Breaking News: Obama Gives Liberal Speeches All the Time

In my last post, I discussed how there really aren't any good options for getting a jobs or stimulus bill passed, because Republicans can still filibuster anything in the Senate and have complete control of the House.  Wish all you want, but it ain't gonna happen.  This isn't Obama's fault and anyone blaming him for this is living in a fantasy world of fairies and unicorns.

And as I also discussed, there's little point in even pretending to try to pass one to score political points, unless we've got some great strategy for making it work to our advantage.  Doing something just to do something is worse than doing nothing at all.  And that's generally the case in life, as you shouldn't do anything unless you know why you're doing it.

And as could be expected, a leftwing critic of Obama left a comment which ignored everything I wrote and pretended as if Obama has lots of great options he's choosing to ignore.  Here's the entire comment, and please note the lack of any clue as to what Obama should do:

Hell, you may even be right. But it doesn't matter. Unemployment is 9.1%, the economy is stagnating, the stimulus that he was able to get was underfunded and insufficient (though, of course, it was better than nothing) -- we have desperate need for more jobs, better infrastructure, a better energy policy and vast amount of public investment.

We have none of it.

I'm sure the strategy to ignore this and not upset the most-easily upset people in the world is savvy and utterly correct. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that he is a President that is presiding over a terrible economy, economic uncertainty and he keeps talking about the importance of getting the deficit under control.

Sure the Republicans are gargoyles, but the Democrats in Congress and in the White House are also doing jack shit and Americans are still suffering and no one really seems to care.

Ok, yes.  That's a good recap of the problem.  But where's the solution?  The problem is obvious.  The solution doesn't exist.  Yet the best this guy can do is to continue to blame Obama for not being able to pull miracles out of his butt.

Apparently, this guy lives in a fantasy world in which every problem has a solution.  Well sorry, but that's not always the case.  Sometimes, you're just screwed.  And if this guy has the secret solution, I would imagine he'd have explained it, rather than restating the same damn problems that everyone already knows about.  It's as if we're to imagine that we can solve problems merely by stating them.

And if I sound a bit disgruntled about that, it's because I am.  I understand why Republicans attack Obama, because he scares the shit out of them.  It's when liberals attack him that I'm left scratching my head and wondering about the sanity of people who agree with Obama on almost every issue.

How a Real Liberal Sounds

See if these remarks sound familiar:

The fact is, we understand what it takes to build a stronger economy. We know it’s going to require investing in research and technology that will lead to new ideas and new industries. We know it means building the infrastructure, the roads and bridges, and manufacturing the new products here in the United States of America that create good jobs. Above all, it requires training and educating our citizens to out-compete workers from other countries.

If you guessed that I was quoting the president, you'd have guessed correctly.  That was from a speech he gave at a Community College in North Virginia three days ago.

Needing jobs, infrastructure, and investment, huh. Where, oh where might I have heard someone else say we needed the same things?  Oh yeah, from my liberal commenter who insisted that Obama is ignoring these issues.  Oooh, that president!  Stealing this guy's best ideas two days before the guy said it!

Obama went on to say Congress needed to pass the "Workforce Investment Act," though I can't find anything on that; even on the Whitehouse website.  I get the impression that's something they're still working on.

Investing in a Better America

We saw the same thing when Obama talked to auto workers in Toledo last week to hype the auto bailout which helped prevent an economic disaster and saved thousands of jobs; in accordance with core liberal principles.

And in this one, you can see how someone cherry-picking Obama's speeches might be confused, as he begins with conservative rhetoric.  Yet the point is to take those arguments and twist them around to show why we need liberal policies.  Yes, he starts by talking about the deficit, but watch how he works it back to our side with full-throated liberalism (emphasis added):

These are tight fiscal times. You guys have all heard about the deficit and the debt, and that demands that we spend wisely, cut everywhere that we can. We’ve got to live within our means. Everybody’s got to do their part. Middle-class workers like you, though, shouldn’t be bearing all the burden. You work too hard for someone to ask you to pay more so that somebody who’s making millions or billions of dollars can pay less. That’s not right. (Applause.)

And even though we’re in tough times, there are still some things that we’ve got to keep on doing if we’re going to win the future. We can’t just sit back and stop. We got business we got to do. We got to make sure that our schools are educating our kids so that they can succeed. I was looking at all the gizmos and gadgets you got in this plant here -- it’s a lot more complicated working on a plant than it used to be. Kids have to know math and science.

We got to have a transportation and communications network that allows our businesses to compete. We used to have the best roads, the best bridges, the best airports. In a lot of places we don’t have that anymore. If you go to China, Beijing, they’ve got a fancier airport. You go to Europe, they got fancier trains, better roads. We can’t let our infrastructure just crumble and fall apart. We’re American. We’ve got to make that investment. (Applause.)

We’ve got to invest in innovation that will pave the way for future prosperity. We invented stuff that the world now uses and the world now makes. We’ve got to keep on inventing stuff and make sure it’s made right here in America. And that requires investments. (Applause.) That requires investments in basic research and basic science.

So these are all things that will help America out-innovate, out-educate, out-compete, out-hustle everybody else in the world. I want America to win the future, and I want our future to be big and optimistic, not small and fearful.

Now, show me the liberal who can disagree with this.  This sounds like the exact sort of thing liberals should want Obama to say...but better.

Obama's Strategy

Because this is the strategy I mentioned in my last post.  Republicans wanted to hit Obama with phony talk of fighting the deficit, believing he'd fight against them and make them look like fiscal heroes battling a Big Spender Liberal.

Instead, he stole their platform and turned it on its head by agreeing that the deficit is a problem, yet still insisting that we need to tax the rich and pump up infrastructure and other needed improvements.  And rather than arguing Big Spender v. Fiscal Conservatives, like Republicans wanted; Republicans are forced to explain why they want to cut education and our safety net while the rich get tax cuts.  These bozos went back to the playbook of the 80's and 90's, while Obama kept them clueless by using a 21st Century playbook.  Did he win?  Not yet.  But at least he's fighting and has a good chance of coming out ahead.

His liberal critics, on the other hand, demand that he refight all the old battles, walk into all the old traps, and are so clueless as to what his strategy is that they imagine he doesn't have one; as if Obama's some fool just guessing his way through life and lucking into winning situations.  Republicans have shown again and again how their rhetoric beats what these liberals want Obama to use, but insist that he can't possibly have a strategy because he's not using the playbook that FDR crafted in the 30's and was already looking haggard by the time LBJ used it in the 60's.

And even when I EXPLAIN the strategy to them, they insist that there is no strategy and Obama is ignoring our problems.  Why?  Because he's not using a strategy that the Republican playbook was specifically designed to destroy.  Oh, no!  Obama's not running into a buzzsaw!  What a traitor!  Meanwhile, Obama remains the most popular politician in America while staying true to liberalism, and his Republican foes see their political prospects dimming all the time.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong and maybe Obama's strategy is a blunder; but you at least have to explain why.  And if the best you can do is to insist that Obama doesn't have a strategy, then you obviously don't know what you're talking about.  And again, trying to pass legislation solely for the sake of passing legislation is worse than doing nothing at all; so if that's your advice to Obama, save it.

My Challenge to Leftwing Obama Critics

And what I quoted before wasn't just a one-time thing intended to impress a liberal audience.  He's saying this stuff to auto workers in Ohio, and community colleges in Virginia, and the British Parliament, and a Women's Leadership group in DC, and at a DNC Fundraiser. And he used consecutive Weekly Addresses in April and May to talk about Oil Market Fraud, Ending Oil Subsidies, Clean Energy, and Responsible Oil Production.  He consistently uses liberal rhetoric to support liberal policies in almost every speech he gives.  Whoever claims he's not using the Bully Pulpit to promote liberalism just isn't paying attention.

Please, find me the speech where Obama isn't talking about this stuff.  Find me the speech where Obama says that everything's ok and budget cuts are more important than infrastructure.  Because I'm reading through all his material and I'm not seeing it.  As I've highlighted before, you read his speeches and he sounds like a liberal.  Not just on a superficial level, but on the most fundamental deepdown level, Obama explains his liberal policies using liberal rhetoric; both in his prepared remarks and his impromptu answers.

Naturally, people can believe what they want, but anyone who believes that Obama uses rightwing rhetoric or is ignoring our problems simply don't know what they're talking about.  And again, I expect that from Republicans, as they've been delusional for a long time and Obama is really driving them bonkers.  But I fail to understand how a liberal could possibly hear an Obama speech and conclude that he's not saying the right things.

More likely than not, they're not even reading his speeches at all, and simply imagine he's not making them.  Why?  Because the progressives complaining about him only cherry-pick the negative stuff and never quote his speeches.

Actions Speak Louder

And so that just leaves us with his deeds, yet there's no credible evidence to suggest that Obama could have done much better than he did.  I'm sorry, but the president isn't omnipotent and even Bush's supposed success at strong-arming congress was vastly exaggerated; as he got almost nothing unpopular through Republican Congresses and his entire second-term was a lame-duck as Democrats continually stuffed him.

By comparison with Bush, Obama was a legislation machine in his first two years.  But of course, Obama's legislative accomplishments rival that of any modern president.

Could Obama have gotten us more?  Yeah, maybe.  I'm not about to suggest that his record was perfect.  But whose is?  Are we really to fault the man for being less than perfect?  But anyone using the premise that Obama definitely could have gotten more  is full of shit; if only because life doesn't involve certainties like that.  And any respectable review of the facts shows that Obama's biggest "betrayals" of liberalism were forced upon him by Congress; in accordance with our system of government.

