An ultra-conservative's views on this and that

25 December 2011

Can't they give it a rest?

Can't they give it a rest for one FRICKIN' day?

Today is Christmas Day, one of the most holy days of the Christian calendar.

Christmas, one of the most cherished holidays in America.

And the Des Moines Red-Star runs this pathetic liberal crap:

Is God a Democrat or Republican?

This just in: Contrary to popular belief, God has just held a press conference in which he announced that he is, in fact, a Democrat. The stunning announcement came as Iowan Republicans prepare to caucus on Jan. 3 and as a bevy of Republican candidates vie for the evangelical Christian vote.
When asked by a reporter if he thought his announcement would shock evangelical Christians, God replied, “It is the height of hubris for them to pretend to know my mind. If they are unable to deal with this, I suggest they wait outside the caucus room doors on Jan. 3 where they can wail and gnash their teeth.”
— David Gaul, Earling

Cute.  I've always thought of the notion of God and Christianity as distinctly apolitical.  That's why Jesus said:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
-- Mathew 22:21.


There was also that whole thing about how Jesus' kingdom was not of this earth.

But why let get facts in the way of a good narrative.

Such insecure people.  Constantly seeking validation.

Granted, GOP candidates are catering to the evangelical vote, but it is extreme arrogance to claim you speak for or represent God.  David Gaul should know all about hubris, since he accuses others of it while remaining blind to his own.

The first comment was equally inane:

Patrisha Dean: Loved your letter. Why are so-called Christians in denial of His message? Did Christ ever say to reward the rich so the poor could prosper? Did he ever put women down? Did he chastise with a whip the money changers in the temple? Did he really say anything about sexual practices? He did say to the woman at the well to go and sin no more but please enlighten me, as maybe I am so uninformed.
Forced charity is not charity, just like forced sex is not sex.  They're known by their more accurate terms robbery and rape.

Yes, Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple.  Because they were defiling a holy place with base commerce, not because they were money changers.  He didn't have much to say about sexual practices, true, but he didn't counter the God of the Old Testament.  Or does Patrisha not remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes, Patrisha, you are so uninformed.  God does not belong to the Democrats or the Republicans.  He doesn't belong to you or me.  He doesn't belong to ANYBODY.  THAT'S WHY HE'S GOD!

Then there was KayInMaine from White Noise Insanity:

Merry Christmas Eve 2012!

We’re not sure but we think we may have plugged our dog into the xmas tree this year.  I remember counting at least 8 strands of lights on the tree, so it is very possible I plugged Jasper’s tail in there somewhere! One friend said, “I think Jasper needs an ornament!”. Hey could be, but one thing is for sure, xmas wouldn’t be complete WITHOUT THIS PICTURE! Yesiree bobcats, nothing says “Merry Christmas, America!!!” more than that picture!
Hope you all have a wonderful time this weekend!

As I observed during Easter this year, KayInMaine can take her fake Christmas well-wishes and shove them.  It's all well and good for her to smear the "the christian gawd" the rest of the year, but today, she changes her spots.  Or at least tries to.

Granted, not very Christian of me, but I don't care.

Oh, by the way, KayInMaine, yesterday was Christmas Eve 2011, not 2012.  I guess pointing out that you made a mistake probably makes me a "right-wing, knuckle-dragging, neck-drooling teabagger."

23 December 2011

So difficult not to think of them as "peasants" when seated in 1st class:)

08 December 2011

Could artists write off dinner showings?

12 November 2011

A lesson in patience: Sitting quietly while a Commie sits next to me & demigrates the GOP. I resisted helping him lose consciousness:)

27 October 2011

Does Bradshaw not realize that your right to protest only extends as long as you don't trample the rights of others? He's ok w/ 24/7 occupations...

26 October 2011

Bradshaw lied his ass off about the Oakland protests right out the gate.

18 October 2011

Tip for Bradshaw: Don't pick a fight w/ Rush.

11 October 2011

If OWS is upset @ Wall Street for wrecking the economy 3 years ago, what took them so long to protest?
Since when is it illegal to make many times more money than your employees?
To Russ Feingold: How is Cain trying to intimidate free speech?

