What a bizarre day. Let's all just take a step back and calm down for a second. 777 is the biggest points drop in Dow history, but at just shy of 7% it doesn't even approach the 26% drop in 1987. There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth. Congressional leaders are already declaring that they will not give up, but they're going to have to go back to the drawing board. Beyond that, there's even a question of whether or not some leaders in Congress want a bailout vote to succeed. Nancy Pelosi must not have wanted this to pass, that's the only way I can explain away her anti-GOP rant at the close of the debate today. You don't build bipartisan support for a deeply unpopular bill by attacking the minority party whose support you need, right before the vote. We know she supports heavy handed government intervention in the U.S. economy, so her actions today leave only two possibilities in my mind. She may be gambling that the economy is going to tank (Wall Street's reaction to the vote was predictable) and wants to blame the Republicans for voting down the bailout, or she is completely inept, incompitent, and just plain stupid. If anyone else has a viable explanation for her unhinged remarks today, I'd like to hear it.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate this bailout and am happy to see it fail. The bumbling Republicans however, have missed their opportunity. This crisis was caused by government regulation. By forcing lenders to accept less than qualified home buyers because of economic or racial status, they placed the housing market on a house of cards. Instead of pointing this out and educating the American people, the GOP leaders (you know, the party of limited government) responded to an over regulation problem with support for a mass government intervention that would make Karl Marx smile in whatever corner of hell he's stewing in at the moment. Are there any classical liberals in the upper echolons of the Republican Party anymore? Thank God the rank and file voted against it (if only because they feared being booted out of office). This is the problem conservatives face right now. We seem to be losing our hold on the Republican Party. Hardly if ever do I see an elected Republican promote the Libertarian economic principles that our country was founded on and swept Reagan into office. The American people aren't dumb. They will see who is in the right if we actually argue and defend our position. As Margaret Thatcher put it: "The facts of life are conservative," but you have to let people know what the facts are.
The 228 stand victorious for now, hopefully no one shows Henry Paulson a goat path.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
What If The Moose Was Uppity?
"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."
So says esteemed Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. Now, I'll admit, I'm not much of a hunter, and I've never stripped a moose. I do however, know many hunters who I suppose could be described as "gun toting" and who certainly have stripped a deer at least. Contrary to Congressman Hastings' fears, I've never known any of them to harm a black person or a Jew, unless their descriptions of their hunting trips are completely eronious. I'm not sure how moose come into this, but I'm assuming that Congressman Hastings sees gun ownership as some sort of precursor to a racially motivated crime. I can assure the good Congressman that at least here in Missouri, there are many black men who tote guns and go hunting. And they, like their white counterparts, rarely if ever go on pogroms when they return.
Perhaps if Congressman Hastings is truly concerned about violent gun crimes, he should turn his attention elsewhere. It is a common misconception that most gun violence is motivated by the Alaskan moose hunting culture. In reality, most gun crimes are commited by blacks against other blacks in intercity urban areas. Many would be surprised that Sarah Palin and her moose feud have little if any significance to this problem. I would argue that much of this violence can be attributed to a violent ganster culture that has become a fixture of the urban black community. Perhaps Congressman Hastings believes Barry Obama can "organize" these communities into more productive pass time activities like say, moose hunting? (I kid, I kid)
In Florida, I would assume that aligators are responsible for the deaths of more blacks and Jews than Alaskan moose hunters. Regaldless Congressman, your fears, while honest mistakes, are batshit crazy. I think Governor Palin has bigger worries than organizing the next kristallnacht.
So says esteemed Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. Now, I'll admit, I'm not much of a hunter, and I've never stripped a moose. I do however, know many hunters who I suppose could be described as "gun toting" and who certainly have stripped a deer at least. Contrary to Congressman Hastings' fears, I've never known any of them to harm a black person or a Jew, unless their descriptions of their hunting trips are completely eronious. I'm not sure how moose come into this, but I'm assuming that Congressman Hastings sees gun ownership as some sort of precursor to a racially motivated crime. I can assure the good Congressman that at least here in Missouri, there are many black men who tote guns and go hunting. And they, like their white counterparts, rarely if ever go on pogroms when they return.
Perhaps if Congressman Hastings is truly concerned about violent gun crimes, he should turn his attention elsewhere. It is a common misconception that most gun violence is motivated by the Alaskan moose hunting culture. In reality, most gun crimes are commited by blacks against other blacks in intercity urban areas. Many would be surprised that Sarah Palin and her moose feud have little if any significance to this problem. I would argue that much of this violence can be attributed to a violent ganster culture that has become a fixture of the urban black community. Perhaps Congressman Hastings believes Barry Obama can "organize" these communities into more productive pass time activities like say, moose hunting? (I kid, I kid)
In Florida, I would assume that aligators are responsible for the deaths of more blacks and Jews than Alaskan moose hunters. Regaldless Congressman, your fears, while honest mistakes, are batshit crazy. I think Governor Palin has bigger worries than organizing the next kristallnacht.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Friedrich Hayek, Where Art Thou?