Obama didn't give up on the public option, Congress did.  Obama doesn't want Gitmo open.  Congress does.  And you can call those excuses if you want, but it happens to be the truth.  Our system of government doesn't give Obama unlimited powers and that's generally considered a good thing.  Like it or not, if you want a president who strong-arms Congress into rubber-stamping his agenda against their will, that's a dictatorship.  And if you don't like that word, then you shouldn't try to force us into one.

Because no, a President Kucinich or President Grayson wouldn't have gotten a damn thing through the 2009-2010 Senate unless they cajoled a few moderate Republicans to support it; and that wouldn't have happened with insults and angry speeches.  And had they pushed for a trial against Bush and Cheney for torture or war crimes, the country would have blown up on them and they definitely wouldn't have gotten anything through Congress.  And they most definitely couldn't get a jobs bill through the current Congress.  That's simply impossible until after 2012.

The Reality of Politics

As I've said before, politics are real and if you believe that a president can pass legislation while ignoring the political implications of his actions, then you don't know what you're talking about.  Boldness is rarely rewarded in politics and if you don't play your cards right, you get what Clinton got in 1993, when he was not only under siege by Republicans, but by his own party.

Skittish Democrats are always looking for a chance to push against a Democratic President (eg, Clinton & Carter) and if you push them too hard, you'll lose them completely.  History shows that again and again, and there are no examples showing the contrary.  Republican Congressmen follow orders and Democratic Congressmen look for excuses to buck authority; and that's just the way it is.  And if your strategy is to break Republican obedience while strong-arming Democrats into obeying the president, then you haven't been paying attention.

Yeah, yeah.  I know.  That's not what you've heard from Obama's critics.  But those people don't know what they're talking about.  Sorry to say, but there are no heroes in the world, unicorns don't grow on trees, and the president isn't omnipotent.  We live in reality, and that means we take our liberal presidents as they come; not as we wish them to be.  And by that standard, Obama is a fantastic liberal president.

And as your reward for reading to the end (and yeah, I know you did), here's what an intelligent liberal president sounds like. Enjoy!

The Perils of Political Stimulus

Over at Washington Monthly, I'm reading comments about how Obama needs to learn that Republicans don't like him and should push for his agenda in spite of what they might say about him.  And like, come fricking on!  This was a silly argument in 2008 and after two and a half years in the Whitehouse, I'm pretty damn sure Obama's aware that Republicans are out to get him.  No, he can't say that publicly, but let's give the man some credit for not being a complete moron.

As a clue to you naifs out there, just because someone is nice to you doesn't mean they're your friend.  We don't all wear our emotions on our sleeves and Obama has a proven track record of sticking it to Republicans when it counts.  As always, he avoids needless battles, never burns a bridge he might need later, and keeps his ammo ready for when he needs it.  And that's why he's the most popular politician in America and we're not.

And as silly as it was in 2009 to act as if Obama could strong-arm Congress into doing his bidding without Republican support; since the mid-terms, that's utterly impossible.  Yes, yes, I know.  We were assured by progressives that a loss in November would bring a sea change of liberalism back to Washington; if only we punished Democrats for not being liberal enough.  But alas, those seeds have yet to come to fruition; assuming they ever do.

Fighting to Fight

And so, what exactly is Obama expected to do?  Disband Congress?  Enlarge Cheney's Fourth Branch of Government to include a Jobs & Stimulus division that can pass and execute legislation on its own?  We couldn't pass a bill in 2009-2010 without a few Senate Republicans joining us, and since the mid-terms, it's entirely impossible.

And sure, we could push for a symbolic jobs and stimulus bill to score points politically.  But you can't just rush into that sort of thing, as it's a political minefield with more peril than pearls, and if you end up with Obama being labeled as a Tax & Spend Failure by the general population, then we're worse off than how we started.  Just look at Republicans who rushed into supporting Paul Ryan's budget, just to see it drag them down like a lead weight.  As it turns out, expressing your convictions and pushing bold actions can be worse than doing nothing at all.

As a reminder, Obama pushed various jobs and stimulus bills which actually succeeded, both politically and in reality; yet Republicans weren't punished for opposing them.  In fact, they've used this stimulus to hit Obama repeatedly, and many people who benefited from the policies are so confused they actually think these policies made things worse.

And as much as people say a stimulus bill will shore up Obama's leftwing flank, history shows that his liberal critics dismissed his previous efforts entirely.  As they say, your critics will always attack you no matter what you do. 

Winning to Lose

So...if these real bills were political winners for Republicans and losers for us, why does anyone imagine that another round will help us politically?  Sure, they're good policy; but they won't pass Congress so they won't be policy.  We'd only be doing this for political purposes; yet the politics don't necessarily favor us and might work heavily against us.

We've got Republicans on the ropes thanks to Paul Ryan, while a fight over spending might be the thing they need to get back on the attack.  That's the fight Republicans wanted all along when they started emphasizing the deficit again, and Obama foiled them by agreeing that the deficit is a problem and then pivoting it into limited cuts, infrastructure improvements, and tax increases.

That battle is still being waged, but Obama would lose it completely if he tries to push for more spending right now; even if it's just symbolic.  That's the exact trap Republicans set for him, as their push for deficit reduction is useless politically unless Obama opposes them by increasing spending; and seeing as how Republicans have no real spending cuts in mind, it's obvious it was only intended as a political trap.  I see no benefit to have Obama walk into it now.

As it turns out, politics is extremely complicated.  Just as you can't get to the moon simply by aiming your spaceship towards it and firing the rockets, if you try to take a straight path to your political goals, you'll end up chasing it forever; if not defeated entirely.  And if the only reason we're trying to do something is just to do something; then we definitely shouldn't bother at all. 

As with everything in life, if you don't know why you're doing something, you probably shouldn't be doing it.  That goes doubly so in politics.

The Impotence of Words

Conservatives "know" that America is a conservative nation.  They can feel it in their bones and they hear it from other conservatives all the time, and as we all know, conservatives are the only people who know what they're talking about.  That's what makes them Real Americans, while the majority of us are schlubs and beggars screwing up their once great nation.

And yet...they're constantly perplexed as to why supposedly conservative America continues to support liberal policies, like Social Security, Medicare, and the whole host of Big Government intrusion that denies us our freedom to get screwed at work, poisoned at home, and ripped off in the marketplace.  Surely, a rightwing nation would abhor leftwing government, right?  Right?

And so they've convinced themselves that it's all about the words.  As if the phrase "Social Security" is some magical incantation, and that if they had discovered those magic words first and used them to describe a policy they liked, everyone would love that policy.  Meanwhile, they've somehow been saddled with bad words, like "voucher" and "privatize" that people don't like; and no matter how much they protest, people still use those words to describe what they're doing.

For Republicans, focus groups aren't to find out what people want.  They're to figure out what words people want to hear.  After all, they already "know" what people want, even if the people don't know they want it yet.

Crap By Any Other Name Is Still Crap

But despite Orwell's teachings, that's just not how words work and you CANNOT trick people into enjoying shit even if you call it a "rose."  Because it's not the words that people like or dislike, it's what the words mean.  Sure, proper phraseology can help open the door to getting people to accept or hate something, but eventually, their opinion will be based upon what they think of the actual thing; not the label used to describe it.

Because it's not the word "Medicare" people like, but the program.  If you called it Senior Death Program while explaining it was the same as Medicare, people will support the Senior Death Program and keep calling it Medicare.  Similarly, you can use the word "Medicare" to describe the sick joke of a voucher program conservatives are trying to screw us with, and people will know that it's not Medicare, even if they call it that.

Yet Republicans continue to struggle with their plans to destroy our liberal nation, and rather than admit that they're wrong, continue their search for new words to describe the same old crap they've been foisting upon us for decades.  And if conservatives were more explicit about their plans, no one would vote for them; not because of the words they use, but the policies they support.

Even as it is, they have to lie and distort to get anyone to vote for them.  That would be entirely unnecessary if we were the conservative nation they imagine we are.

Doing It in the John

And that's the way it is with language: It only has the power we grant to it.  We have all sorts of euphemisms to describe toilets, poop, and sex; yet the moment these words are associated with these dirty things, the words become dirty and gentlepeople search out in vain to find yet another euphemism to use when discussing such them. After all, even the word "toilet" was the fancy euphemism used to describe the place we shit.

And so words like ass, bitch, and retarded become off-limits, not because they're inherently offensive, but because they get tainted with usage.  That's why a racist can refer to a minority race using any word you like, including nonsensical invented words, and it'll still sound offensive.  Proper words like "Mexican" and "Black" sound like insults coming from the mouth of a bigot, so much so that non-bigots become cautious when using them, for fear of being mistaken for a bigot.  It's not the PC Police doing this, but the nature of language itself. 

If there isn't a word for something, people will invent one; which is how slang is created and why words change meanings so often.  That's what language is for, and it's easier to guide gushing water with your hands than try to force vocabulary on people that doesn't communicate what they're trying to say.  People like the Arizona shooter who insist that words can be manipulated into controlling our thoughts are simply wrong.  Yes, a good argument goes for towards selling a policy, but the specific terminology isn't going to sell crap, no matter how pretty it sounds.

New Study from Duh Magazine: Pot Affects Your Brain

I don't have a problem with pure research.  You know, the stuff they do that doesn't have a specific goal, but can be added to our general knowledge and hopefully be of great value some day.  In fact, I'm of the general opinion that the best answers are the ones you weren't even looking for, and I would definitely like to see more pure research done in this country.  Truth isn't always profitable, but that doesn't mean we should neglect it.