06 October 2011

Though I'm probably the only person not to own an Apple product of some kind, I'm sorry to hear of Jobs' death.

03 October 2011

Occupy Wall St's manifesto

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not
lose sight of what brought us together.
 Difference between these hippies and the Founding Fathers?  The latter group could actually delineate their grievances with the Crown.
We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
Isn't an ally someone who can help you do something besides whine about how unfair life is?  Incidentally, it is.  Get used to it!
As one people, formerly divided by the color of our skin, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, or lack thereof, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge
the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the
cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption
of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their
brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but
corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that
no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest
over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably
assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
 Okay, I wait with baited breath for the "facts"...
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the
original mortgage.
Well, to start out the gate, that's not a fact.  It's an allegation, one as yet I'm unaware of being proven in a court of law.  Any company that acts so recklessly will quickly go out of business, as banks take it in the shorts with every foreclosure they have.  The smart ones want to work with customers, but risk analysis is a big part of it.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give CEO’s
exorbitant bonuses.
I'll agree that the bailouts were a bad idea.  Too big to fail = Too stupid to survive in my book.  The companies should've declared bankruptcy and had their assets sold off to pay creditors.  The marketplace vacuum then gets filled by competitors who were smarter/luckier.
They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
And have paid hefty fines when they do so.  Again, smart companies only discriminate against under-achievers.
They have poisoned the food supply, and undermined the farming system through
monopolization.
I'm sure if they did poison the food supply, it was on purpose.  Nothing makes a long-term forecast rosy like killing off potential and repeat business.  As for undermining the "farming system", nobody can hold a candle to a government that subsidizes farming of food that goes uneaten.
They have continuously sought to end the rights of workers to negotiate their pay and
make complaints about the safety of their workplace.
You know when I can negotiate my pay?  When I interview with a prospective employer.  The brouhaha in Wisconsin was about public employee unions.  And the card check debate has been about safeguarding the rights of individuals not to be coerced into joining a union if they don't think it's in their best interests.  I'm unaware of individuals not being allowed to address workplace safety.  A threat to call OSHA is usually all it takes.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education,
which is itself a human right.
I see, they put a gun to the students' heads and forced them to take out a loan?  Forced them to major in something with no current marketable value (except in teaching it to others), like Liberals Arts?  And please point to the section of the Constitution which delineates education as a human right.  And let's be clear here:  Taxpayers fund K-12 education for all U.S. citizens, as well as a large number of illegal immigrants.  This is whining about post-secondary education, namely college.  Well, remember what Judge Smalls said?  "The world needs ditch diggers too, son."
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut
workers’ healthcare and pay.
In other words, the companies did what they had to do to stay competitive and stay in business and contributing to the economy in response to a game of chicken the unions played and lost.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the
culpability or responsibility.
Corporations are staffed and run by people.  Just like people, they benefit or suffer from the political winds of change.  Should they not have the same First Amendment rights as individual citizens?  What about AARP?  The NEA? Greenpeace?  The Sierra Club?  The AFL-CIO?  These are all organizations.  Corporations.  Face it, McCain-Feingold was SPEECH RATIONING!
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of
contracts in regards to health insurance.
And that's wrong how?  Contracts are meant to protect parties doing business together.  And then the government comes along and shits all over contract law.  Just ask the senior bond holders of GM how they felt when the Obama administration essentially invalidated their contract with GM and handed majority control of GM over the United Auto Workers union.  You see, unlike the utopian fantasy land inhabited by big-government acolytes, businesses are either beholden to their owners to make a profit, be those owners a single individual, a family, a consortium, or hundreds/thousands of shareholders.  They tend to hire the best accountants and lawyers so they can continue making money.

And then Obamacare gets passed, forcing increased expenditures from big employers.  The accountants and lawyers at the evil corporations, whom were most likely A/B students, can see the big impact coming at their bottom line.  The government feel-good types, if they have a degree in law or accounting, are more likely C students.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
Nonsense.  Look to your government first.  When I registered my car in Iowa after moving from Minnesota, I started getting auto warranty offers about two months later.  Strangely, I remember one warranty offer talking about my recent purchase of my car two months prior (Two months, five years, what's the difference?).  Coincidence?  More likely the DMV sold my information.

