Ridiculous

October 26, 2008

Some in the media have been fixated on Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe, courtesy of RNC and its donors.  Time Magazine thinks its important that you know she’s committing crimes against fashion.  While I’m no fan of politicians using money for ridiculous things and can’t even conceive of owning a $150,000 wardrobe, I have to say.  That ain’t the only ridiculous thing as what’s gone down this election season.

Remember the Greek temple from which The One addressed His throng of worshipers during the heady days of the Democratic Party’s convention?  Yeah.  $5.3 million for a crime against architecture.

And as long as we’re talking about money, remember the bailout that passed a while back?  The $1.8 trillion bailout, even though people only really talked about the first $700 billion?  Yeah, about that $700 billion.  It seems that nobody is really sure what it’s for.

Moving on to the larger theme of Ridiculous, Bob Barr.  I wish he would win in November.  That’s why I voted for him.  But third-party candidates haven’t won anything in over 100 years.  Realistically, Bob Barr isn’t going to win anything.  But that won’t stop him from offering campaign advice to McCain.  Advice like, “Quit now, because realistically, you’ve got now chance.”  Also, Bob Barr suggests that McCain will lose in Georgia.  This might be a bad time to write LP Central and ask them which states they expect Barr to win in.

The media has been so ridiculous this election cycle that this guy is ashamed to admit his profession to strangers.  He works for ABC.  Ponder it.

Senator Jack Murtha (who has a special category of Ridiculous specially reserved for himself) of Pennsylvania said, quote, “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”  Hey, if we have a representative form of government and Jack Murtha represents a racist area… does that mean Jack Murtha is racist?  Just sayin’.  Oh, and John McCain agrees with Murtha while trying really hard not to.

Some pollster got death threats for running a poll that had McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida.

Okay, that’s enough of a link-dump.  I can only take so much of ridiculous before the sense of impending doom hits.  Various folks of all stripes like to yak it up about how historic this election is, since it’ll either end with a black President or a woman Vice-President.  This is also the most ridiculous election in American history.

Advertisements

Uh… hi.

October 26, 2008

I haven’t posted anything here in the past two weeks (sorry about that, the three of you that visited almost every day to see if new stuff was up).  Put up an “ACORN SUCKS!!!” post and BAM!  Traffic spike.  Well, welcome, fellow ACORN non-fans and information-seekers!

Also: you need to learn the words to our new national anthem by January.


Vicious name-calling rhetoric. And DOOM!

October 12, 2008

Behold, o reader, the vigilance of the Thought Police.  Observe the thoughtfulness and wit of Grand Poobah Sam Cook as he tackles racism in its ugliest form:

Sheriff Mike Scott swears he had no ulterior motive.

“I answered a lot of e-mails and signed my middle name (Joseph) on all of them,” says Scott, 45. “I don’t see anything wrong with calling him Barack Hussein Obama.

“That is his name.”

Yes it is. Yet it was much more at Monday’s rally at Germain Arena for vice presidential hopeful Gov. Sarah Palin.

Just in case it’s not clear there, the Grand Poobah is upset that Sheriff Scott used Barack Obama’s full name.  He called him “Senator Barack Hussein Obama” instead of “Senator Obama” or “Senator Barack Obama” or “Barack Obama” or what have you.  Everyone tracking here?

Because the Grand Poobah is just getting started.

When Scott dropped Obama’s Muslim middle name, message boards and mailbag contributors exploded.

“This must be the biggest news in the world. Is there nothing more important going on?” Scott asks sarcastically. “It absolutely shocks me. And I’m appalled by some of the e-mails. They are hateful and spiteful.”

Scott, in an interview Tuesday with news-press.com and The News-Press, says he doesn’t comprehend the commotion his name-calling put in motion.

“I was told to speak three to four minutes and fire up the crowd,” he says. “Help welcome her to Southwest Florida.

“That’s pretty much what I did. I’ve watched that tape over and over. I don’t see any malice. What I said was truthful and accurate. I did not say anything unethical, immoral or illegal.”

That’s a matter of opinion.

O RLY?!?  Which point in particular is a matter of opinion?  Malice?  Malice is pretty concrete.  Either it exists on the part of the speaker or it doesn’t.  You can be offended when someone says something without malice, but let’s be serious for a second.  If you’re offended by your favored candidate’s full name, you should sit yourself down and rethink your life.