And so I'm always a little bothered whenever I read of a general research study and see commenters dogging the study; insisting that there are many "real" problems in this world we need to solve before tackling the theoretical stuff.  I mean, yeah, solving "real" problems is nice, but there are lots of worthy studies we should be doing even if we have other issues to worry about.

And then there are studies like this one:

Chronic Pot Smoking Affects Brain Chemistry, Scans Show

And first off, any study involving research on "chronic" pot smokers is bound to be a doozy; like one I covered before, which warned of the dangers of pot-smoking based upon people who said they smoked between 75 to 350 joints a week.  And yeah, that's typical usage...if you're the prop man for a Cheech & Chong movie.  I mean jesus, smoking fifty joints in a week would be quite high; forget about fifty every day.

Novel Treatment for Cannabis Abuse: Stop Smoking Cannabis

But this new study is possibly worse, as it sounds scary, until you read the article.  Basically, they scanned the brains of 30 people who smoke pot every day and found that over a month's time their cannabinoid CB1 receptors decreased by 20% compared with people who don't smoke at all.  And after they quit smoking for a month, they got better.  That's it.  That's the whole story.  Marijuana affects your brain, and when you quit using it, you get better.  That's not my take on it, that's what the researchers claim.

Here's the money quote, from the second to the last paragraph:

"This information may prove critical for the development of novel treatments for cannabis abuse. Furthermore, this research shows that the decreased receptors in people who abuse cannabis return to normal when they stop smoking the drug," Hirvonen added.

And what? I mean, I had assumed from the headline and most of the article that they were trying to warn us of permanent damage.  But no.  Temporary damage, even to people who smoke every day for a month, and then you go back to normal.  Oooh, scary.

And seriously, who's to say this temporary damage is a bad thing?  Permanently feeling stupid, crazy, or wacko is a bad thing.  Temporarily, can be a learning experience.  Because sometimes it's a good idea to be a little stupid.  To see things how they aren't necessarily.  To experience something out of the norm and see things from a perspective you wouldn't otherwise have experienced.  Just as long as it's not permanent, what's the problem?

And really, my headline got it just about right.  Because we know that pot affects your brain.  I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  And again, as long as you're not permanently damaging yourself, like the way people do when they drink too much or smoke cigarettes or over eat, what's the problem?  I mean, you do heroin once or twice and you're screwed for life.  But apparently, the "cure" for cannabis abuse is to stop smoking cannabis.  Thanks for the tip, Dr. Hirvonen.  I could never have figured that one out on my own.

And for as much as they're trying to present this story as being a warning to pot smokers, it seems obvious that the correct message is: It's ok to smoke pot, just don't make a habit of it.  And that's the sort of advice people really need to hear.  Just as it is with everything else in life, it's all about moderation.  No one ever died from smoking too much pot, but that doesn't mean you should live that way.

Obama to Steal Tea Party Thoughts; Comes Up Empty

Here's a scary, scary video about how the Department of Homeland Security is secretly working to create Thought Crime Detection technology, which they try to flim-flam us about by covering the whole thing on Fox News.  Because if there's one way to hide a government secret, it's to have the most watched news network in America do a story on it..



And the thing is, what they're working on is kinda cool, particularly if it could also be used in hospitals; to give people instant physicals.  But there's nothing really scary about it, as it's really no different than what security guards and cops do anyway. The only difference is that instead of solely relying on our observations and instincts, we'd also be using technology to help us do it better. If anything, it would improve detection, as it'd make it more objective and reliable.

But to people who fear government, this can only mean one thing: The government is out to get us.  After all, everything means the government is out to get us.  You can have a story about police officers giving presents to poor children at Christmastime and see it warp into something involving child armies, welfare orphanages, and fixed elections.  You'd be a fool to doubt it.

For them, it's not a question of if the government's going to enslave us; but when; and that answer is invariably, soon or sooner.  And that's exactly what these guys imagine they want.  Life is boring and complicated.  Much easier to just grab a gun and take aim.  They have no doubts that this will all work out for them in the end.

Hitler Obama and the Serpent Jews

And if you want a good laugh, go to the YouTube link and read the crazy comments.

Like these:

"they can go too hell they are the bad people test it on there selves. can they detect how much gas i got in my butt before i blow it ouit on them"

"ITS REALLY NAZI GERMANY !!! Where the fuck is HILTER when u need him ? No wait hes here Barry Soetoro aka OBAMA"

"satan always wanted to be as The Most High; now he's going for another power grab.But he will not hold on to it that long..

This is what happens when you let a bunch of European Khazarian Ashkenazim Jew religion converts steal the holy land in 1948; to pretend be the lost 12 chosen tribes of beta Ysrael.. They were once known as serpent people; now are"politically" considered holy people..Therefore let nothing surprise you..

This is all just protocols of zion(synagogue of satan)"

"u have bush to thank, war on terror, " either your with us, or with the terrorists" and still, americans stand idle letting now obama get away with anything. problem is tho, what happens in usa, happens in the rest of the western world. spreads like cancer. fucken dictators. kill em all, let God sort em out"

When all else fails, blame the Zionists and the blacks.  And no, I didn't cherrypick those or alter them in away way.  Those were the first four responses I saw in the comments section.  And there are lots of comments like those.  My favorite of these four was the guy who called Obama "Barry Soetoro."  Look, we KNOW what his name is.  It's Barack Hussein Obama II  And there is NOTHING to suggest that that's not his real name.

So why on earth do these people insist upon implying that Barack Obama is REALLY Barry Soetoro?  That can't possibly make any sense, unless we're to imagine that his parents gave him the last name of his future step-father, rather than his own father's name.  That's ridiculous.  And seriously, what the hell difference could it possibly make?  As if the name "Barack Obama" is sooooo much better for taking over the world than "Barry Soetoro."

So we've got a section of our government engaging in a massive cover-up of Obama's real last name; including a fake birth certificate, fake birth announcements, and fake entire lifestory for reasons that don't even make sense to the idiots making these claims.  But to these whackjobs, this is all just more proof that Obama isn't the nice guy he seems to be to everyone who's ever seen him.

After all, why would he go through all the trouble of faking his birth certificate, birth announcement, and life story, while defending it in court; unless it was lying?  To think otherwise would imply that the most obvious explanation is the right one.  Apparently, it's much easier to believe in nonsensical conspiracies than acknowledge the obvious.

Up Next: The Dream Police

And the whole idea that this could be a "Thought Crime Detection" system is ludicrous.  I suspect that the real problem was Fox News' references to Minority Report, which set the seeds of fear into the hearts of these anti-government fear-mongers.  Because this system CAN'T predict what you're thinking or what you're going to do.  That's impossible.  This thing is reading your heart rate and eye movements, not scanning your brain for pictures of porn.  Jesus christ, it's people like this who get eaten by bears.

Besides, we don't use metal detectors to decide who to arrest either. You get arrested if they find evidence you're doing something wrong. But we've all been flagged by metal detectors, and sometimes searched, and we didn't go to jail for it. It'd be the same thing with these nervous detectors. Yet the commenters there were acting as if this made Obama the next Hitler; as if Hitler's big crime was trying to monitor his people; rather than, say...starting a world war while exterminating millions of people.  Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I fail to see how these are equivalents.

And it's as if we're to imagine Obama's really behind all this, plotting the whole thing from the Oval Office.

Obama: So, how are our thought crime detection booths coming along? 

Biden: They're coming along great, O. Just like you thought.  I tried it out on Ayers today and knew exactly what he was thinking.  It was cool beans.

Obama: Excellent, excellent. I really can't wait to start using them to find all the Real Americans so we can lock them up in our FEMA Concentration Camps and re-educate them, just like Glenn Beck said we would.

Biden: Sure is a good thing nobody listened to him.

Obama: Tell me about it.

Because in reality, Obama doesn't know anything about this. This is a research project within DHS and isn't the sort of thing Obama is pushing.. Yet these people seem to imagine Obama as some super-villain, as if he has nearly the time for such silly activities. It's much more comforting to imagine that someone really is in charge of everything, rather than admit that we're all just making it up as we go along. Even our presidents.

The Republican Pander

I recently made the mistake of engaging in debate with a "friend" on Facebook, after seeing his wall post of an interview with former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, writing:

I never thought I'd be saying anything like this, but it seems like the most pro-science candidate among the potential ones for the 2012 presidency is a republican!

And I thought that was a bit odd, as I couldn't see how any Republican could be more pro-science than Obama.  But apparently, he didn't include Obama in that.  In fact, he was basically only including Republicans; which means that he was expressing his surprise that the most pro-science Republican was a Republican.

I wrote a comment slightly teasing him about that, which quickly devolved into a very embarrassing debate in which the guy kept burying himself while using big words that didn't really mean anything.  But his point wasn't to express surprise that a Republican was the most pro-science, but rather, to show a little support for a pro-science Republican, in hopes that it might somehow encourage other Republicans to be pro-science; which would in turn make Obama want to be more pro-science.

And I'm sorry, but that's simply delusional thinking.  There is NOTHING that will make a Republican be pro-science.  Yeah, when being interviewed by a scientist, they might pay it lip service.  But when every Republican is forced to pretend to not understand evolution and insists that we can't afford education because the rich shouldn't pay more taxes...there is no pro-science to be had.