And for those companies you did do business with, and did sell information only they had?  My advice is to next time study their privacy statement.  Every company has one these days.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
Correction:  The government has used the military and police force to temper the notion of a boundless First Amendment with the need for the protection of information which could seriously or gravely harm the defense of the country should it fall into the hands of our enemies.  Yes, it may sound Orwellian, but people of conscience work in intelligence, too.  But instead of blabbing to the New York Times about something they feel is illegal yet classified, their first stop should be the House or Senate intelligence committees. The committee's members are cleared to know and discuss whether something is an abuse of power by the Executive branch of government, and the committees are bipartisan.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of
profit.
I'll explain it to you in terms you're likely to be uncomfortable with.  I don't care:

if Cost of recall > Cost of lawsuit settlements then
  Don't recall
else
  Recall

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have
produced and continue to produce.
Agreed.  Oh wait, we're still talking about corporations and not government, right?  In any event, yes, laissez-faire capitalism should be permitted to flourish rather than the crony capitalism that exists right now.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
Translation:  They made campaign contributions to politicians whose viewpoints aligned with their own.  
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
Actually, that's the market.  The alternate forms of energy have failed to prove cost-effective.  See Solyndra.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order
to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
So corporations don't have the right to protect the billions of dollars they invest in research and development?  Incidentally, the sales of those medicines may have turned a profit in the U.S. (which I doubt), but what about Canadian price ceilings on prescription medicines, and the fact that U.S. citizens sometimes buy their drugs from Canada and again undercut the evil corporations?
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty book keeping, and inactive
ingredients in pursuit of profit.
It was the Obama administration that blocked journalists' access to the Gulf of Mexico spill.  And name me one incident where a corporation didn't open up their checkbook when they fucked up.  The Enron brass went to jail.  
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the
media.
I'll agree with this one to a limited extent.  GE's former ownership of MSNBC springs to mind, as does that network's Obama-can-do-no-wrong stance.  But guess what?  In these days of alternate media, control is an impossibility.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
Huh?  How do you perpetuate colonialism in your home country.  And colonialism hasn't really existed since the end of WWII.  And how do corporations do this?
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
I sense a Blackwater reference.  If memory serves, when their operatives broke the laws of Iraq, the U.S. military handed them over to the local authorities.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government
contracts.
Let's nail down the definition of "weapons of mass destruction".  In my book, the only thing that can wreak mass destruction is a nuclear weapon.  If we're talking about nukes, there are a couple of points to consider:
  • Nuclear isotopes in nuclear weapons have a half-life.  In short, given enough time, the isotopes decay to the point where the bomb may still go boom, but it won't go BOOM!
  • The more lethal, precise, and demoralizing a weapon, the quicker an enemy surrenders and the more lives saved, on both sides of a conflict.
If we're talking about non-nuclear, then the second point is applicable here.  In fact, I'd add that a precise weapon saves innocent bystanders.
They have participated in a directly racist action by accepting the contract from the State
of Georgia to murder Troy Davis.
So it was racist because he was guilty, or because he'd exhausted all of his appeals for the murder of a police officer?  I don't agree with the death penalty because I think it's not punitive enough, but it is the law.
To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge
you to assert your power.
I do, every couple of years in a voting booth.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble;
OK.
occupy public space;
OK, so long as the occupation doesn't interfere with the rights of someone else.
create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
It's called electing your representative/senator/President.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy,

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

-- Thomas Jefferson


we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
Unbelievable: some moron actually believes full-service gas stations would be better because they provide jobs.
Redistribution of wealth is not a civil right!
Who can last longer? A bunch of whining brats who are gonna "occupy" through the winter? Or people who are actually paid to brave the elements?
Testing

30 September 2011

Mr. Infiiniti driver

Dear Mr. Infiniti driver:

Let me get this straight.

You cut me off twice in the process of getting on the highway. Then, when I get over in the left lane and start to accelerate, you slam on your brakes and try to cause an accident.

How does this make me an asshole?

Doesn't it make you the asshole?

Fortunately for both of us, there wasn't traffic behind me when you pulled your juvenile stunt.  I stopped in time, but what about the semi a 1/4 mile back?

Ohhh, you didn't see him, huh?

