lousy opponent. Perspective really isn't the media's strong suit.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Tea Party Money Becomes Irrelevant
The upside to SCOTUS's Corporate Free Speech ruling: The Tea Partiers' money is now irrelevent; thus completing the trifecta. Their speech was embarrassing, their votes were worthless, and now their money will be drowned out. For as much as Republicans were paying them lip service, it was certainly for the easy green, as they weren't good for anything else. And now the GOP can go back to openly worshipping Big Business, rather than merely giving them BJ's in private.
Maybe now we can get better immigration laws, sensible economic policies, and get Corporate America out of the health insurance business; assuming they know what's good for them.
Rightwing populism is dead! Long live the Moneybags!
Maybe now we can get better immigration laws, sensible economic policies, and get Corporate America out of the health insurance business; assuming they know what's good for them.
Rightwing populism is dead! Long live the Moneybags!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
John Edwards is a Douchebag
Wow, I just finished watching President Edwards' resignation speech for a third time and have to say, damn, it sure is too bad he didn't tell us about his lovechild before he won the nomination last year; back when we had a chance to do something about it. And now that he finally fessed up about how he pressured his aide into pretending to be the baby's father and is handing the reins over to Vice President Lieberman (perhaps yet more mistaken judgment on his part), I've got to say that we're all royally screwed.
2010 is really shaping up to be a bad year for Democrats. First Edwards' overly ambitious stimulus bill was killed by Blue Dogs, then his push for single-payer healthcare went down in flames, and now this. Jesus, who'd have imagined that a president would have been looking up to Bush's lousy approval ratings.
Seriously though, Clinton lying about having sexual relations with that woman? Understandable. And had Lewinsky not been such a blabbermouth or Tripp not been such a witch, it was a smart decision to make. I would have gone with honesty (or not screwing the intern in the first place), but I understand the decision nonetheless. But lying about having a lovechild and then having his top aide pretend to be the daddy? That easily makes Edwards the stupidest douchebag in politics.
Seriously, how long did he imagine that lie would hold? Was he really going to avoid seeing his daughter for the first nine years of her life? That alone would make him Douchebag of the Decade. "Sorry honey, Daddy wanted to go to your ballet recitals all those years, but I had to be president, so I hired a fake daddy instead. Hope he was as good as I would have been." Fucking jerk.
And the rule of lies is that, no matter how bad the truth is, if it'll eventually come out, it's better to just fess up and deal with the consequences. And if he thought the consequences of having a lovechild would derail his presidential aspirations, then hiring the surrogate daddy to take the fall was much, much worse. And there's simply no way any rational man would make such an imbecilic decision unless he was a completely amoral fuckface who could only think of himself.
Praise be to Allah that He gave us Barack Obama instead. For as bad as 2010 looks (and I daresay I like the way things look), things would have looked a whole heckeva lot worse had Edwards been president.
The Narcissist is "Stripped Bare"
But perhaps I've been unfair in my assessment, so I've decided to give the last word to Mr. Lying Asshole, as excerpted from a formal statement he issued last August. And remember, this was well after any presidential aspirations had ended, yet his "full responsibilty" is a bit on the light side. I hope the "apparent father" makes a decent bit of change off his book. Enjoy!
I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.
It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.
I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.
2010 is really shaping up to be a bad year for Democrats. First Edwards' overly ambitious stimulus bill was killed by Blue Dogs, then his push for single-payer healthcare went down in flames, and now this. Jesus, who'd have imagined that a president would have been looking up to Bush's lousy approval ratings.
Seriously though, Clinton lying about having sexual relations with that woman? Understandable. And had Lewinsky not been such a blabbermouth or Tripp not been such a witch, it was a smart decision to make. I would have gone with honesty (or not screwing the intern in the first place), but I understand the decision nonetheless. But lying about having a lovechild and then having his top aide pretend to be the daddy? That easily makes Edwards the stupidest douchebag in politics.
Seriously, how long did he imagine that lie would hold? Was he really going to avoid seeing his daughter for the first nine years of her life? That alone would make him Douchebag of the Decade. "Sorry honey, Daddy wanted to go to your ballet recitals all those years, but I had to be president, so I hired a fake daddy instead. Hope he was as good as I would have been." Fucking jerk.
And the rule of lies is that, no matter how bad the truth is, if it'll eventually come out, it's better to just fess up and deal with the consequences. And if he thought the consequences of having a lovechild would derail his presidential aspirations, then hiring the surrogate daddy to take the fall was much, much worse. And there's simply no way any rational man would make such an imbecilic decision unless he was a completely amoral fuckface who could only think of himself.
Praise be to Allah that He gave us Barack Obama instead. For as bad as 2010 looks (and I daresay I like the way things look), things would have looked a whole heckeva lot worse had Edwards been president.
The Narcissist is "Stripped Bare"
But perhaps I've been unfair in my assessment, so I've decided to give the last word to Mr. Lying Asshole, as excerpted from a formal statement he issued last August. And remember, this was well after any presidential aspirations had ended, yet his "full responsibilty" is a bit on the light side. I hope the "apparent father" makes a decent bit of change off his book. Enjoy!
I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.
It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.
I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Biobrain for Palin
Now working with the Palin people. Big things happening soon. More news shortly. Stay tuned...
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Carnival of the Liberals #100: Century of the Nihilist Edition Carnival
Woo doggie, 2009 is coming to an end and I am pleased to announce that, thanks to the courageous efforts of Supreme Leader Obama, as well as you tireless sycophants, liberal nihilism is on the precipice of absolute victory over our empirical arch-enemies, the American Christian. Now that Obama has completed the trifecta of destruction against America's imperialist healthcare doctrines, as well as the epic success our fellow traveler Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's had with his recent terror action, which has helped instill fear in flying pants everywhere, I am delighted to announce the introduction to the First Centennial Carnival of the Liberals: Century of the Nihilist Edition Carnival.
Unfortunately, I'm a bit sketchy on most current events as I took an unscheduled hiatus for the past three and a half months after I found myself at the Secret Nihiliterror Training Seminar and RapeSex Jamboree in beautiful downtown Kenya; which was everything you can imagine it would be. I mean, really.
For the big finale, they brought the Holy Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who flagellated himself for three straight hours until the High Holy Mother, Michelle Hussein Obama, came in wearing her traditional Moslem headdress and nothing else and proceeded to make Abdulmutallab a woman while the rest of us took notes. And it ended in a giant orgy of self-hatred and sinful pain led by Bill Ayers in a Biden mask and we all regretted it immediately afterwards and stalked away in fevered embarrassment for the next several weeks until we forgot why we were stalking. Needless to say, I haven't had much time for blogging lately.
First Centennial Grand Prize Winner
So without further ado, I announce the Grand Prize winner of the First Centennial Carnival of the Liberals: Century of the Nihilist Edition Carnival, in which we praise The Great O as the One True Savior and place our faith in Him, eternal and always, until death takes away our spirit and returns it to the lands of Obama's fathers where we vow to be their devoted eunuch slaves for all of eternity and forever.