And there's nothing that can change that, at least not in the next ten years.  The Republican Party has lost so many moderates and realists that the loony fringe has taken over; and that means that if you want to win in the Republican Party, you have to appease that fringe.  It's a race to the bottom and no Republican is immune to it.

Lugar Sells Out

And I was thinking about this when reading that Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Panderville) has decided to throw his support to the Fair Tax; apparently in an attempt to show Republicans that he's crazy enough to deserve their support.  Sure, he's got a longtime record as a true conservative, but his Crazy Cred is fairly low, so he's suddenly finding the need to bolster it with talk of radical tax schemes that any serious person should laugh at.

And what's saddest about the Fair Tax sham is how its own supporters can't even agree as to what it does.  Two-thirds of the time, they'll insist that it's a much better way to raise revenues...while the rest of the time they're admitting that they support it because it will greatly cut government spending, which is a key goal of theirs.  Two-thirds of the time they'll insist that it'll finally make the rich pay more taxes...while the rest of the time they're admitting that it's about getting the poor to pay their fair share and remove the burden from the rich.

And really, I just wish we could get these two sides to argue amongst themselves, to finally hash out what it is they think this is going to do.  Because the third that's being honest are saying the EXACT SAME STUFF the liberals are, yet when the liberals say it, we get attacked.  If a liberal correctly states that the Fair Tax rate would have to be extremely high to be revenue neutral, or mention how it'll mean the rich pay less taxes, we're attacked for it.

We'll be told that this is all a conspiracy by elitist economists and their wealthy paymasters to keep us down.  But then on the very same message board, you'll hear about how great it'll be to use this to cut spending and finally let the poor pay their fair share, while showing everyone how much they're truly paying in taxes...which the rich pay far more of.

Seriously, here's a messageboard I happened to see that crap on, and never once did they think to argue amongst themselves.  Both sides were making mutually exclusive arguments, and they didn't even seem to notice.  Because of course, what all these people REALLY want is for their personal taxes to go down.  They've convinced themselves that they're getting screwed by the IRS, and see the Fair Tax as a way of sticking it back at them; regardless of whether they understand what this will really do to them.

Argumentem ad Idiotem

I think my two favorite comments are by guys who dispute the claim by Congress' Joint Committee of Taxation that a revenue-neutral Fair Tax might have to be 57%, by essentially arguing "Come on!"

Here they are:

We have a very hard time estimating the impact on tax revenue with a percentage change in the current system; how can we pretend to know the revenue-neutral level of a consumption tax? You have to be pretty arrogant to come out with 57%. It just shows that we'll be analyzing this for the next 100 years

Yes, how arrogant of Congress' Joint Committee of Taxation to come up with that number.  This guy geniuenly seems to be arguing that because it's too complex for us to figure out what the proper rate should be, that we should just go ahead and do it.  I mean, how dare we be so arrogant that we attempt to understand what we're doing before we do it?

And then there's this genius:

Some would have us believe that the tax would have to be 57% or higher to be revenue neutral. Perhaps 145%!!! 100% of our income would have to go to paying this tax leaving us nothing to buy food with. We would all starve!

Or just maybe if it is revenue neutral, it will be revenue neutral. And it can easily be adjusted up or down to make it revenue neutral. Good Lord, people, that is a simple, simple issue to fix. The only question is its incidence.

Somehow, for as much huff and puff this guy gives, he kinda failed to make any point at all.  It's like he doesn't even understand what revenue neutral means. He goes on to gripe that economists are "rich kids and have no direct knowledge of anyone who actually works for a living."

Because yes, the best way to understand how to structure our tax code is to know people who work for a living.  That's it.  You can study for years and years and crunch all kinds of silly numbers with the other rich kids, but unless you know a mechanic, you'll be too elitist to know that a 30% national sales tax is enough to raise as much money as all our current Federal Taxes combined; including payroll taxes.

I mean, cuz hey, if the initial 30% rate isn't neutral, we'll just adjust it up and down until it IS enough.  Surely, the rate won't be so arrogant as to be 57% or 100%; otherwise, we'd starve.  And we all know why that wouldn't happen, so it doesn't even need to be said.

As was to be expected, the people who support lamebrained tax xchemes are, in fact, lamebrained.  And somehow, the vast majority of these people are conservatives.

Anti-Corporate Anarchist Capitalists Part III: Their Lying Eyes

In my previous post, I discussed the Grand Narrative that anarcho capitalists use to justify their claims that our nation is heading towards a full-on Police State, based upon a few isolated incidents of police abuse and government intrusion they've cherrypicked to make those claims.  But as I found from the particular anarcho capitalist I was dealing with, even the cherrypicked facts ain't what they're hyped to be.

Because it wasn't just that he lacked enough proof to justify the Grand Narrative he was making, but that the scant bits of evidence he provided to me were either meaningless, or more often, actually refuted the claims he was making.  While he considered himself the ultimate skeptic because he didn't believe anything the government or media said, he'd accept entirely ridiculous claims that were refuted by his own evidence; rather than trust his lying eyes.

Ironically, all of his actual news sources were from the mainstream media.  So he refused to believe anything the media said...unless he thought it confirmed his beliefs; in which case they were entirely reliable.  But I guess he shouldn't have been so trusting, as they didn't say what he thought they said.

Geraldo Rivera, Trustworthy Liar

For example, his "proof" that our military was providing security to the Taliban so that they could grow opium for us was a Fox News story from Geraldo Rivera, in which Geraldo "exposed" how our military was tolerating poppy farmers in one region of Afghanistan so they wouldn't hate us and work with the Taliban.  So his link told the opposite story of the one he thought it said, and relied upon Geraldo and Fox News as proof of this ridiculous claim.

And sure, maybe Geraldo was lying about that.  I can see that being the case.  Yet, this guy provided no evidence that Geraldo was lying, and the little research I've done of other people making this claim also have no evidence suggesting it's a lie.  It's all about assuming it's a lie, because that's the only way this story is important to them.  While the only evidence they have refutes their point.

So they'll use Fox News as their evidence, but only to the point that it undermines them.  After that, mere assertions and guesses are enough; with no good explanation on why Fox would have reported this story in the first place if it was evidence of evil government practices.

News Flash: Don’t Point Guns at Cops

My debate with this guy started after he posted a YouTube video to his Facebook profile entitled POLICE BRUTALITY - Granny Shot 7 TIMES By Cops For Refusing To Answer Census. And skeptic that I am, I had my doubts about this, so I watched the video which I've posted below.



Now, if you watched the video, you’ll know one thing: The grandmother did NOT get killed for refusing to answer the census. Rather, she got killed because she pointed a shotgun at police and refused to put it down.

And nothing in the video disputed that account. While her son was there insisting that she shouldn’t have been shot, it was based upon the idea that she was a nice grandmother and the police should have known that she was a nice grandmother and wouldn’t have used the gun she was holding. But even HE didn’t dispute that she had a shotgun.

And the whole story was that a census worker went to a house, the guy at the door refused to answer questions and pointed a gun at the census worker. The worker reported it to the police, who showed up and arrested the guy for assault; which is what happens when you point guns at innocent people.

While they were taking him away, his mom came out with a shotgun and wouldn’t put it down after police told her to; so the police shot and killed her. That’s it. That’s the story. And my anarchist capitalist opponent presented nothing to contradict that.  Not even a link to another account of the story.  All he knew was what I presented to you, which for him was confirmation that the government is intrusive and needs to be stopped.

BTW, this news story got it wrong and the census worker did not arrive at the house after dark.  Rather, she arrived at 7:45 PM, which was twenty minutes before sunset, and it took two hours for the police to arrive; which is when the arrest and shooting happened.  And yes, it was a female census worker that this man was so intimidated by that he needed a gun to protect himself from her intrusive questions.

Ooooh, those scary scary census forms.  Is it any wonder we all live in fear?

It Was The Guns, Stupid

Now, maybe the police DIDN’T have to kill her. Maybe this WAS police abuse. I don’t know, I wasn’t there and I’m not attempting to defend the police actions; because I don't know what happened.

But in no case did this have anything to do with the census at all; except that it was a census worker who happened to have gone to this jackass’s door. The REAL problem here wasn’t the census or government intrusion; it was guns; duh! Had the guy and grandma not had guns, nobody would have been hurt at all. And if you point guns at innocent people, you should expect bad things to happen to you.

And of course, the other issue is that the jackass with the gun had nothing to fear about the census at all. Were it not for anti-government fear-mongers, this guy would have answered the census when it was mailed to him and avoided the whole situation.  As is usually the case, the only reason you need to fear the government shooting you down is because you acted in a way that made them have to shoot you down. It’s like a dog that purposefully got rabies because he was told that rabid dogs get shot, and he wanted to protect himself by getting rabies.

And when I pointed out to the guy that this video had nothing to do with the census, and that the grandmother died because she pointed a shotgun at police; he refused to listen; though he had no evidence to the contrary. The best he could do was to insist that citizens have a right to point their guns at whoever they want, and the government doesn’t have any right to stop them.

Seriously, that was it. I fully showed how this story didn’t fit his narrative of intrusive government at all, but rather than admit that he was wrong, the best he could do was to make a nonsensical point that would embarrass a third grader. Really? You have the right to point your guns at innocent people?? I don’t think so.

And the scariest part is how he could not only watch that clip, but actually felt confident enough about it to post it on his Facebook page, without having understood at all what he was watching. The person who posted the clip insisted that it was about a grandmother getting killed for not answering the census, and this bozo was too stupid to use his own brain to know otherwise.