Truthfulness?  Accuracy?  Demonstrate that Obama’s middle name isn’t Hussein.  Oh wait, this isn’t about facts, it’s about opinions.  Truthfulness and accuracy aren’t really open to ‘opinion.’  Something is truthful or it isn’t.  Something is accurate or it isn’t.  In this case, it’s 100% correct that Hussein is Obama’s middle.

Unethical?  “In my opinion, it is unethical to use a candidate’s full name.”  That just doesn’t make any sense.  It pales in comparison to this potential gem, though.  “In my opinion, it is immoral to use a candidate’s full name.”  Pardon me while I roll out some fire and brimstone usually reserved for whores and drug pushers.  Somebody used Obama’s full name.  Hellfire and damnation are in late today, but they’ll be here soon.  Can’t have this kind of behavior going undamned.  No sirree bob.

Is Cook saying that in his opinion it’s illegal to use Obama’s full name?  That makes even less sense than any of the options put forth in the above paragraph.  You take that case before a judge and you’d be lucky to avoid contempt of court.

If Scott didn’t believe name-dropping “Hussein” would create upheaval in Southwest Florida, he isn’t the astute politician who captured 91 percent of the vote in Lee County’s Republican primary victory last month.

Again, Scott says he won’t back down from his comment.

Sheriff Scott won’t back down from using Obama’s full name?  Well, that bastard!  Let’s form a mob and lynch him!  The post goes on in similar fashion, ending like this:

“I’ll tell you one thing,” he says. “If the Democrats do win, he will be sworn in by three names: Barack Hussein Obama.

“I can guarantee that.”

And I can guarantee the sheriff hasn’t heard the last of his name-calling rhetoric.

And there you have it.  Using someone’s first, middle, and last names all at the same time is now officially name-calling rhetoric.  It may or may not also be a federal crime.  Good game, America.  Our chances of survival have just dropped to zero.  We’re doomed.


Academia might be the culprit here

October 11, 2008

Or so David Thompson, esteemed brit, suggests.  He links this guy who has this to say:

Yet the truth of the matter is that the basic pedagogical and academic approaches of Ayers and Khalidi fit well within the academic mainstream. Ayers is, after all, a prestigious professor of education (hardly a field known for its intellectual diversity, as I have explored elsewhere). Khalidi was of such standing that Columbia hired him away from the U of C, and named him to chair its Middle East Studies Department. From that perch, he presided over a wildly biased anti-Israel curriculum, even as he informed readers of New York that students of Arab descent—and only such students—knew the “truth” about Middle Eastern affairs.

On the other hand, Anonymous has this to say re: the above linked article:

Obama didn’t know about Ayers being a terrorist, he never heard Rev. Wright’s racist comments in church and he had no idea about Rezko. But yet you want to trust his “honesty” and “experience” to run the country?

In a time of crisis in America, you suggest we should not focus on the candidate but on the academy and how they became so radical and homogeneous?

Unbelievable.

Me?  I say that Obama is too friendly with ACORN by half, and was a member of the New Party.  They stood for such wonderful things as…

The democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions.

Nationalized banks, eh.  Before I watch that happen, the federal government must a) sort out (i.e. privatize) social security and medicare, and b) demonstrate the legal authority to monopolize the banking industry.  Training pigs to fly would also help.

A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Where have I heard that before?  They carry on with other hippie/Marxist crap.  Feel free to mock.  Feel free to not vote for Obama.  Vote for McCain, vote for Bob Barr, vote for Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, hell, vote for Chuck Norris.  While several of them might be more than slightly insane, none of them (except maybe McCain) have the snake-in-the-grass thing going on.  Better crazy and honest than a calculating liar, I say.


From the horse’s mouth

October 9, 2008

Barack Obama, in his own words.  Looking over some of these, I was reminded of certain individuals who said that only racism could beat Obama.  That reminded me of how often Obama himself has said that most people that aren’t going to vote for him are going to vote for whoever they’re going to vote for (McCain, Barr, McKinney, etc.) because Obama is “different.”  Check through those quotes and you’ll see stuff like this:

“… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” — Barack Obama

“Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.” — Barack Obama

So according to Barack Obama, it’s not because we question the wisdom of electing terrorist-affiliated commies to executive office, it’s because he’s “different.”  This might be a dumb question, but doesn’t it take someone fundamentally different to pull off the kind of crap he promises?