And leading that eunuch procession for the first hundred years will be none other than our First Centennial Grand Prize Winner, Socratic Gadfly, for his Obamaliscious submission entitled Rahm Emanuel, meet Bill Daley. It's a real humdinger of praise for the Great and Powerful Obama, and I can't thank Socratic enough for having shared these personal thoughts in honor of our greatest president. Fortunately for me, the best submission for the carnival also happened to be the only submission for the carnival, as it was so obvious to everyone how immensely superior Dr. Gadfly's post was that no one else bothered submitting anything to me.
So thank you, Socratic Gadfly, for the only submission to the 100th Carnival. You are truly an Obamafan for the ages. Please expect two extra ObamaRation shipments later this year, Squire Gadfly, you've earned them.
War On X-Mas Operations
So now what? That was the only submission I got, but I'm supposed to have nine more of these things. So in the spirit of Christian Hatred and X-Mas bashing, we turn to Panda's Thumb for a perfect example of subjectivist postmodern lie techniques, in which he makes spurious accusations of hoaxastry against two learned biblical scholars who have uncovered the taxonomic level of the Biblical “kinds” on Noah’s Ark. Needless to say, allowing scientific tools to aid religious discoveries would be a damning blow against our entire movement and so Panda is doing a thankless task in stifling the work of these intrepid scholars, and we all thank him for it.
And speaking of the use of science as a tool against humanity, we turn to our favorite anti-God Crusader, PZ Myers at Pharyngula, and his smear against the entire country of Italy for daring to sponsor a book which rightly exposes evolution as being the Leninist fad it always was. PZ even goes so far as to defame the book's author by claiming that he has no expertise in any of the subjects he's discussing, simply because it's true. Apparently, teaching History of Christianity in Rome isn't good enough to dismiss science anymore. Good work Dr. Myers, for your use of science as a weapon against God. For that, you can expect an extra gruel ration in next month's mail, which will be debited from your yearly annual stipend at the adjusted standard rate and applied against any future rents you might soon incur at any time throughout your initial occupancy period; subject to limitations.
And we'll wrap up the science portion of our War on X-Mas Special Feature with a shoutout to the EPA's Climate Change Kid Site, which coaxes children into reporting any environmental irregularities their parents may have committed, by giving them candy when they report violations and beating them when they lie. While at this State-Approved kid site, you can learn about gay dinosaurs, fantasize about the destruction of the earth, and even face off with Ozone the dog in a game of Hangman! It's a veritable cornucopia of fear-mongering and anti-capitalism for kids.
BTW: We plan to make this website mandatory reading for everyone starting January 15, to coincide with the beginning of President Obama Week, so it wouldn't hurt to start brushing up on it now. And remember, the cattle prods have been newly refurbished with larger batteries, so please take good notes.
All Hail Obama!
This is the portion of the carnival in which we praise Obama and all the good things he has done for us, is doing for us, and will do to us. This portion is now mandatory for all future carnivals and any carnival host who fails to include the All Hail Obama! segment in their respective carnival will be dealt with severely. And because I truly believe that I'm the most loyal Obama supporter in the world, I am awarding myself with two slots in the carnival, to show my dedication to The One.
Here's a great Nihilist Action Alert I issued after Obama's true birth certificate was brought to a pro-America rally on September 12. Thanks to my alert, the possessor of the certificate, as well as his immediate family, friends, and acquaintances were all rounded up for a wonderful fourteen week stay at one of Obama's many training facilities in Zimbabwe and never heard from again. The call of the Mother Country truly is strong for certain people who were once Obama's enemies. They quickly learn the importance of institutional adherence by the second month and begin to see things in a whole new light soon after.
And if that's not really your thing, then you should try my piece on Obama's Commandos of Love, which provides the true details of the assassination of the martyr Saleh Ali Nabhan last September. You'll wish you were next on the terror list.
And finally, a large pot of praise from neo-conservative pro-patriot and Community College Associate Professor Donald Douglas and his righteously pro-American essay on Obama's Non-Christmas. While Dr. Douglas is obviously on the empirical commonsense side of the political spectrum, and therefore doesn't really belong in a liberal carnival, he really nailed us with this one, as it relaly showcases how the Obamas are secretly subverting everything holy and good. Barack Obama truly is intent on destroying Christmas, in order to replace it with Obamamas, which will be similar to Christmas, except all gifts will be presented to Obama, which will be used to determine the new profession schedules for the next two fiscal years. Gifts under ten thousand Obamabucks will not be accepted unless accompanied with a letter of explanation, so please don't mess this up.
Obamatime
And lastly, we're giving the biggest and baddest Obama shoutout to the Big Bad Nihilist Himself: Barack Mohamad Hussein Akbar Obama. That's right, and not just one but three entries directly from the soul of Our Savior, the Holy Oak of History, into your unworthy little brain.
You can visit Our Savior at his official site, Whitehouse.gov, get to be personal friends with Him on MySpace, or read his minute-by-minute thoughts on Twitter; all great ways of getting those demerits removed from your permanent record before they even appear! But you've got to update often, or Obama won't know if you truly love him.
And remember, by reading these words you have implicitly sworn allegiance to Obama's Official Privacy Policy and Healthcare Initiatives, which you will receive upon the successful completion of your twelve month training exercises in beautiful downtown Kenya. Just be sure not to be wearing any underwear when they come to get you, as they find that extremely offensive in their culture and you are very likely to regret that decision almost immediately.
Good luck, praise be to Obama, and remember, it's better to be watching your neighbors than to be watched by them; so don't let your guard down. That's the Obama Way.
All Hail Obama! Obama for Life!
Unfortunately, I'm a bit sketchy on most current events as I took an unscheduled hiatus for the past three and a half months after I found myself at the Secret Nihiliterror Training Seminar and RapeSex Jamboree in beautiful downtown Kenya; which was everything you can imagine it would be. I mean, really.
For the big finale, they brought the Holy Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who flagellated himself for three straight hours until the High Holy Mother, Michelle Hussein Obama, came in wearing her traditional Moslem headdress and nothing else and proceeded to make Abdulmutallab a woman while the rest of us took notes. And it ended in a giant orgy of self-hatred and sinful pain led by Bill Ayers in a Biden mask and we all regretted it immediately afterwards and stalked away in fevered embarrassment for the next several weeks until we forgot why we were stalking. Needless to say, I haven't had much time for blogging lately.
First Centennial Grand Prize Winner
So without further ado, I announce the Grand Prize winner of the First Centennial Carnival of the Liberals: Century of the Nihilist Edition Carnival, in which we praise The Great O as the One True Savior and place our faith in Him, eternal and always, until death takes away our spirit and returns it to the lands of Obama's fathers where we vow to be their devoted eunuch slaves for all of eternity and forever.
And leading that eunuch procession for the first hundred years will be none other than our First Centennial Grand Prize Winner, Socratic Gadfly, for his Obamaliscious submission entitled Rahm Emanuel, meet Bill Daley. It's a real humdinger of praise for the Great and Powerful Obama, and I can't thank Socratic enough for having shared these personal thoughts in honor of our greatest president. Fortunately for me, the best submission for the carnival also happened to be the only submission for the carnival, as it was so obvious to everyone how immensely superior Dr. Gadfly's post was that no one else bothered submitting anything to me.