And it was like that again and again with him.  He kept sending me stories proving how evil the government is and, having known little or nothing about the story beforehand, I used his own source material to refute the very point he was making.  And after each time, I kept asking him how much longer he'd keep trusting the people who had fed him this material, and rather than finally understand that he had been suckered; he'd just post another story from the same people who had mislead him before.

In my next post, I'll cover a few more of these stories.  Or maybe not.  I'm kind of losing steam on this, and since I no longer have access to those posts, I have to do it all from memory.  So I don't know.  We'll see.

Anti-Corporate Anarchist Capitalists Part II: The Grand Narrative

In my last post, I discussed the ideas of anarcho capitalists who want government out of the way so that powerful people can screw them over, under the delusion that governments are what powerful people use to exert their power; and not, say, the power itself. As if everyone is equally powerful by nature and people can’t exert power without government intervention.  Or that inequity doesn't occur when governments aren't around to enforce it.

And these anarchy capitalists are perpetuating a myth that things are going to get considerably worse soon, based upon the claim that there are a growing number of incidents showing that the government is intruding in our lives, and these incidents tie together for a Grand Narrative which shows that we’re being pushed into a police state and the powerful will soon enslave us.

As if the powerful somehow have more to gain by enslaving us outright, rather than continuing the status quo in which we work for them for peanuts.  Apparently, the Powerful are stupid enough to believe they can catch more flies with brute force than with honey; and they're going to risk their multi-million dollar yearly incomes purely for the sake of gaining more control over our lives.  This somehow makes perfect sense to some people.

Getting Better All the Time

And let me address the second part of that first: There IS no grand narrative tying events together to prove that we’re moving towards police state. Because yes, you can find incidents of police brutality, unnecessary government intrusion, and all that sort of thing. But this isn’t anything new. If anything, we have far more freedom than in any previous period in American history.

Try telling the hippies who had their heads beat in because they didn't want to be forced to kill Vietnamese that things are worse now. Or the students who got killed at Kent State or the people who got blacklisted in the 50’s or all the people J Edgar Hoover wiretapped.  If they can reply to your claims, it would be to laugh in your face.

And you look at Robber Barons who used strike breakers to destroy unions, or the whole area of slavery and Jim Crow laws.  And of course, who looks upon the Wild West as a period of peace and prosperity?  I know it wasn't always the shoot 'em up that the entertainment industry has made it seem to be, but all the same, that's because they still had laws and lawmen to enforce them.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of history will laugh at the claims that things are getting worse.  That's why the anarchist capitalists never put their claims into historical perspective, as their entire argument is exposed as fraud.  It's hard to say that things are getting worse if you understand how things used to be.  But as I noted last time, the claims these people make are rooted in rhetoric stemming from a period in which things really were worse.  Things have gotten better, but the rhetoric's still the same.

And as I noted in my last post, these bozos imagine they're exposing the worst government abuses ever, yet fail to acknowledge how our supposedly all-powerful government isn't doing a damn thing to stop them.  In China, they lock up bloggers who attack the government.  Here, we give them free rein to say any damn thing they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone or telling people to hurt anyone.  There really are oppressive governments in this world and they're absolutely nothing like ours.

Oh, no!  The government wants to give my elderly mother good healthcare!  Help!  Help!

Connecting the Dots

But beyond that, it’s not enough to find SOME data points to connect together for your Grand Narrative, unless you can connect ALL of the dots. And if your connect-the-dots narrative requires you to avoid a significant number of data points in order to form your picture, then you haven’t found the right picture. I mean, every connect-the-dots can look like Abraham Lincoln, if you skip lots of dots while adding your own. That doesn’t mean that every one is Abraham Lincoln.

And it’s only a narrow strip of YouTube videos and news stories that they focus on that tells this story, while the vast majority of news stories and videos tell an entirely different story. New York City alone has over 40,000 police officers, so your ability to find one hundred abusive cops from across the nation on YouTube is hardly evidence that the police are regularly beating us down and installing a police state.  If there's a pattern, I expect to see a pattern, god dammit; not a few isolated incidents.

And of course, the reason you're seeing more of these videos now is because, duh, we have more video cameras and we didn't use to have YouTube.  We didn't use to have cameras in every cop car and camera-phones in every pocket.  It's not that police abuse is getting worse, it's just that you're noticing it more now.  And that's the case with anyone who claims that things are getting worse.  Life isn't getting worse.  You just weren't paying attention before.

As they say, data is NOT the plural of anecdote.  Just because you can develop a storyline to connect facts together doesn't mean you've got the real story.  You've got to be able to connect ALL the dots, not just the ones you choose to look at.


This post has been continued here:
Anti-Corporate Anarchist Capitalists Part III: Their Lying Eyes

Attack of the Anti-Corporate Anarchist Capitalists

For the past few days over on Facebook, I’ve been engaging in a “debate” with an anarchist capitalist who believes that the government is corrupt and life would be so much better if they got out of the way and let us do our own thing.

But the thing is, that ISN'T what he believes. Because the reason he's anti-government is because he's anti-corporation and believes that corporations are using the government to control us. So his problem isn't with government, per se; but rather that it allows powerful people to keep power. And that's because he’s been lied to about what the government actually does, and fails to understand how his system would only make things worse for him.

In his mind, humans have the right to do anything they want and the government doesn’t have the right to stop them. But those are two conflicting ideas. Because yes, this guy IS allowed to do whatever he wants…but so are we. He’s allowed to evade his taxes and we’re allowed to punish him for it. He’s allowed to murder and rape people, and we’re allowed to punish him for it.  Freedom is a two-way street. If he has the right to do anything, so do we.

And we decided to use our freedom by forming governments and writing laws that benefit society and prevent us from all killing each other, as well as preventing the powerful from having complete control over us. Somehow, these people fail to grasp that, as much as they’re being victimized, it’s because the government doesn’t do a better job of ending the very system these people imagine they want.

If you hate inequity and don't like what corporations are doing, then better government is the solution; not the problem.

Warlords Rule!

And I kept trying to explain that to the guy. If we got government out of the way, the powerful would hire private armies and do whatever they wanted.

How do I know that? Because that’s what ALWAYS happens and it’d be ridiculous to assume it WON’T always happen. Just look at Afghanistan or Somalia or Iraq after Saddam fell or anywhere else without a real government. Even Mexico these days. Whenever the government can’t protect people under a common set of rules, warlords and druglords take over and things are a lot worse off for everyone.

Because our government isn’t what the powerful use to keep us down. It’s what protects us from the powerful. And as much as there are totalitarian dictatorships where the leader really CAN do whatever they want, that’s all more proof that I’m right. Because they’re just warlords with a firmer grasp on the reins of power; which they’re allowed to do in an anarchist system, because, duh, we’re allowed to do anything we want in an anarchist system. And that means that the powerful get to keep their power.

They always try to deny this, by insisting that "anarchy" doesn't mean "free-for-all," and I agree.  Anarchy DOESN'T mean that people get to do whatever they want.  It means the POWERFUL get to do what they want.  And so whoever has the most money, guns, and friends is the one who wins.

And that’s the general rule for anarchist dreamers: If you can’t explain how you’d prevent powerful people from becoming more powerful, then your ideas are full of shit and you need to go back to the drawing board.  Because we’ve HAD anarchy, and democracy is the proven solution to it. It’s not perfect, but it’s far superior to the alternative.

Demanding What They Already Have

And sure, maybe under a perfect anarchist system, we’ll ensure that people can’t become warlords by forming private groups that enforce the anarchy to ensure that no one can have power over anyone else. And we’ll create rules by which to enforce these policies while choosing citizens to lead these groups and decide best how to write these rules and, unless you’re stupid, you’ll already realize that I’m now describing government and it’s the system we already have.

And if these guys stopped fantasizing about the 19th Century populist rhetoric they've been repeating, they'd already know this.  I mean, when a black man from a broken home can become president, it's time to put down the "Ruling Class is Keeping Us Down" pamphlet and realize that the system isn't rigged and anyone can become president.  That goes for white men from broken homes, too.  In fact, except for presidents named Bush, it's been a long time since we had a president that's come from the "ruling class."  Yet this myth persists, as if only the sons of the elite can succeed in our political system.  Nixon would have laughed ruefully at that idea; if only because Nixon's laugh was always rueful.

And all that noise about the government being used to keep us down is as outdated as their demands to go back to the policies we had when the government was being used to keep us down; ie, no labor laws, environmental protection, standards of safety, or any of the other good stuff we now have to protect us from the powerful.  Stuff that they somehow imagine is keeping them down, completely unaware of how much good it's doing them.

Ironically, they're trying to turn back the clock to a period in which their rhetoric made sense, rather than understand that we already won and we'd keep winning if they'd shut up and help us improve government even more.  And the system they're demanding is the one we already have, and they'd know that, if only they weren't so busy ranting about how scary the government is and acting like the victims they've made themselves into.


This post has been continued here:
Anti-Corporate Anarchist Capitalists Part II: The Grand Narrative

I also put additional info about the guy as a comment of this post.

Boldness Loses Again

I'd like to have more to say about this soon, but I just wanted to call attention to the results in last night's special election in New York, in which Republican overreach got trounced yet again.

But one lesson shouldn't be lost here: Boldness loses elections.  I've heard endlessly from folks on both ends of the political spectrum about how much voters loooooove bold policies and will follow anyone who seems strong and courageous, while reality keeps proving that those who stick their necks out lose their heads.  And the more you stick it out, the more of it you lose.