It seems likely that both candidates will miss the vote on the trillion dollar bailout plan that may be set for Friday. I understand Barry's reluctance. On one hand, this is the massive government intervention that liberal socialist types have wet dreams about. On the the other, Obama is trying to keep America in the dark about his radical socialist leanings.
McCain has no excuse. If he wants to keep saying that he was on the front lines of the Reagan Revolution, he needs to show up and vote against this bill. When Obama and the media rip him for it, educate the voters. Tell them why government intervention doesn't work. Tell them that these mismanged corporate behemoths created by Congress don't deserve the American tax payer's hard earned money. Tell them that Keynesian economics have been long ago discredited. Can't McCain understand that most of his newfound strength in the polls is due to the appeasment of conservatives with the Palin pick? I've been so happy with Governor Palin, that I almost forgot that John McCain isn't a conservative. Every time I grab McCain's olive branch, he whacks me in the face with the tree. I feel like an idiot teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is cheating on her, but stays with him anyway.
If I had any self esteem, I'd tell McCain to screw himself, but he keeps telling me I'm pretty.
McCain has no excuse. If he wants to keep saying that he was on the front lines of the Reagan Revolution, he needs to show up and vote against this bill. When Obama and the media rip him for it, educate the voters. Tell them why government intervention doesn't work. Tell them that these mismanged corporate behemoths created by Congress don't deserve the American tax payer's hard earned money. Tell them that Keynesian economics have been long ago discredited. Can't McCain understand that most of his newfound strength in the polls is due to the appeasment of conservatives with the Palin pick? I've been so happy with Governor Palin, that I almost forgot that John McCain isn't a conservative. Every time I grab McCain's olive branch, he whacks me in the face with the tree. I feel like an idiot teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is cheating on her, but stays with him anyway.
If I had any self esteem, I'd tell McCain to screw himself, but he keeps telling me I'm pretty.
America Needs The TVA!
Demonstrating her complete grasp of the concept of irony, Hillary Clinton believes that "'once we get through this immediate crisis,' the country should look at some Great Depression-era type of governmental entity to deal with it." Like say, Fannie Mae? Government driven solutions to economic woes always work so well don't they? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did its job, hamming the final nail into the coffin of the Roaring 20's and creating an America so destitute, that socialism seemed attractive. I'm sure Hillary, Obama, the DNC, don't want that. I mean its not like the Democrat candidate was endorsed by the Communist Party USA or anything.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Canada Needs A "Muslims With Inconvieniences Act"
Kathy wonders why Toronto muslims don't just build their own salons? They could also move to Britain where they can successfully sue hairstylists who don't accede to their demands. Can Christian men in Saudi Arabia sue barbers who refuse to give them a quality shave? Personally, I don't think think it should be so hard for a Christian to get a decent pork steak in Medina.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I Wonder Why The Russians Would Want Obama?
According to a new poll by Worldpublicopinion.org:
"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York. . . On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks."
Yet according to some, like Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, the United States must listen to the opinion of the world when electing our President:
"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . "
Can we poll Americans to decide who runs Germany, France, Britain, etc.? The free world doesn't elect its leader. America is the leader of the free world because of the sheer force of its cultural, economic, and military might. We can elect whoever the hell we want to because we're the one's who bankroll the military that's allowed you create your little socialist utopias (hah!) over the past 70 years. You want a say in who runs the most dominant country on Earth? Fine. Make your country the most dominant on Earth. Wait, I forgot. You're already trying with the EU, but alas, its socialist, so you can't compete. Yet you want us to elect a leader who will implement your failed policies? I suppose it is easier to drag us down than to build yourselves up.
"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York. . . On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks."
Yet according to some, like Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, the United States must listen to the opinion of the world when electing our President:
"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . "
Can we poll Americans to decide who runs Germany, France, Britain, etc.? The free world doesn't elect its leader. America is the leader of the free world because of the sheer force of its cultural, economic, and military might. We can elect whoever the hell we want to because we're the one's who bankroll the military that's allowed you create your little socialist utopias (hah!) over the past 70 years. You want a say in who runs the most dominant country on Earth? Fine. Make your country the most dominant on Earth. Wait, I forgot. You're already trying with the EU, but alas, its socialist, so you can't compete. Yet you want us to elect a leader who will implement your failed policies? I suppose it is easier to drag us down than to build yourselves up.