Douchebag.

01 September 2011

Countries I've visited


This application is created by interactive maps.
You can also have your visited countries map on your site.

If you see this message, you need to upgrade your flash player.



Make your visited countries mapJavaScript charts

States I've visited


This application is created by interactive maps.
You can also have your visited states map on your site.

If you see this message, you need to upgrade your flash player.



Make your visited states mapHTML5 charts

Labels

I've been called a bigot and a racist.

But I have colleagues and friends from different ethnic backgrounds whom I show respect by treating them as though color and religion isn't an issue.  Because it's not.

I've been called a knuckle-dragging, neck-drooling, redneck.

Because I think the federal government should at least attempt to live within its means.  But I hold an International Baccalaureate diploma, finished a 4-year college-degree in 3.5 years, and have spent a grand total of five months out of work in the thirteen years since I finished college.  I walk upright, my neck's usually white, and I lack the orifice on my neck that would produce drool.  If my knuckles were ever scarred, it would probably be from contact with some about-to-be-not-so-smug asshole's face.

I've been called anti-science.  Yet I show a closer allegiance to scientific principles than those who label me.  I had five years of schooling in physics from the time I was a high-school sophomore, and used it in my job off and on over a ten year period.  Rather than denounce someone because they reached a different conclusion off a similar set of observations, I first look introspectively at my own body of work to see if something can explain the different conclusion.  I regard science the same way I regard religion:  the search for truth, not the destination.

I've been called a religious nut.

Yes, I believe in a higher power.  I believe in serving something greater than myself.  Something which I can aspire to, though not ever fully achieve.  I believe I see that higher power in the miracles I see around me, both natural and man-made.  My faith informs my opinions and guides my decisions.  My faith doesn't tell me to treat those who disagree with me with scorn and derision, simply with respect.  As you fail to reciprocate, answer me this:  Just who are you to say that's wrong?

I've been called evil.

I ask you to show me concrete examples that don't rely on my simply and respectfully disagreeing with you.

I've been called a terrorist.

Wow.  I've been a loyal American citizen my entire life, and the most afoul of the law I've run is a couple of speeding tickets.  I do not resort to the threat or application of violence or property damage to achieve my goals.  If you think I'm a terrorist, God help you should ever encounter an actual one.

04 July 2011

The Star & Sickle

In the midst of the shutdown, I think the parent company of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune should make the newspaper simplify its format.  After all, three simple headlines would convey the daily message from the Star & Sickle:

  • "Don't Confuse Us Or Our Dwindling Readership With Facts, The Shutdown Is The Republicans' Fault"
  • Republicans Want Millionaires To Keep More Of Their Money, But We Think It Would Better Be Served For Spending Projects We Haven't Even Dreamed Up Yet"
  • "Republicans Are Evil, And Since It's The Fourth Of July, They're Unpatriotic Too"
I mean, really, the last few days, especially since the shutdown began, it's been a broken record.

03 July 2011

Days 5 & 6

T is just wonderful.

For date #5, we took in an evening at the Science Center of Iowa's Mixology event.  We had a fun evening, where we explored the museum, were entertained by a couple of live demonstrations, and learned more about each other, followed by drinks at the Lift and dinner at Fong's Pizzeria.  Back to her place to watch a movie, followed by talking and kissing.  I got home around 4:30, to bed by 5:00.

The next day was a picnic with her sister and her sister's kids, followed by a trip out to Madison County to the grand opening of a winery's brewery.  Later, T told me I had scored some points by agreeing to attend, but I attended because I thought it would be different and fun. 

The grand opening had live music, outdoor seating, and plenty of sunshine.  Twisted Blonde beer.  The journey there was a little bit of an adventure as we tore along several dirt roads before stopping and asking for directions in St. Charles.  After taking in the ambience at the Madison County Winery, we got a bottle of their "Pink" wine to go, enjoying it while watching a double feature at my place.  A simple dinner at Quizno's and back to my place to try out my new dining table.  T helped me prepare the Twins' dinner meal and she got to see just how spoiled the two are.

When I got to her place Friday evening, I played up a little joke we had between us on our first date:  I made a date comment card she could fill out, making sure that one could only give positive comments.  Dorky, to be sure, but she found the humor in it.