That's obvious to anyone with reliable political instincts, but to people who abhor politics and imagine that it gets in the way of their otherwise great democracy, it's meekness that gets punished.  And it should be noted that liberal polices really are more popular than conservative ones, yet you still have to sell your policy while obeying the archaic rules of politics.  And if the policy you're selling is one that voters refuse to support, even if it's the right policy or the policy they truly want or need, you're going to lose elections.

And that's as it should be.  Democracy isn't a limited-term dictatorship and doesn't give you permission to do whatever the hell you want.  And that means that if a majority of the country says they don't want a public option or higher taxes for the middleclass, you'll be a fool by trying to force them to take their medicine against their will.  Because you won't just lose the election, but set yourself back for years and undermine your cause directly.

Being forced to follow political rules and listen to polls isn't a flaw with democracy; it's a key feature.

Childlike Delusions of a Smug Political Preacher

I wanted to follow-up on my previous post about hate-filled "preacher" Bradlee Dean, and his political prayer to Minnesota legislators, as Dean has now addressed this "prayer" on his radio show by saying that he wasn't attacking Obama.

Rather, he was addressing something Obama has done while insisting that our country has gone off the rails and is doomed to fail unless we embrace conservativism; yet because he didn't address Obama by name, it doesn't count as an attack on Obama, though he's still attacking Obama for the same reason.

As TPM reports:

At one point, a caller from Minneapolis challenged Dean to admit he was, in fact, referring to Obama. "That's splitting hairs," Dean responded.

"I didn't say we weren't a Christian nation, Obama did," Dean said. "If you want to point the finger at someone denying Christianity in our country, you might want to talk to Obama about it, because I didn't say it."

Of course.  It's our lying eyes that are the problem, and if we don't like the attack he gave on Obama, then we need to attack Obama for it.

Code Words for Dummies

And that's one of the funniest things about these bozos: They're so stupid that they somehow imagine we can't read between the lines when they're using their barely hidden code language to say outrageous things. It's like someone insulting us in Pig Latin, unaware that Pig Latin isn't complicated and we understood every word they said.  And so they act indignant that we called them out for what they said, because they refuse to believe we could possibly have comprehended what they did.

Racists do that all the time, and truly imagine we're wrong for calling them racist because we couldn't possibly have decoded their secret racist attacks.  So when they insist that they're "color blind" and don't notice race, and use that to justify attacks on people who are discriminated against; we're wrong for calling them racist and must be racist ourselves.  After all, they're "color blind," they insist.  And their attacks on black people they don't know are based entirely upon the unknown black person's ignorant laziness, and not the color of their skin.  I mean hey, some of their friends are black...not that they noticed or anything.

Similarly, their attacks on Mexicans are because they're lazy parasites stealing our jobs and getting free handouts which aren't available to us hardworking Americans.  Again, not that they noticed the color of the people doing this, but we all know what they look like and they're not like us.  All hail the mighty code words!

It's like a child insisting he didn't eat the missing pie, unaware that his face is covered with pie filling.  Sadly, some people are simply so stupid that they can't possibly fathom how much dumber they are than everyone else; and imagine they've gotten away with something even whilst we attack them for what they did.  As it turns out, cleverness isn't for everyone.

I Believe in One Party, the Republicans Almighty

Conservatives are simply tooooo funny.  When they're in the minority, they bitch and moan about being oppressed victims, and you're inundated with references to Big Brother, concentration camps, and totalitarianism.  Yet the moment you give them a little bit of power, they turn all crazy on you and over-reach so far that you're amazed their feet are still touching the ground while their egos soar into the heavens.  But as it turns out, hubris is a bitch and these fools do all the things they claimed they wouldn't do before the election, and then act surprised when they find themselves as "oppressed" minorities, yet again.

And so it was when Minnesota Republicans made the blunder of inviting hate-filled "preacher" Bradlee Dean to give the morning prayer.  And while I do think some of the reactions to it were a bit overstated, as it wasn't nearly as hate-filled as the standard rants you can read at any given conservative blog.  But still, as far as legislative prayers go, particularly in a moderate place like Minnesota, this one was a doozy.

In case you missed it, here it is.  And note, his seething undertones only make it clear how displeased he is that he has to be this moderate.  I'd hate to hear the prayer he wanted to give.

And here's the thing: For as much as I'm sorta against the idea of daily prayers before legislative sessions, as I fail to see why the government is endorsing religion like this; this didn't offend me for that reason at all.

Because the thing is, that wasn't a particularly religious speech.  In fact, for as much as he kept referencing the Father God repeatedly, that had to be one of the least religious prayers I've ever heard.  I guess it varies by denomination, but as someone raised Catholic and forced to recite the Rosary on occasion, that really wasn't much of a prayer at all.

No, without a doubt, that was a political speech; through and through.  Sure, it was peppered with references to God and Jesus, but it was all about how liberals are ruining the country because they're not following the orders of the Founding Fathers, and how Obama is a big problem.  His "preface" to the prayer was really the meat of the thing, and then he blathered something about soldiers sacrificing themselves for America, before getting to his final point: That Obama wasn't Christian and was ruining America because he wasn't a conservative.

And for as underplayed as the whole thing was, it was the seething rage, underscored by his alcohol-ravaged voice that really set the tone.  And jesus, doesn't the man own a suit?  I wouldn't be seen anywhere in that outfit, let alone televised in front of important people.  I'm definitely of the opinion that a nice gray suit would have lessened the impact of his low-key rant.

And what's so ridiculous about these people is that they really can't seem to tell the difference between religion and politics.  It's all one to them, and anyone who disagrees with their politics must assuredly be on the wrong side of their god.  After all, he wasn't telling us that liberals were wrong for ignoring God, but for ignoring the Founding Fathers.  And while I'm sure he'd argue that the Founding Fathers were following God's commands, you'd think he would have just said that directly; rather than referencing a secular document like the Constitution.

In the future, I recommend to the Minnesota legislature that they not only insist that their daily prayer be non-denominational, but also non-partisan.  And to that, I prayer to the Lord God Darwin Almighty.  Amen.


Update: Here's a follow-up to this post, in which Hate Preacher Bradlee Dean is seen trying to deny the very thing he did.

Soft Wieners, Acne, & Angst: How Greed Can Be Good

I'd like to start this post with the caveat that I'm not Mr. Laissez Faire and completely and fully understand how greed can be bad.  There are no hidden messages of "Love the Rich" intended here and I haven't been secretly reading Ayn Rand on the sly (my supply of Hefty Barf Bags would run out before finishing the first chapter, I'm sure).  If anything, I find money to be a huge inconvenience and would prefer a world that didn't require it to get shit done.

Thus said, money gets shit done.  I'm sorry, that's just a fact.  Money is a materialized form of power, and if the rich were satisfied with their wealth and decided to live happily on what they've got, we'd all be a lot worse off than we are.  Trust me, I'm a ridiculously gifted person, yet I haven't produced jackshit.  Why?  Because I'm already satisfied with my life and don't really care about money.  It's the people with issues who get shit done, not the happy people.

Just as the Internet would have likely never been created without the helping hand of Big Daddy Government, were it not for the greed of a thousand Richie Riches, you wouldn't be reading this right now.  Argue with that all you want, but you'll look silly and most definitely lose the argument.  Even the open source cultists would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs every night, were it not for the greed of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and whoever started IBM.

Sorry, but the rich aren't keeping you down.  That's all you, pal.

Blaming Modern Science

And the same goes with drug companies.  Yes, they're greedy.  Very greedy.  And they do some outrageous things that cause me physical pain when I think too much about it.  But...were it not for their greed, they'd have no incentive to use their money to invent new drugs and we'd all be a lot worse off right now because of it.  That's simply undeniable.

Because the reality is that researching new drugs and testing them is incredibly expensive.  That's why they're doing it and you're not.  No one's preventing you from curing cancer.  It just costs lots of money and they're the only ones putting up enough of it to do it.  And if they spend all their money investing in drugs that can't earn profits, then they'll soon be out of money and won't discover new drugs. There's just no other way about it.

And again, that's not a defense of drug companies.  That's simply a statement of fact.  I'd like it if drugs didn't cost millions upon millions to make, but unless you're willing to throw away all your income on discovering new drugs, then you have ABSOLUTELY no right to complain.

After all, nobody's stopping you and your buddies from inventing new drugs.  Yet you don't.  Why?  Is it because you're too greedy?  No, it's because you're not stupid.  Well, neither are the greedheads who invest in these companies.  No one expects you to volunteer all your time and money discovering new drugs, nor should we expect it of them.

Believe it or not, Big Pharma is people, too; and while some of them are despicable people who really deserve a special circle of Hell; the problem isn't greed or capitalism.  Those are the solutions to the problem, not the cause.  And were it not for the greed of Big Pharma, we'd all be stuck with soft weiners, acne, and angst.  Call me crazy, but I prefer things as they are.

Curing Cancer for Free

And I mention all this after reading an article about a potential cancer cure that isn't getting much funding because it's a common drug that isn't patentable and will lose money for anyone who researches it.  Why?  Because modern science is expensive and it costs about $500 million to get a drug approved.  But that's not Big Pharma's fault.  That's because we don't want to make people sick by giving them worthless or bad drugs.  That's our fault for wanting drug studies to be scientific and safe.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have $500 million sitting in my couch cushions to pay for this.  Neither does Big Pharma.  And yeah, sure, maybe the government could fund this.  Or maybe the American Cancer Society should, or the Bill Gates Foundation; which many commenters on that story attacked because they haven't ponied up the millions it'll take to test the drug.  But should they fund EVERY potential cancer drug?