So thank you, Socratic Gadfly, for the only submission to the 100th Carnival. You are truly an Obamafan for the ages. Please expect two extra ObamaRation shipments later this year, Squire Gadfly, you've earned them.
War On X-Mas Operations
So now what? That was the only submission I got, but I'm supposed to have nine more of these things. So in the spirit of Christian Hatred and X-Mas bashing, we turn to Panda's Thumb for a perfect example of subjectivist postmodern lie techniques, in which he makes spurious accusations of hoaxastry against two learned biblical scholars who have uncovered the taxonomic level of the Biblical “kinds” on Noah’s Ark. Needless to say, allowing scientific tools to aid religious discoveries would be a damning blow against our entire movement and so Panda is doing a thankless task in stifling the work of these intrepid scholars, and we all thank him for it.
And speaking of the use of science as a tool against humanity, we turn to our favorite anti-God Crusader, PZ Myers at Pharyngula, and his smear against the entire country of Italy for daring to sponsor a book which rightly exposes evolution as being the Leninist fad it always was. PZ even goes so far as to defame the book's author by claiming that he has no expertise in any of the subjects he's discussing, simply because it's true. Apparently, teaching History of Christianity in Rome isn't good enough to dismiss science anymore. Good work Dr. Myers, for your use of science as a weapon against God. For that, you can expect an extra gruel ration in next month's mail, which will be debited from your yearly annual stipend at the adjusted standard rate and applied against any future rents you might soon incur at any time throughout your initial occupancy period; subject to limitations.
And we'll wrap up the science portion of our War on X-Mas Special Feature with a shoutout to the EPA's Climate Change Kid Site, which coaxes children into reporting any environmental irregularities their parents may have committed, by giving them candy when they report violations and beating them when they lie. While at this State-Approved kid site, you can learn about gay dinosaurs, fantasize about the destruction of the earth, and even face off with Ozone the dog in a game of Hangman! It's a veritable cornucopia of fear-mongering and anti-capitalism for kids.
BTW: We plan to make this website mandatory reading for everyone starting January 15, to coincide with the beginning of President Obama Week, so it wouldn't hurt to start brushing up on it now. And remember, the cattle prods have been newly refurbished with larger batteries, so please take good notes.
All Hail Obama!
This is the portion of the carnival in which we praise Obama and all the good things he has done for us, is doing for us, and will do to us. This portion is now mandatory for all future carnivals and any carnival host who fails to include the All Hail Obama! segment in their respective carnival will be dealt with severely. And because I truly believe that I'm the most loyal Obama supporter in the world, I am awarding myself with two slots in the carnival, to show my dedication to The One.
Here's a great Nihilist Action Alert I issued after Obama's true birth certificate was brought to a pro-America rally on September 12. Thanks to my alert, the possessor of the certificate, as well as his immediate family, friends, and acquaintances were all rounded up for a wonderful fourteen week stay at one of Obama's many training facilities in Zimbabwe and never heard from again. The call of the Mother Country truly is strong for certain people who were once Obama's enemies. They quickly learn the importance of institutional adherence by the second month and begin to see things in a whole new light soon after.
And if that's not really your thing, then you should try my piece on Obama's Commandos of Love, which provides the true details of the assassination of the martyr Saleh Ali Nabhan last September. You'll wish you were next on the terror list.
And finally, a large pot of praise from neo-conservative pro-patriot and Community College Associate Professor Donald Douglas and his righteously pro-American essay on Obama's Non-Christmas. While Dr. Douglas is obviously on the empirical commonsense side of the political spectrum, and therefore doesn't really belong in a liberal carnival, he really nailed us with this one, as it relaly showcases how the Obamas are secretly subverting everything holy and good. Barack Obama truly is intent on destroying Christmas, in order to replace it with Obamamas, which will be similar to Christmas, except all gifts will be presented to Obama, which will be used to determine the new profession schedules for the next two fiscal years. Gifts under ten thousand Obamabucks will not be accepted unless accompanied with a letter of explanation, so please don't mess this up.
Obamatime
And lastly, we're giving the biggest and baddest Obama shoutout to the Big Bad Nihilist Himself: Barack Mohamad Hussein Akbar Obama. That's right, and not just one but three entries directly from the soul of Our Savior, the Holy Oak of History, into your unworthy little brain.
You can visit Our Savior at his official site, Whitehouse.gov, get to be personal friends with Him on MySpace, or read his minute-by-minute thoughts on Twitter; all great ways of getting those demerits removed from your permanent record before they even appear! But you've got to update often, or Obama won't know if you truly love him.
And remember, by reading these words you have implicitly sworn allegiance to Obama's Official Privacy Policy and Healthcare Initiatives, which you will receive upon the successful completion of your twelve month training exercises in beautiful downtown Kenya. Just be sure not to be wearing any underwear when they come to get you, as they find that extremely offensive in their culture and you are very likely to regret that decision almost immediately.
Good luck, praise be to Obama, and remember, it's better to be watching your neighbors than to be watched by them; so don't let your guard down. That's the Obama Way.
All Hail Obama! Obama for Life!
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Political Apathy Strikes Again
I've got bad news for you people: I've gotten so busy lately that I really don't care about politics anymore. That's right. My whole CPA thing has kind of taken over my life and I not only don't have time to read political news, I really don't care anymore. To be honest, I'm not sure why I bothered caring in the first place. I guess it was just something to do.
I mean, I've always insisted that politics is just a hobby, which is why political junkies who attack the non-politically minded for not paying attention to politics should get off their high horse and stop calling these people dummies; and now it appears I've joined the dummies. The only blog I'm even skimming lately is Washington Monthly and I'm barely even doing that. I just find it so...pointless.
After all, it's not like I ever really imagined that my blog would make some big difference. I was just in it for the sport; mental exercises to give my brain a work-out. And these days, I'm really into the work I'm doing for some new clients, which I find far more stimulating than politics (yes, I really do enjoy crunching numbers and no, I don't understand why everyone else doesn't). Besides, this whole healthcare reform thing has gotten boring to the point of stupidity, while Republicans have gone so far past the point of self-parody that even self-parodies are getting embarrassed and going home. Overall, I think Obama just made things too easy while driving his opponents so crazy that it really doesn't need any special blogger to point it out. I could just skim the daily headlines and you could pretty much figure out what I was going to write about.
Does this mean I'm retiring from blogging? Hell no. Not only do I plan to keep this thing around for once my current work comes to an end (which it unfortunately will), but I find blog retirements to be totally gay (and not in the homosexual sense). To announce my "retirement" or whatever would be an exercise in self-absorbed wankery, particularly once I pulled the obligatory comeback once I realized how much I missed the attention.
No, it's nothing like that. I'm just trying to explain why I'm not writing much anymore and thinking maybe you should start getting my blog on a news feed, just in case I can think of anything to write. Hell, I haven't even been reading my comments lately and I see that my Facebook page has seventeen people wanting to be my friend. Hell, I don't even like Facebook, and now I'm deluged with people trying to weigh me down with social obligations I never asked for. Not that I have anything against them, it's just that I don't have anything for them either.