…I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” — Barack Obama, on how future generations will remember his accention to “Democratic Presidententail Nominee”

Missing from that list but from the same speech is this little beauty:

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

John Hawkins (the author of the article from which the above quote was lifted) set the bar for insight and appropriate sarcasm re: that quote pretty high, so I’m just going to jank what he wrote.

America isn’t great now — But — if we elect Barack Obama, all “fundamentally good” people will vote for him and the country will be great again? Oh, please save us, Barack! What a low opinion of this country and a high opinion of himself this guy has.

This picture I’m getting is this.  Barack Obama wants to lead us, but doesn’t want to be us.  In fact, he doesn’t want us to be us.  Here’s a message for you Obama, from one diabolical megolomaniac to another: up yours.


The bailout has passed

October 3, 2008

263 – 171.  According to Article I Section IX of the U.S. Constitution,

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

That’s why there was a vote to begin with.  But for what purposes is Congress allowed to draw money from the treasury?  See Article I Section VIII:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Ah, the General Welfare Clause.  There was one of those in the Articles of Confederation, but read in that light, this hardly justifies pulling a $700 billion figure out of thin air and spreading it around lenders who were forced to give loans to folks as what weren’t terribly likely to pay them back.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Money is leaving the treasury.  No borrowing there.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

How exactly does extracting $700 billion constitute regulating commerce among the several states?  Sure, several lending companies are supposed to come under the thumb of the federal government a la AIG, but there’s nothing in Article I Section VIII to suggest that the federal government is supposed to control lending and credit throughout America.  If the Commerce Clause actually allowed that, then why hasn’t anyone bothered to say so until now?

In a different century, we would be issuing writs of nullification, declarations of secession, and threats to mobilize the militias over this crap.  But we’re a democracy now.  As H.L. Mencken put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The bailout exists in flat violation of this clause.  “Uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.”  Uniform.  The same for everyone.  Am I very confused, or is the purpose of the bailout to keep certain companies from going bankrupt due to questionable lending practices?  Lending practices forced upon them by Congress?

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

No money is being created (yet), no foreign currency is involved.  If one were inclined to be snide, one might make a snarky remark about standards being fixed.  But let’s pretend one isn’t so inclined.

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Nobody has even brought up conterfeiting.  Maybe that’s how they plan to collect the $700 billion without without raising taxes or expanding the national debt.

To establish post offices and post roads;

Let’s not bring USPS into this.  They have enough problems of their own.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The bailout scheme doesn’t deal with copyright law.

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

No courts are being created.

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

Piracies… piracies…. oh wait, no, the bailout isn’t taking place on the high seas.

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

The bailout isn’t a declaration of war.  Yet.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

No armies are being raised or supported through the bailout.

To provide and maintain a navy;

No navies either.

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Gee, Congress sure does seem to have more authority with respect to the armed forces than it does the economy.  Someone should let them know.  Maybe they’d stop screwing everything up all the time if they kept their grubby rat-claws out of the collective money jar of America.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Insurrections may arise as a result of the bailout, but I doubt it.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

More on the armed forces.  It’s almost as if the Constitution is specifically enumerating the powers of the federal government or something.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

A special paragraph just for Washington D.C.  Nothing relating to the bailout here.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Again, nothing relating to the bailout here.

It would seem then that the $700 billion bailout fund is without legal justificiation.  Funny how that never came up when they were trying to scare us with really huge numbers and prophecies of doom.


Where does the $700 billion figure in the bail-out plans come from?

September 29, 2008

We now have a confession:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

This is supposed to be a loan, as in we’re not supposed to be taking $700 billion from tax-payers, lighting it on fire, and doing an angry monkey dance around the ashes while chanting and genuflecting to icons of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.  We’re supposed to get that money back with interest at some point.  That said, when asking for a huge amount of dollars, you should be able to say where those dollars are going and how you came up with that figure.  “We just wanted to choose a really large number,” is perhaps the worst possible explanation you could give.  Saying nothing at all would have been better, at least from a PR point of view, because while everyone might suspect you’re a jackass, they wouldn’t know for sure.

Why would the Treasury pull such a huge number out of their hats?  I found James Madison hiding in a long-lost corner of the internet and asked him.  He said:

You will understand the game behind the curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government.

Then he tried to sell me a magnet.