Sure, this one looks more promising than snake oil, but it'd be far from the first cancer drug that fell flat after looking this promising.  And unfortunately, we can't really know if it's worthy of funding unless we, duh, test it first.  And those tests costs lots of money.  It's a catch-22 and Big Pharma's in the same boat we are.  They also would like to know the results before paying for the tests, but it doesn't work like that and they really do risk all their money if they bet wrong.  That's why it's so profitable for them if they guess right.

And the main point here is that capitalism and greed didn't create the problem.  Rather, they grease the wheels and make people do things they wouldn't do otherwise.  And that's exactly why we need good government, too.  Greed makes people do good and evil, so we just need to make sure we get more of the former than the latter.

I'm a Big Government Capitalist who wants a strong free market to give us things we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, but with the government on our side to make sure we're not getting screwed.  And that's what works best for everyone; including the greedheads.

One-Sided Delusions of a Libertarian

One of the most annoying things about libertarians is when they decry laws they believe infringe upon our liberty and insist that we don't need them because the problems those laws fixed are no longer problems.  Like child labor laws.  Apparently, we don't need child labor laws because child labor laws fixed the problem of child labor.  And so these laws only serve to steal our liberty from us, because they worked.

And I'm like, huh?  What??  We don't need laws if they work?  And hey, I suppose for the sake of argument that I can see how we might not need these laws anymore, under the assumption that fixed problems never come back.  I find that ludicrous, as we still have people who violate labor laws and pollution laws and anti-discrimination laws when the laws are in place; and can only imagine this would get significantly worse without the laws.

Besides, how are labor laws an infringement of our liberty, unless people were wanting to do these things?  I mean, if the government threatens to punish me if I engage in Behavior X, my liberties haven't actually been infringed upon unless I was intending to engage in Behavior X.  And if no one is planning to engage in Behavior X, as libertarians claim is the case, then no one's rights have actually been infringed upon.

Sure, theoretically my right to employ ten year olds in my steel factory have been infringed upon by child labor laws.  But this isn't actually a problem unless I was planning to do so.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have laws to prevent real problems than to repeal laws to preserve theoretical ones.  Either the government is infringing upon our liberties by preventing a problem that would occur without the laws, or we don't need the laws and our liberties aren't being infringed upon.  You can't have it both ways.

But still, on a theoretical basis, the idea that we've now fixed these problems and we're never going back is a point I can comprehend, even though it has no application in reality.

Ancient History

And then we've got Ron Paul, who doesn't just believe that we don't need the Civil Rights Act any longer, but that we didn't need it back in 1964 because those problems have now been solved.   No, seriously.  He said that.

Here's the transcript, from Hardball:

Matthews: I once knew a laundromat when I was in the Peace Corps training in Louisiana, in Baker, Louisiana. A laundromat had this sign on it in glaze, ‘whites only on the laundromat, just to use the laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying ‘no blacks allowed.’ You say that should be legal.

Paul: That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.

Matthews: Because it's been outlawed.

Paul: Segregation on buses was always done by law, so it was a culture.  That's over and done with.  Why do you want to go back to ancient days?

Matthews: Because you want it to come back.

Paul: It's past.

Ahh, of course.  And since we don't have these problems any more, Ron Paul wouldn't have supported the law that made the problems go away.  And it's dwelling on the past for us to believe that this law was necessary or good.

But of course, it's not Chris Matthews who wants to go back to ancient days.  That would be Ron Paul, who's lamenting the infringement of liberty upon laundromat owners who are now forced to allow darkies to use their machines.  Not that he'd say that, but the fact that he wouldn't answer the question suggests that even he realizes how ridiculous his position is.

Government isn't the Only Problem

In Paul's defense, he makes clear that he opposes Jim Crow laws, and identifies them as bad government..  So he scores a point for that.  And I honestly don't believe he's a racist, as I feel he genuinely believes that property rights trump civil rights, and that the free markets will somehow magically fix these problems; even though that obviously didn't happen in the past.

Somehow, libertarians fail to appreciate the fact that money isn't the only motivator in life; or understand how racism can make racists richer.  But it's pretty simple: If only white people can get good jobs and eduction, then they'll have more money and power than if they have to compete with non-whites.  That shouldn't be complicated, yet libertarians seem to miss this point entirely.

Moreover, his ideological demands disallow him from admitting the reality: Racism wasn't just from the government.  Jim Crow laws institutionalized this racism, but as he said, it was the culture.  And that culture also had rampant discrimination in it by private individuals.

And so Matthews' question about the laundromat was entirely valid, yet Paul couldn't answer it.  He knew his answer would be crazy and offensive, so he refused to answer at all; insisting that it was "ancient history" and "the past."  Uh, Paul?  You're 75 years old.  You were 29 when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.  This isn't ancient history.

Shorter Ron Paul: Property Rights Superior to Civil Rights

And the problem Ron's having is a problem all delusional Republicans suffer from: Their answers only work if they look at the one side of the coin, while ignoring that the other side even exists.  Because yeah, it is kind of messed up that the government can force businesses to serve customers they don't want to serve and I suppose this is a violation of their property property.

And yet...there was also another problem we were dealing with: The violation of civil rights.  And this problem was perpetrated by both the government and individuals, and was a significantly worse problem than the violation of the rights of racists to refuse to let black people use their washing machines.  And so we're to imagine that the property of white people takes precedent over the lives of black people.  Not that Paul would deny the right of black people to discriminate against white people; but I fail to see how that fixes his dilemma.

So Paul is forced to ignore the bigger problem and focus on property rights and infringement of liberty.  And while he rightly attacks government-enforced discrimination, he simply must ignore the problems of white-only laundromats and water fountains and pools, or the whole not-hiring-black-people thing or letting them go to our schools and join our clubs.  And his best response is a nonsensical one about ancient history, as if the problems of segregation magically solved themselves.

Delusions of a Paul Person

And one final point I'd like to make about Paul is the delusional state that Paul and his followers live in, where they'll insist that he's not more popular because the media ignores him; in complete defiance of reality, which has him on television on a regular basis.

I recently read a rant from a Paul person making such a claim on the very night I happened to catch Paul on Anderson Cooper's show, repeating nonsense with very little pushback from Cooper.  It's as if we're to imagine that Ron Paul has a right to have a platform from which to speak, and anyone who disagrees with him is oppressing him.  But since Paul's positions only make sense if they're not questioned, I'm sure it seems unfair to have people question him because it exposes libertarianism as the charade it is.

And then there's Paul's belief that Matthews' question was intended to trap him into being labeled a racist.  Because yeah, had Paul answered the question truthfully, it would have put him in the position of supporting racism.  But...that's not Matthew setting a trap.  That's because Paul's position supports racism. And if people will reject Paul if they hear him say his position on civil rights, then that's what should happen.

And the problem is that you don't get to pick and choose how your argument is applied.  This is reality, not some late night bull session at the dorms.  And if we're discussing your beliefs, we have to consider all of the implications of your beliefs, not just the ones that support your position.  But libertarians do this all the time.  It's not a practical philosophy at all, and only works as long as you focus on the areas that work.  And you're just a brainwashed fool if you suggest otherwise.

And so the Paul people imagine that there's some grand conspiracy keeping Paul down, by refusing to put him on TV and then trying to trap him when they do put him on.  But the only conspiracy here is the one perpetrated by their own delusions.  And so they'll spend all their time focusing on one side of the coin, while insisting that it's a trick to consider that the coin has two sides.

Panderer for President

When someone hires you to do a job, you work for them. You do what they say and you execute policies even if you disagree with them.  Not talking about anything unethical, necessarily; but sure, yeah, you're likely to cross even a few ethical lines, as long as it's not too egregious.  As their employee, you're obligated to do what they ask of you to the best of your ability, or you should step aside and let them hire someone else. To do otherwise is morally irresponsible.

But for some reason, we expect our politicians to be different. To actually believe in the policies they write and execute. Why? Whom amongst us believes in every policy we fulfill in our jobs? If the boss tells you to do some lamebrained policy that annoys customers and creates inefficiencies, you do it. Because he’s the boss and he said so. We do it all the time and we don’t have a problem with that.  Life simply couldn't work if people only did things they believed in.

So…why do we expect our politicians to be any different? We’re the boss. They’re our representatives.  Our employees.  They need to do what we say, even if they don’t believe in it. And frankly, I’d rather have a politician who does that. He should represent OUR beliefs, not his own.

Romney v. Romney

And this all ties to Mitt Romney's big problem.  I mean, besides that his name is Mitt.  I mean, really.

As things stand, Mitt's one big accomplishment of passing universal healthcare in Massachusetts is the biggest thing holding him back.  That wasn't the case last time around, as his big problem then was the whole Mormon thing.  Well, plus that the man's not particularly bright, has only one term as governor on his political resume, had a horrible economic record as governor, and is stuck in a political party that's gone batshit crazy.  Plus, his name is Mitt.  I mean, come on.

And so Mitt gave a dumb speech yesterday that was mocked by Democrats and lambasted by Republicans.  The latter because Republicans realize that healthcare mandates are pretty much the only weapon they've got to fight Obama with; seeing as how all the race baiting and whistle-calling still seems to be blowing up in their faces for some odd reason.