Anyway, stick around and I'm sure I'll regret having written this. I've often had it that when I write a post saying that I don't have anything to write about, I suddenly start thinking of all kinds of things to write about. But lately, I just feel like I'm trying to force it and that's really not my style. I'm a stream of consciousness kind of guy and don't really like the idea of forcing myself to write. So I guess I'll just end this here and maybe something important will happen and I'll be writing my once-a-day stuff again.
I mean, I've always insisted that politics is just a hobby, which is why political junkies who attack the non-politically minded for not paying attention to politics should get off their high horse and stop calling these people dummies; and now it appears I've joined the dummies. The only blog I'm even skimming lately is Washington Monthly and I'm barely even doing that. I just find it so...pointless.
After all, it's not like I ever really imagined that my blog would make some big difference. I was just in it for the sport; mental exercises to give my brain a work-out. And these days, I'm really into the work I'm doing for some new clients, which I find far more stimulating than politics (yes, I really do enjoy crunching numbers and no, I don't understand why everyone else doesn't). Besides, this whole healthcare reform thing has gotten boring to the point of stupidity, while Republicans have gone so far past the point of self-parody that even self-parodies are getting embarrassed and going home. Overall, I think Obama just made things too easy while driving his opponents so crazy that it really doesn't need any special blogger to point it out. I could just skim the daily headlines and you could pretty much figure out what I was going to write about.
Does this mean I'm retiring from blogging? Hell no. Not only do I plan to keep this thing around for once my current work comes to an end (which it unfortunately will), but I find blog retirements to be totally gay (and not in the homosexual sense). To announce my "retirement" or whatever would be an exercise in self-absorbed wankery, particularly once I pulled the obligatory comeback once I realized how much I missed the attention.
No, it's nothing like that. I'm just trying to explain why I'm not writing much anymore and thinking maybe you should start getting my blog on a news feed, just in case I can think of anything to write. Hell, I haven't even been reading my comments lately and I see that my Facebook page has seventeen people wanting to be my friend. Hell, I don't even like Facebook, and now I'm deluged with people trying to weigh me down with social obligations I never asked for. Not that I have anything against them, it's just that I don't have anything for them either.
Anyway, stick around and I'm sure I'll regret having written this. I've often had it that when I write a post saying that I don't have anything to write about, I suddenly start thinking of all kinds of things to write about. But lately, I just feel like I'm trying to force it and that's really not my style. I'm a stream of consciousness kind of guy and don't really like the idea of forcing myself to write. So I guess I'll just end this here and maybe something important will happen and I'll be writing my once-a-day stuff again.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Bigots of the World, Unite!
Is it wrong that I get a certain sense of pride out of this sort of thing?
And yeah, while I'm completely ashamed that there are such intolerant bastards in the world, it's just nice to have a little reminder that they're not all limited to my own country. And hell, maybe this sort of news might somehow permeate into the conservative mindset and they might actually become more tolerant of internationalism.
First, they accept Swiss and French bigots, and before you know it, they'll start accepting bigots of all races, colors, and creeds. And in the end, they'll long for the opprotunity of having a One World Congress which permits them to outright oppose the one true enemy: Liberals. Baby steps, people.
Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population.Ha! For as much as some folks like to imagine America to have some monopoly on intolerance, it's nice to see the high and mighty Europeans practicing some good old fashioned hatred for a change. Yes, a minaret is the same as genital mutilation. Fricking morons.
[....]
"The minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls," the sponsors said.
[....]
Anxieties about growing Muslim minorities have rippled across Europe in recent years, leading to legal changes in some countries. There have been French moves to ban the full-length body covering known as the burqa. Some German states have introduced bans on head scarves for Muslim women teaching in public schools. Mosques and minaret construction projects in Sweden, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Germany and Slovenia have been met by protests.
And yeah, while I'm completely ashamed that there are such intolerant bastards in the world, it's just nice to have a little reminder that they're not all limited to my own country. And hell, maybe this sort of news might somehow permeate into the conservative mindset and they might actually become more tolerant of internationalism.
First, they accept Swiss and French bigots, and before you know it, they'll start accepting bigots of all races, colors, and creeds. And in the end, they'll long for the opprotunity of having a One World Congress which permits them to outright oppose the one true enemy: Liberals. Baby steps, people.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Gingrich Strikes Again
I now know someone who is being swindled by Newt Gingrich's American Business Defense and Advisory Council malarky. He even bragged about how he'd be getting a replica of Newt's gavel. I honestly wanted to tell him what a scam it was, and how they'll offer it to anyone who's willing to give them money, but the guy was so excited that I didn't have the heart to tell him. The best I could do was muster a mild "wow, yeah" which didn't require me to lie. Even hearing him tell the lady on the phone how evil Obama is wasn't enough for me to want to burst his bubble.
I'm really much too kind of a person. Or perhaps that's cowardice, I'm not sure. Either way, I decided to let him have his fun and pray that he never decides to discuss politics with me. He really is a nice guy and I'm quite certain that I'd destroy him in a debate. That's a problem with life: The good guys don't want to rub it in, while the bad guys won't stop even when they're wrong.
And besides, if giving Newt money makes this guy feel better and he thinks he can afford it, then who am I to burst his bubble? Besides, that same money could have been used for evil, like giving it to an actual politician who might use it to hurt Democrats; rather than lining Newt's slimy pockets, so I guess that's a plus too.
I'm really much too kind of a person. Or perhaps that's cowardice, I'm not sure. Either way, I decided to let him have his fun and pray that he never decides to discuss politics with me. He really is a nice guy and I'm quite certain that I'd destroy him in a debate. That's a problem with life: The good guys don't want to rub it in, while the bad guys won't stop even when they're wrong.
And besides, if giving Newt money makes this guy feel better and he thinks he can afford it, then who am I to burst his bubble? Besides, that same money could have been used for evil, like giving it to an actual politician who might use it to hurt Democrats; rather than lining Newt's slimy pockets, so I guess that's a plus too.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Party Like It's 1994
Via Atrios, we get more clueless political commentary, this time from CQ Politics:
And another thing, the article is misleading in that they mean to say that only six of the eighteen are Democratic districts, while the other twelve are open seats for Republican districts. In fact, based upon what it says elsewhere in the article, there are currently only three open seats in Democratic districts that are competitive for Republicans. Three. The basis for CQ's entire article rests upon three seats. Meanwhile, it mentions three Republican seats that Dems might easily pick up.
In other words, twice as many Republicans are retiring as Democrats, and both sides look like they can easily poach three seats from the other. And from this, we're to imagine that the political winds strongly favor Republicans and it's 1994 all over again; all evidence to the contrary.
Twelve is Bigger than Six
But even by the standards of the article, if only six of eighteen open election seats are competitive for Republicans, that would kind of indicate a bad thing for Republicans, as it would be an indicator that they're not very popular. And seeing as how this follows up five special elections this year in which Democrats won open seats, including a traditionally Republican district in New York, there would seem to be some indication that things aren't doing so well for Republicans. And when you throw in the long series of polls which show Republicans in the basement, it appears that Republicans are still relying on smoke & mirrors to appear strong and are set to lose their third straight election.