"If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. . . "
Is this some sort of threat? What are you going to do? Dislike us more? I've been a dastardly Republican for these past 8 years, and I have to say your hatred/disgust/hysterics haven't bothered me all that much. I don't mind being despised by peacenik socialists, though it may bother my liberal countrymen who long for acceptance by the European elite. Boo f'ing hoo. Do you know how much I would love for America to renounce its role as leader of the free world? Do you know what a hassle it is? Do you know what its like to have the UN scold us while we bankroll them, even as they put 3rd world dictators who hate us on the Human Rights Committee? But who would take over our role? The Aussies are probably the only other country left with the balls to stand up to the thugs of the world, but unless/until they fill up that vast continent with people, they're not quite ready for primetime.
As much as I'd love for America to retire behind her borders and return to the isolationism George Washington preferred just so you'd finally realize what your economic situation is without the guarantee of American security, I know the world would go to hell in a handbasket labeled "Made in China", and Russia would eventually be knocking on Alaska's door from the Canadian side. So until your countries can grow up enough to take care of themselves Mr. Freedland, let's let the adults decide who leads (props up) the free world.
"If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it."
Once again, what are you going to do? Pull your 3000 troops out of Iraq? You're already doing it. Are you going to stop supporting America in the Security Council? Shall we allow Iran to acquire nuclear missiles? Just because the most popular boy wasn't elected class President? I'm going to say this in the clearest possible way, and I hope you hear it: You're an imbecile.
A Hick Response
I was contemplating commenting on this bizarre anti-Palin rant by some weirdly vindictive Canadian (well, that's not fair to Canadians, whom I can only hope aren't frothing at the mouth with this much anti-American hatred) that's been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but LILEKS has already dismantled it so thoroughly, that there's not much more to say, but a few comments:
LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'
It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:
"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."
This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?
How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?
I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.
LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'
It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:
"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."
This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?
How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?
I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Judas Was CEO Of An Oil Company
From the Corner:
"How amusing is it that, in the wake of Sarah's hilarious take-down of community organizers, Obama supporters are passing around emails that say, 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor'? So Obama really does have a Messiah Complex!"
Obama just keeps stepping in it. First of all, who is this message geared toward? Obama's hard core supporters are committed leftists and therefore see people of faith as buffoons. This line may make them chuckle, but deep down they'll be irritated that Obama has to deign to appeal to these inbred hicks clinging to "God and guns". (Two things I beleive most people would be well served to rely on. The founders couldn't have been wrong about everything, could they Barry?) So is this supposed to be aimed at evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly right of center? If so, then Barry's campaign fundamentally missunderstands the Christian faith. Jesus Christ was only a "community organizer" to secualar socialists who have been trying to bend His ministry on Earth into an example of proto-Marxian communalism for over a century. To evangelicals, He wasn't a "community organizer", He was the Son of God and a carpenter, and any politician who seeks to compare himself to Christ is committing a terrible blastphamy.
As much as Barry fancies himself a "man of faith", he has little to no understanding of the American evangelical community. It bears little resemblence to Trinity United Barry, and Christians of all denominations frown upon self deification. Like it or not, you're not infallible. You're not even mildly well informed.
"How amusing is it that, in the wake of Sarah's hilarious take-down of community organizers, Obama supporters are passing around emails that say, 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor'? So Obama really does have a Messiah Complex!"
Obama just keeps stepping in it. First of all, who is this message geared toward? Obama's hard core supporters are committed leftists and therefore see people of faith as buffoons. This line may make them chuckle, but deep down they'll be irritated that Obama has to deign to appeal to these inbred hicks clinging to "God and guns". (Two things I beleive most people would be well served to rely on. The founders couldn't have been wrong about everything, could they Barry?) So is this supposed to be aimed at evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly right of center? If so, then Barry's campaign fundamentally missunderstands the Christian faith. Jesus Christ was only a "community organizer" to secualar socialists who have been trying to bend His ministry on Earth into an example of proto-Marxian communalism for over a century. To evangelicals, He wasn't a "community organizer", He was the Son of God and a carpenter, and any politician who seeks to compare himself to Christ is committing a terrible blastphamy.
As much as Barry fancies himself a "man of faith", he has little to no understanding of the American evangelical community. It bears little resemblence to Trinity United Barry, and Christians of all denominations frown upon self deification. Like it or not, you're not infallible. You're not even mildly well informed.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Did Obama Ever Vet Himself?
Sorry about the light blogging as of late (especially at this critical juncture in the campaign), but work's been crazy and its College Football season, enough said.
Now some observations:
Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:
"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.
Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.
Now some observations:
Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:
"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.
Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