Sure, Republicans from Nixon, to Bush Sr, to Newt Gingrich, and many many others once supported mandates.  But now that Obama used mandates in his plan and all the Obamascare lies about Death Panels have been laid to rest, mandates are all they've got.  And that means that Mitt's got mandate problems.  Not because it was a dumb idea, but because it was a smart idea and he's trying to woo dumb voters.

Mitt as Technocrat Employee

So my response would be the smart one.  Mitt should have explained that he passed universal healthcare with mandates in Massachusetts because MA is a liberal state and that’s what they wanted. And then he could pivot and say that he opposes Obamacare because America is a conservative nation and doesn’t want it.

Sure, the bit about America being too conservative would be a lie, as each of us really do want good healthcare.  But the main part is the truth: Mitt supported universal healthcare when his constituents wanted it, and he opposes it now because GOP primary voters oppose it.  And that’s not “flip flopping” or political pandering. That’s what we should want. We shouldn’t want an ideologue who forces his ideology on a resistant public. We should want smart guys who give the boss what the boss wants.  And if he gets a new boss, it's ok to support new policies.

Because the reality is that this is what most politicians do anyway. Sure, there are always a few true believers, and we consider them to be nutjobs.. But most politicians just want to be in politics and will support whatever they need to support to stay in office. And as much as that’s a problem, it’s only because they lie about this and pretend to be ideologues. That makes no sense.

We need to get out of the True Believer frame of mind, and move into the 21st Century by hiring people who are open about their desire to give us what we want.  Like Obama.  Giving voters what they want is what democracy is all about. None of this is personal. It's a job.  Sure, we could spend all our time trying to find the people whose beliefs match the policies we want, or...we could hire a guy who will give us whatever policies we want, regardless of what he believes.  What a crazy idea!

Again, that's what most politicians do anyway.  Is it really a problem if they're honest about it?

A World of Burnouts

What amazes me most about this video is not that this man did this strange thing.  No, people do strange things all the time and there's nothing particularly impressive about it.  What amazes me here is that all the other people seemed to know what to expect from him, and knew the rules of it.  Like they do this sort of thing all the time.  They even had some sort of cage setup, as well as referees and staff to facilitate the whole thing, so this was clearly well thought out ahead of time.

At the end, one man proudly exclaims "We have a winner."  And no one seemed to dispute that.  No one was like, "Wait a minute, you haven't heard my burnout, yet."  No, everyone seemed to be in agreement that what this man did was simply the best at whatever it is they're trying to do. And he was drinking a beer, no less.  As the man says, it's not as easy as it looks; yet this guy makes it look so easy.

And of course, the title of this YouTube video is: THE BEST bad ass Harley burnout - no comparison - with a beer, so it seems that yet another person has the capability of judging burnouts, in such a way that they can positively identify this as the BEST, I can only assume that they're right.  Make sure to put it in full-screen and crank up the speakers.  It's Harley time.



So...am I mistaken, or are all these people breathing in rubber-smoke?  Is it not the burning rubber that's making all that smoke?  And if it is, isn't that obscenely dangerous for all those people to be inhaling for so long?  And might that explain why they all seemed so burnt out?  I mean, really.

That said, I will admit, it was a pretty impressive burnout.  Not that I have anything to compare it to, but it was still pretty cool.

Goofus and Gallant Governments

Looks like Obama's hostile takeover of the banking industry continues unabated as news hits of the Justice Department suing Deutsche Bank for writing bad loans they promised were good.  According to the government, a third of their loans have now defaulted.  And so now the government is suing because the lender hadn't done due diligence and lied about it.

And that, of course, is good government.  Yes, the question remains why the government is backing bank loans anyway, as it seems like it'd be a lot cheaper and easier if the government lent the money themselves.  But that's a subject for a different post.

Here's the line that stuck out for me:

As far back as 2003, a HUD audit found that MortgageIT hadn't met basic standards of quality control. In response, the company assured the government that it had changed its practices. But, according to the complaint, that wasn't true.

And that, of course, is bad government.  The government identified a serious problem.  Told the bank about it.  The bank promised that they'd do better, without changing anything.  Seven years later and the taxpayers are bailing out the bank for $1 billion, while the bank gets to keep their profits.  Uh, no.  That's not working for me.  If a bank wants to make a loan, the bank needs to back the loan, period.  I see no reason why we need some greedy banker as a middleman, particularly not when his interests are so disaligned with our own.

Otherwise, I'd like to see HUD directly offering loans directly.  They could even work with Treasury to automatically deduct payments each month, and it'd include a small amount for mortgage insurance; in case the homeowner loses their job and can't pay.  It could even be tied directly to their unemployment benefits, with the homeowner having part of their unemployment garnished, but significantly less than the home payment would be.  This really shouldn't be too difficult.

And, hmm.  I wonder who was in charge when HUD blew it...

The Genius of Bush

Osama's death has brought cries of me-me-me from Republicans who cringe at the idea of Obama taking credit for something as manly as killing Osama bin Laden have brought Bush back to the table; like the disgraced carcass of a wannabe turkey at Thanksgiving.

And I happened to stumble upon a media lap-dance Republican Stooge Fred Barnes gave to President Bush over at the Weekly Standard, back in September 2006.  Now mind you, this is a mere two months before the GOP got shellacked in the mid-terms, and perhaps when Osama was hunkering down in his compound in Abbottabad.

Here is the entire first paragraph:

WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

Oh, well then.  That's why Bush didn't make Osama the main goal: Because it didn't fit his strategy.  In other words, he picked this strategy because it fit his strategy.  Right.  That explains everything.  Of course, if I got paid what Fred Barnes got paid, I'd probably report drivel like that, too.

And of course, as it turns out, it didn't take 100,000 special forces stomping around.  But who's counting.

Find Terrorists ???  Profit

Bush then goes on to impart his knowledge on combating terror warfare.  It's a surprise West Point doesn't invite him over to lecture on the topic.

The way you win the war on terror is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do.

Really?  That's what we needed to do to win?

Let's make a checklist:

Find Terrorists
Get Their Information
Find More Terrorists

Of course!  That's what we needed to do: Find terrorists so they can help us find more terrorists.  Wow, it's so simple!  I can't believe it didn't work.  Because we all know there's a finite number of terrorists, and once you've found them all, you win!

Institutionalizing Actions

And here's one for you:

It's really important at this stage . . . to be thinking about how to institutionalize courses of action that will enable future presidents to gain the information necessary to prevent attack.

How to institutionalize courses of action.  Indeed.

Fortunately, Fred decodes this into human speak, writing:

This, presumably, would include the use of secret prisons, tough but legal interrogation techniques, a ban on lawsuits against interrogators, electronic eavesdropping, and monitoring of bank transfers, among other measures.

But of course, by "legal interrogation," they mean as they define what's legal; making the word "legal" entirely superfluous.

And, what?  Ban on lawsuits against interrogators?  What the hell for?  Of course you should be able to sue your interrogator.  After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?

Fight the Aura!

And here's perhaps the saddest part:

I know exactly what's in the news.  I listen to a lot of people. I've got smart people around me. And they can march right in here--this Oval Office can be slightly intimidating, but I've got people here who can fight through the aura and say, 'I think you're wrong. I think you're right.'

Hear that?  He's got smart people.  People who can fight through the aura to tell him he's wrong as well as when he's right.  Well, that's good to hear.  Because I've long had trouble with people who were simply incapable of fighting my aura to tell me when I'm right.  It's good to know he didn't suffer that problem..

Of course, you read stuff like this and you start to wonder...

At the outset of the interview, which occurred the morning after his speech to the nation on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush declared: "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."

...perhaps they didn't fight enough.

IslamoNihilist of the Century: Osama Bin Laden

Crossposted at: The American Nihilist

It is with great joy and femininity that I humbly announce the brilliant and proudful martyring of a supreme nihilist leader, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.  Born Lewis Herschwitz in Queens New York, he quickly rose the ranks of nihilism under the tutelage of The Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright before being assigned the greatest role of his life: Playing his Eminence Osama Bin Laden, Islamonihilist Extraordinaire.

It started out as a simple plan: The Soviet Union would pretend to invade Afghanistan, in order to create instability so our Islamonihilist agents The Taliban could instill terror and Sharia Law across the land; to punish the Christian God, who we hate.  Meanwhile, the stupid capitalist imperialist American pigs would naively funnel billions of dollars of weaponry and training to our Islamonihilist buddies led by Herschwitz, while we secretly manufactured heroin which we used to buy votes in American inner-cities, to keep them all docile, lazy, and stupid; just as FDR suggested we do.

Little did we know that Herschwitz's character would prove so popular that the Muslim sheep would official anoint him Grand Poohbah of All Muslims; repeating the success we had with our previous Islamonihilist jihadist, Tom Lawrence.  And with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tupac Shakur, Hamas, and ACORN, Osama Bin Laden's nihilist reign of terror shook the world from coast to coast.  And now he has achieved his greatest reward, supreme martyrdom; and at the hands of the High Holy Highest Barack Hussein Ayatollah Ayers Bin Obama; thus completing the circle, just as Nietzsche had foretold. After all, nothing is more nihilistic than sacrificing your life for nothing, especially if it was done by someone on your own team.

And so we salute you and your martyrdom, Comrade Herschwitz of Queens.  May all your like-minded allies soon join you in Nihilist Heaven.  Their rewards can't come soon enough.  As for the rest of us, we will celebrate by giving our weekly gruel rations to our pets while we flagellate ourselves with synthetic beef jerky.  It's what Bin Laden would have wanted us to do.