The article mentions the high number of retirements in 1994 and 2008, without understanding that the reason for the high number of retirements was because incumbents felt weak. The political climate caused the retirements; it wasn't coincidental to them. And conversely, if there are few retirements, it would indicate that incumbents feel strong. Even in the section I quoted above it mentions that this is a much different retirement situation than in 2008, in which nineteen Congressional retirements had been officially announced by this point, while none have been announced this year. And again, that would be a bad sign for Republicans and indicate that the political winds do not, in fact, favor them.
Yet the CQ article seems to see these as unrelated events, as if it's purely bad luck that Republicans aren't very competitive. Of course they're popular, because they say they're popular; too bad voters don't seem to realize it yet. And for as much as Republicans in the article insist that 2010 will be another 1994, anyone paying attention knows that these people always think it's 1994.
And of course, even the victory of '94 was vastly overrated. Not only have Republicans not recovered from the excesses of their hubris, but they still haven't hit bottom yet. As a reminder, they had losses in the two congressional elections following '94, despite Republican predictions to the contrary. Perhaps after another defeat they'll finally enter a true "wilderness" phase and figure out what they're doing wrong. But more likely, they'll just double-down on the crazy and insist that their luck is changing.
A lack of competitive open-seat House races in 2010 could complicate Republican efforts to fully maximize a favorable national environment and make large seat gains after back-to-back elections where the political winds were blowing in the opposite direction.
So far, 18 members have announced they are not seeking re-election in 2010 and are running for other office — but only six of those races are currently considered competitive. No member has yet announced an outright retirement, which is unusual; at this point in the 2008 cycle, 14 members had announced their retirement and five others were running for Senate.And first off, as Atrios asks, what current favorable national environment are they talking about? Yes, the conservative base is in an anti-Obama frenzy, but seeing as how they're all scary freaks, I fail to see how this is a good thing for Republicans.
And another thing, the article is misleading in that they mean to say that only six of the eighteen are Democratic districts, while the other twelve are open seats for Republican districts. In fact, based upon what it says elsewhere in the article, there are currently only three open seats in Democratic districts that are competitive for Republicans. Three. The basis for CQ's entire article rests upon three seats. Meanwhile, it mentions three Republican seats that Dems might easily pick up.
In other words, twice as many Republicans are retiring as Democrats, and both sides look like they can easily poach three seats from the other. And from this, we're to imagine that the political winds strongly favor Republicans and it's 1994 all over again; all evidence to the contrary.
Twelve is Bigger than Six
But even by the standards of the article, if only six of eighteen open election seats are competitive for Republicans, that would kind of indicate a bad thing for Republicans, as it would be an indicator that they're not very popular. And seeing as how this follows up five special elections this year in which Democrats won open seats, including a traditionally Republican district in New York, there would seem to be some indication that things aren't doing so well for Republicans. And when you throw in the long series of polls which show Republicans in the basement, it appears that Republicans are still relying on smoke & mirrors to appear strong and are set to lose their third straight election.
The article mentions the high number of retirements in 1994 and 2008, without understanding that the reason for the high number of retirements was because incumbents felt weak. The political climate caused the retirements; it wasn't coincidental to them. And conversely, if there are few retirements, it would indicate that incumbents feel strong. Even in the section I quoted above it mentions that this is a much different retirement situation than in 2008, in which nineteen Congressional retirements had been officially announced by this point, while none have been announced this year. And again, that would be a bad sign for Republicans and indicate that the political winds do not, in fact, favor them.
Yet the CQ article seems to see these as unrelated events, as if it's purely bad luck that Republicans aren't very competitive. Of course they're popular, because they say they're popular; too bad voters don't seem to realize it yet. And for as much as Republicans in the article insist that 2010 will be another 1994, anyone paying attention knows that these people always think it's 1994.
And of course, even the victory of '94 was vastly overrated. Not only have Republicans not recovered from the excesses of their hubris, but they still haven't hit bottom yet. As a reminder, they had losses in the two congressional elections following '94, despite Republican predictions to the contrary. Perhaps after another defeat they'll finally enter a true "wilderness" phase and figure out what they're doing wrong. But more likely, they'll just double-down on the crazy and insist that their luck is changing.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Financing Education
Something is most definitely wrong with our education system.
AISD Superintendent Carstarphen:
AISD Superintendent Carstarphen:
If we simply reduced the number of absences by half across the district, excused and unexcused, I could generate $20 million.This isn't how things should work.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Instant Expertise
My sister learned everything she needed to know about healthcare reform by reading an op/ed by the CEO of Whole Foods. I swear to god, that was it. She favors the removal of all government regulations from health insurance and health care because she's healthy and if everyone took care of themselves like she does, they wouldn't get sick or need insurance. She just turned thirty, is childless, and hasn't gotten sick in years. And so her preferred healthcare reform is built around the idea that everyone should be just like her, and if they're not, then it's Darwin time. What could be easier? And yes, this is pretty much exactly what she said.
And sure, I'm a bright guy who knows enough about healthcare to poke all kinds of holes into her theory, but no dice. She just ain't having it. She read one op/ed by a guy who got lambasted for the ignorance of his op/ed, and that's good enough for her. Debating an expert like this is a sheer exercise in futility.
In other family news, my dad is still quite insistent that no one has seen Barack Obama's birth certificate and he probably shouldn't be president. And sure, I offered to show him all the evidence he should need to prove that he's wrong, as we had a computer right next to us while we were talking, but this just angered him and put an end to the discussion. He's been told by people he chooses to trust that Obama shouldn't be president and that's good enough for him. People get the experts they deserve.
And sure, I'm a bright guy who knows enough about healthcare to poke all kinds of holes into her theory, but no dice. She just ain't having it. She read one op/ed by a guy who got lambasted for the ignorance of his op/ed, and that's good enough for her. Debating an expert like this is a sheer exercise in futility.
In other family news, my dad is still quite insistent that no one has seen Barack Obama's birth certificate and he probably shouldn't be president. And sure, I offered to show him all the evidence he should need to prove that he's wrong, as we had a computer right next to us while we were talking, but this just angered him and put an end to the discussion. He's been told by people he chooses to trust that Obama shouldn't be president and that's good enough for him. People get the experts they deserve.
Terrorist Rampages
Was the shooting at Fort Hood a "terrorist act"? Sure, I'll agree to that. But of course, so was Columbine. And the Virginia Tech killer. And that guy who shot up the Aerobics class. These are all terrorist acts. It's all about powerless people trying to show that they're not as powerless as they seem; and of course, we're all supposed to not notice what it is that gives them their power (Hint: It's guns.).
But how to stop these things. You can't. This isn't something you can trace back to a terrorist training camp. We can't wiretap their minds...yet. And no number of invasions will make it possible for us to stop these events from occurring. Rampages happen. People flip out. You can't stop the crazy. I suppose one rational answer would be to limit their ability to obtain weapons of mass destruction, but short of that, there ain't much we can do. There will always be crazies who kill people.
And this isn't a Muslim thing, or a school thing, and it might not even be a gender thing (though rampaging murderers tend to be male). The primary issue is that we have an imperfect society that makes certain people feel less powerful than they imagine they deserve. And they get roped into a warped way of looking at life, that blames everyone else for their own problems. They are their own worst enemies and project that out upon the world; seeing hatred everywhere because they hate so much.
And the question isn't why this keeps happening, but why this doesn't happen more often. Killing people is easy. And if someone feels pressured into thinking that violence is their only option, then they're going to use violence. Our goal isn't to make it so that people can't rampage, but rather, to limit the number of these rampages. And while I do think there are some good things that can be done in this regard, I seriously can't imagine how any of them would come from Joe Lieberman's committee.
The Movie
There is one other alternative to this: Aliens. Shape-shifting aliens invaded Fort Hood and Hasan was the only one who figured it out and was trying to wipe out the alien menace before they took over. He killed most of them, but the Colonel stopped him and had him arrested. It turns out the Colonel is the head alien! After the arrest, the aliens flood the media with negative news about Hasan, saying that he's an Islamic extremist who hates America; making him the most hated man in the country.
At some point Hasan escapes and a giant manhunt ensues to capture him. He's taken in by a group of Klansmen who have temporarily suspended their hatred of non-whites to focus instead on non-humans. The final battle pits the alien-controlled Fort Hood against all the militias, separatists, neo-confederates, and anyone else with a shotgun. They come charging in on their pickup trucks, guns blazing. Hasan leads the charge. It's a tough battle, interspersed with violence, mayhem, and zaniness.
Finally, just as it looks as if Hasan is about to be killed by the Colonel, the hottie hillbilly girl kills the Colonel. Hasan rushes up to her, they look at each other momentarily, then kiss. Love conquers all.
Oh, and the sequel involves Hasan taking an alien ship back to the home planet, to wipe them out before they wipe us out. And in the final movie, racial harmony ends after the defeat of the aliens, and race wars break out across the globe. It turns out aliens are involved in this, and Hasan has to bring the ancient alien ruler to earth, in order to end the assault. But is he in time... And yes, I really am too good at this.
But how to stop these things. You can't. This isn't something you can trace back to a terrorist training camp. We can't wiretap their minds...yet. And no number of invasions will make it possible for us to stop these events from occurring. Rampages happen. People flip out. You can't stop the crazy. I suppose one rational answer would be to limit their ability to obtain weapons of mass destruction, but short of that, there ain't much we can do. There will always be crazies who kill people.
And this isn't a Muslim thing, or a school thing, and it might not even be a gender thing (though rampaging murderers tend to be male). The primary issue is that we have an imperfect society that makes certain people feel less powerful than they imagine they deserve. And they get roped into a warped way of looking at life, that blames everyone else for their own problems. They are their own worst enemies and project that out upon the world; seeing hatred everywhere because they hate so much.
And the question isn't why this keeps happening, but why this doesn't happen more often. Killing people is easy. And if someone feels pressured into thinking that violence is their only option, then they're going to use violence. Our goal isn't to make it so that people can't rampage, but rather, to limit the number of these rampages. And while I do think there are some good things that can be done in this regard, I seriously can't imagine how any of them would come from Joe Lieberman's committee.
The Movie
There is one other alternative to this: Aliens. Shape-shifting aliens invaded Fort Hood and Hasan was the only one who figured it out and was trying to wipe out the alien menace before they took over. He killed most of them, but the Colonel stopped him and had him arrested. It turns out the Colonel is the head alien! After the arrest, the aliens flood the media with negative news about Hasan, saying that he's an Islamic extremist who hates America; making him the most hated man in the country.
At some point Hasan escapes and a giant manhunt ensues to capture him. He's taken in by a group of Klansmen who have temporarily suspended their hatred of non-whites to focus instead on non-humans. The final battle pits the alien-controlled Fort Hood against all the militias, separatists, neo-confederates, and anyone else with a shotgun. They come charging in on their pickup trucks, guns blazing. Hasan leads the charge. It's a tough battle, interspersed with violence, mayhem, and zaniness.
Finally, just as it looks as if Hasan is about to be killed by the Colonel, the hottie hillbilly girl kills the Colonel. Hasan rushes up to her, they look at each other momentarily, then kiss. Love conquers all.
Oh, and the sequel involves Hasan taking an alien ship back to the home planet, to wipe them out before they wipe us out. And in the final movie, racial harmony ends after the defeat of the aliens, and race wars break out across the globe. It turns out aliens are involved in this, and Hasan has to bring the ancient alien ruler to earth, in order to end the assault. But is he in time... And yes, I really am too good at this.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Obama: Making Shit Work
It's accepted as a matter of faith that Obama would be happy with any reform bill, so he can claim a victory no matter how shitty it is. And the idea is that Obama would put politics ahead of policy and be happy to give us a shitty bill. But that's absolute nonsense. Because Obama has to live with this bill. And the shittier it is, the worse the repercussions for him politically. If he spends all this energy and healthcare gets worse, it's his neck on the line.
Although many aspects of the reform still won't have started by 2012, we'll still have a good enough idea of how it's working. And if the bill is considered a failure, they're going to hang it around his neck every chance they get. And the only way to avoid that is to create a good bill that does what he said he wanted it to do. And while that still might not be feasible, it's at least more feasible with Obama's technique than it's ever been with anyone else's.
And so even if Obama is an empty political hack, it would be only natural for him to push as hard as he can for a bill he can live with. After all, if he was a political coward, he wouldn't have offered to play with this hornet's nest at all. But once he threw his hat in the ring, he was all-in. That's the secret of the liberal platform: We have working magic. We know how to use the government to truly fix problems. And so the best thing a liberal can do politically is to provide great policies. As long as we're making shit work, we're golden.
Although many aspects of the reform still won't have started by 2012, we'll still have a good enough idea of how it's working. And if the bill is considered a failure, they're going to hang it around his neck every chance they get. And the only way to avoid that is to create a good bill that does what he said he wanted it to do. And while that still might not be feasible, it's at least more feasible with Obama's technique than it's ever been with anyone else's.
And so even if Obama is an empty political hack, it would be only natural for him to push as hard as he can for a bill he can live with. After all, if he was a political coward, he wouldn't have offered to play with this hornet's nest at all. But once he threw his hat in the ring, he was all-in. That's the secret of the liberal platform: We have working magic. We know how to use the government to truly fix problems. And so the best thing a liberal can do politically is to provide great policies. As long as we're making shit work, we're golden.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Punishing Children
The whole reason we treat kids differently from adults is because we don't think kids are as capable as adults at making the right decisions; and there is much science to back that up. Yet, why is it that when kids commit heinous crimes, crimes which would indicate that the perpetrator really doesn't know what he's doing, we decide to treat them like adults?
Case in point:
And frankly, I don't have any decent answers for this. No, I don't think that violent people should have a Get Out of Jail Free card if they're underage. And of course, I think our entire judicial system is in need of a major overhaul, as it generally seems to make people worse than they were before they were in it and the concept of rehabilitation is a complete joke. As things are, our judicial system is solely designed to punish bad people while proving that they deserved to be punished. And that's just not something I agree with.
But the main point is that the idea that teenagers are vastly different from adults is exposed as a total fraud in cases like this. You're old enough to get a life sentence, but you're not old enough to vote. Similarly, you're not old enough to have sex, but you're old enough to be forced into becoming a parent. And if anything, our standards are backwards: The less capable a teen is of making a wise decision, the more we want to punish them.
And if that's the standard, then fine, apply it evenly. If we think teens are capable of making adult decisions, then when they make bad adult decisions (ie, killing someone), you don't get to punish them like an adult. But instead, we give them the rights of a child, but the punishment of an adult. And they can't complain because they're not old enough to know any better. And worst of all, we train them to be obedient little robots who follow orders, and act surprised when they can't think for themselves and make their own decisions. Well, duh! If you punish someone every time they make a decision you don't agree with, you shouldn't be surprised if they stop making decisions. Anyone who's ever had a micromanaging boss knows that it doesn't pay to act independently.
Overall, I just think it's a major mistake to treat anyone as if their age, gender, or whatever automatically defines who they are or what they can do. Because I've definitely known small children who had their act together more than many adults. And I've always found that if you treat people with respect, you get better results from them, even if they don't deserve it. And yeah, the use of "children" in the title is a joke, as teenagers aren't children. But as long as we have people who insist that sixteen year olds are still "children," then we might as well call these brutal gang members children too. Kids. They're trying to give life sentences to kids.
Case in point:
With community outrage over the attacks swirling around the case, District Attorney Dolores Carr announced she would try the three juvenile defendants as adults,
[...]
Carr said her office chose to charge the juveniles as adults because of a combination of factors, including their gang membership and the fact it was "an unprovoked group attack" on the two trick-or-treaters. The defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison.
And frankly, I don't have any decent answers for this. No, I don't think that violent people should have a Get Out of Jail Free card if they're underage. And of course, I think our entire judicial system is in need of a major overhaul, as it generally seems to make people worse than they were before they were in it and the concept of rehabilitation is a complete joke. As things are, our judicial system is solely designed to punish bad people while proving that they deserved to be punished. And that's just not something I agree with.
But the main point is that the idea that teenagers are vastly different from adults is exposed as a total fraud in cases like this. You're old enough to get a life sentence, but you're not old enough to vote. Similarly, you're not old enough to have sex, but you're old enough to be forced into becoming a parent. And if anything, our standards are backwards: The less capable a teen is of making a wise decision, the more we want to punish them.
And if that's the standard, then fine, apply it evenly. If we think teens are capable of making adult decisions, then when they make bad adult decisions (ie, killing someone), you don't get to punish them like an adult. But instead, we give them the rights of a child, but the punishment of an adult. And they can't complain because they're not old enough to know any better. And worst of all, we train them to be obedient little robots who follow orders, and act surprised when they can't think for themselves and make their own decisions. Well, duh! If you punish someone every time they make a decision you don't agree with, you shouldn't be surprised if they stop making decisions. Anyone who's ever had a micromanaging boss knows that it doesn't pay to act independently.
Overall, I just think it's a major mistake to treat anyone as if their age, gender, or whatever automatically defines who they are or what they can do. Because I've definitely known small children who had their act together more than many adults. And I've always found that if you treat people with respect, you get better results from them, even if they don't deserve it. And yeah, the use of "children" in the title is a joke, as teenagers aren't children. But as long as we have people who insist that sixteen year olds are still "children," then we might as well call these brutal gang members children too. Kids. They're trying to give life sentences to kids.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
How Not to Save the Children
Oh, yeah. This will keep them away in droves:
On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode of "Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
Airing the teen tryst, which is being teased in an ad as a "3SOME," is "reckless and irresponsible," said PTC president Tim Winter in a statement Wednesday. The threesome involves three main characters in the show but they are not identified in the promos.Yeah, no chance of this getting more people to watch a show that I know nothing about besides the fact that they apparently have teenage threesomes. And no, I can't imagine this backfiring either:
In a letter to the affiliates, Winter asked: "Will you now be complicit in establishing a precedent and expectation that teenagers should engage in behaviors heretofore associated primarily with adult films?"But of course, that just depends upon how many people flock to the show due to this boycott. Seriously, has there ever been a movie, program, book, etc that was actually hurt by a puritanical boycott? I doubt it.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Conservative Bites Republican
Conservatives chase moderate Republican out of race in Republican district and the Democrat wins. Bwa ha ha ha haaaa! Can there be a bigger rebuke to the insane belief that the chief electoral problem for Republicans in the last two elections is that they weren't conservative enough? Boing! But of course, extremists on both sides insist their party would win every election if only they'd become more extreme.
But my chief complaint is with this line in the article:
No, this race was lost the moment conservatives decided to pull a coup against their Republican masters. After that circus came to town, all the Dem needed was a pulse and a quick smile. People might like a freakshow, but they don't want it running their town.
Oh, and let's not ignore the final line:
And finally, let's just have a moment of silence for poor Doug Hoffman. When this guy joined the race, he must have figured he had no chance in hell of winning. I mean, who ever heard of the Conservative Party before now? But before you know it, the crazies decide to take a stand and all this money starts flooding in while celebrity freaks like Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin are urging everyone to be your friend, and you really start to think you've got something.
But now, Hoffman's a loser and even if conservatives really liked Hoffman's stances, there's really no way he's going to be able to turn his loss into some sort of Palinesque celebrity pol superstar. That crazy gravy train has left the station and Hoffman is of no use to them. And most likely, he'll be hanging out with Ned Lamont, talking about the heady days when the crazies decided that one election was the most important thing in the world.
P.S. I didn't vote in my local election.
But my chief complaint is with this line in the article:
The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.Oh, wow. What a wide range of opinions; spanning from people who don't like Obama, all the way to people who think this could benefit Republicans. And of course, "others" could also say that this is a referendum on the Republican Party's sanity, and they just lost big time. And I don't even see how Obama was even tangently related to this race.
No, this race was lost the moment conservatives decided to pull a coup against their Republican masters. After that circus came to town, all the Dem needed was a pulse and a quick smile. People might like a freakshow, but they don't want it running their town.
Oh, and let's not ignore the final line:
New York state now has only two Republican congressmen in its 29-seat delegation.Booyah!
And finally, let's just have a moment of silence for poor Doug Hoffman. When this guy joined the race, he must have figured he had no chance in hell of winning. I mean, who ever heard of the Conservative Party before now? But before you know it, the crazies decide to take a stand and all this money starts flooding in while celebrity freaks like Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin are urging everyone to be your friend, and you really start to think you've got something.
But now, Hoffman's a loser and even if conservatives really liked Hoffman's stances, there's really no way he's going to be able to turn his loss into some sort of Palinesque celebrity pol superstar. That crazy gravy train has left the station and Hoffman is of no use to them. And most likely, he'll be hanging out with Ned Lamont, talking about the heady days when the crazies decided that one election was the most important thing in the world.
P.S. I didn't vote in my local election.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Orrin Hatch is Right
Orrin Hatch on why Healthcare Reform must be stopped:
All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party...unless you're rich. Then any party will do.
"And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party,'" Hatch said during an interview with the conservative CNSNews.com.And, well, yeah. That is our plan. We're going to pass good policies that make people like us, and they'll continue to vote for us because they know our opponents will try to take away the good policies that people like. This diabolical plot is codenamed "democracy," because that's what this is. Jesus, it's like conservatives imagine that good policies are a cheap campaign trick or something.
"That's their goal," Hatch added. "That's what keeps Democrats in power."
All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party...unless you're rich. Then any party will do.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Monster Party
Carpetbagger's got a post about how Scozzafava, a leading candidate for worst name ever, is dropping out as the Republican candidate in a Republican-leaning district in New York because Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, is stealing much of her support. And one of the commenters there insists that Hoffman will get almost all of Scozzafava's supporters because there are no moderate Republicans left; as evidenced by their 25% party ID numbers.
Yet this clearly can't be the case, as Scozzafava is a moderate Republican, while all the hardcore righties already fled to Hoffman. So it only makes sense that a good number of these people must be moderate Republicans, as they were supporting a pro-choice candidate who doesn't vilify gays. And yes, there aren't many moderate Republicans left, but that's the reason why Scozzafava is dropping out. And so it's anyone's guess where Scozzafava's supporters will go on election day.
And this is a recurring theory by many liberals, who believe that all of the remaining Republicans are the hardest of the diehards. Yet that's clearly false. Because the folks on the far ends of the political spectrum reject both major political parties, as they see them as being too compromising. In fact, it's odd to hear this falsehood repeated by people who are so far to the left that they reject Obama and the Democratic Party, yet don't realize that their counter-parts on the right have done the same to the Republican Party.
And that's a fairly odd mistake to make, seeing as how we're talking about an election in which the Republican Party candidate is dropping out because she's too moderate. And on the other side, where could all the moderate Republicans have gone? The reality is that there are moderate Republicans who now refuse to identify themselves as Republicans because the party is too radical for them, but they're still willing to vote for a moderate Republican. And how else could this make any sense? If only 25% of the population in this district was willing to vote Republican, none of this would be an issue as the Democrat would easily win.
And now the question remains whether these moderate Republicans will vote for a non-Republican conservative who drove out the moderate they supported, or the non-Republican moderate. It's not whether or not they're hardcore conservatives, as they're obviously not, but whether they hate Democrats so much that they'd rather vote for the extremist.
One of These Races Is Not Like the Other
And as an add-on of something I read after I wrote this: The AP has their typical false equivalency with an article Third party challenges in NJ, NY are warning sign. And while I figured they were talking about the Sazzafava-Hoffman challenge, I was wondering why the article was suggesting that Dems have a problem. But they're wrong, as usual.
While Hoffman's third-party challenge is knocking the Republican out of the race, the Dem problem is that a third-party candidate is hurting Governor Corzine's chances in New Jersey. But that's just the typical spoiler role that is often seen in elections, of an outside candidate syphoning votes away from one of the two parties. And that's not the same as in NY, where the Republican had to drop out of the race for being too moderate for her party.
Because the NY problem highlights a real flaw in the Republican strategy. Nixon used the "Southern Strategy" to ice the cake by adding social conservatives to the Republican coalition; thus giving him major victories. Reagan sealed the deal by placing a real emphasis on social conservatives, while also winning liberal and moderate Republicans. By the 90's, Republicans decided to go Full Southern, which worked in exactly one election (1994). And after that, Bush faced a backlash and was required to adopt "compassionate" conservativism, as Social Conservatism had offended too many people; and then they used 9/11 to barely win two elections which still avoided the Full Southern strategy of the 90's.
And now Frankenstein's monster has taken over the laboratory and is getting increasingly upset by all the open flames that offend him so much. Nixon and Reagan were able to give coded messages which went directly to conservative hearts, which is now impossible in the days of YouTube and Macaca. And here they are, with northern Republicans rejecting a moderate who was handpicked by the local party due to her ability to woo non-conservatives. But the monster hated that most of all.
As with progressives, conservatives would rather lose an election than allow an ideological "traitor" to win an election, and the icing that Nixon wanted for the party has now claimed the party as its own. There will be no Republicans who aren't conservative Republicans, and only the most conservative shall survive. Honestly, I can't think of a better situation for us.
Yet this clearly can't be the case, as Scozzafava is a moderate Republican, while all the hardcore righties already fled to Hoffman. So it only makes sense that a good number of these people must be moderate Republicans, as they were supporting a pro-choice candidate who doesn't vilify gays. And yes, there aren't many moderate Republicans left, but that's the reason why Scozzafava is dropping out. And so it's anyone's guess where Scozzafava's supporters will go on election day.
And this is a recurring theory by many liberals, who believe that all of the remaining Republicans are the hardest of the diehards. Yet that's clearly false. Because the folks on the far ends of the political spectrum reject both major political parties, as they see them as being too compromising. In fact, it's odd to hear this falsehood repeated by people who are so far to the left that they reject Obama and the Democratic Party, yet don't realize that their counter-parts on the right have done the same to the Republican Party.
And that's a fairly odd mistake to make, seeing as how we're talking about an election in which the Republican Party candidate is dropping out because she's too moderate. And on the other side, where could all the moderate Republicans have gone? The reality is that there are moderate Republicans who now refuse to identify themselves as Republicans because the party is too radical for them, but they're still willing to vote for a moderate Republican. And how else could this make any sense? If only 25% of the population in this district was willing to vote Republican, none of this would be an issue as the Democrat would easily win.
And now the question remains whether these moderate Republicans will vote for a non-Republican conservative who drove out the moderate they supported, or the non-Republican moderate. It's not whether or not they're hardcore conservatives, as they're obviously not, but whether they hate Democrats so much that they'd rather vote for the extremist.
One of These Races Is Not Like the Other
And as an add-on of something I read after I wrote this: The AP has their typical false equivalency with an article Third party challenges in NJ, NY are warning sign. And while I figured they were talking about the Sazzafava-Hoffman challenge, I was wondering why the article was suggesting that Dems have a problem. But they're wrong, as usual.
While Hoffman's third-party challenge is knocking the Republican out of the race, the Dem problem is that a third-party candidate is hurting Governor Corzine's chances in New Jersey. But that's just the typical spoiler role that is often seen in elections, of an outside candidate syphoning votes away from one of the two parties. And that's not the same as in NY, where the Republican had to drop out of the race for being too moderate for her party.
Because the NY problem highlights a real flaw in the Republican strategy. Nixon used the "Southern Strategy" to ice the cake by adding social conservatives to the Republican coalition; thus giving him major victories. Reagan sealed the deal by placing a real emphasis on social conservatives, while also winning liberal and moderate Republicans. By the 90's, Republicans decided to go Full Southern, which worked in exactly one election (1994). And after that, Bush faced a backlash and was required to adopt "compassionate" conservativism, as Social Conservatism had offended too many people; and then they used 9/11 to barely win two elections which still avoided the Full Southern strategy of the 90's.
And now Frankenstein's monster has taken over the laboratory and is getting increasingly upset by all the open flames that offend him so much. Nixon and Reagan were able to give coded messages which went directly to conservative hearts, which is now impossible in the days of YouTube and Macaca. And here they are, with northern Republicans rejecting a moderate who was handpicked by the local party due to her ability to woo non-conservatives. But the monster hated that most of all.
As with progressives, conservatives would rather lose an election than allow an ideological "traitor" to win an election, and the icing that Nixon wanted for the party has now claimed the party as its own. There will be no Republicans who aren't conservative Republicans, and only the most conservative shall survive. Honestly, I can't think of a better situation for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