Today, T's out of town, visiting her family for the 4th of July, but she remains in my thoughts.  

28 May 2011

More tolerance from the Left

So the blood-pressure machine at the grocery store indicated the blood pressure is on the high side.  Unwisely, I navigated the ol' browser over to the verbal diarrhea of KayInMaine and her monument to tolerance, White Noise Insanity.  Wherever the blood pressure was, I'm sure it spiked when I saw this page:

Huh. That’s news to me. If I remember correctly in all the times I’ve tuned into to listen to this right wing forked tongued bozo, she’s spewing vicious vile lies about everyone except her right wing rabid slutty Wall Street whore worshipers! Even Bill O’Reilly of Fart News once said of Laura that she is an idealogue and is hooked up to an IV kool aid drip.
I noticed that Kay didn't delineate any example of the so-called "lies".  I've also noticed that Bill O'reilly is only a hate-filled right-wing conservative when the Left needs to slander him.  Other times, they acknowledge his commitment to balance.

Remember the time when one of Ingraham’s fill-ins called Michelle Obama "trash in the White House"? I thought the right wing of America always respected the office of the presidency and the First Family? Nope! They’re nothing but a bunch of sluts and whores for the Medicare Killer Billionaire’s group! By the way, did her fill-in get fired? Nope!

The fill-in was Tammy Bruce, and did you actually read what she said?  How is the disrespect to the "office of the presidency and the First Family"?  Funny, I've never heard of such an office.  I have heard of the Office of the President of the United States, but there is no corresponding Office of the First Lady.  At least, not one provided for in the Constitution.  The fact of the matter is this First Lady has acted as though being married to the President entitles her to some sort of Constitutional office.  The woman has waged a hypocritical war on the food and beverage industry.  Bruce was correct in characterizing Michelle Obama as "trash" in regards to her tendency to talk down to people in this area.  Other First Ladies?  Nancy Reagan worked with people with disabilities, particularly veterans.  Barbara Bush worked for reducing illiteracy.  Laura Bush continued that trend, along with education (she was a teacher, after all) and bringing awareness to the plight of oppressed women and at-risk youth.  Hillary Clinton?  Well, she faded from the limelight, much like Michelle did for a little while when she adopted an attitude that her office was a Constitutional one.

Remember when she wrote a piece over on the Huffington Post in the voice of Michelle Obama? Completely racist in tone!
Racist?  Pointing out Michelle Obama's "Marie Antoinette" moment in wearing $540 sneakers when going to a food bank in 2009, and then making the comment about there being plenty of other, non-oil-soaked beaches where the peasants-- er, "American people" can vacation, especially those living in the Gulf Coast.  You know, the ones who has just had their livelihoods destroyed?

Remember the time when Ingraham implied that Nancy Pelosi was a cheap whore?
 Oh, I'm sorry, are you offended by the fact that Nancy Pelosi essentially bribed and cajoled members of Congress into supporting the largely-unpopular health care "reform" bill?  Ingraham said Pelosi had done everything short of selling her body.  Sorry to burst your bubble here, Kay, but politics and prostitution differ only in one important regard:  With prostitution, the customer is more likely to get his/her money's worth when he/she is getting screwed!
And then there was the time the slut called Meaghan McCain ‘fat’ while using a Valley Girl voice. Is that being respectful? Nope!
Ingraham was wrong to make fun of McCain because of her weight, but making fun of McCain because of her vacuous, mind-numbingly-stupid political commentary that is given weight (no pun intended) because her dad is the GOP media darling when he attacks those in his own party.  The Valley-Girl voice?  Par for the course.  Meghan McCain is, after all, a moron.
And don’t forget the time Ingraham started to take her clothes off on O’Reilly’s show! LOL Seriously, what kind of respectful journalist would do that for ratings? Only sluts do that (especially the Wall Street whores!).
Oh my god, she took off her sweater jacket!  Cue the stripper music!  Oh, and Kay, Ingraham is not a journalist, she's a talk radio host and political pundit.  Based on Kay's comment, if the studio Ingraham was in was too hot, I guess she's supposed to just sit there and bake.

I notice Kay mixes up sluts and whores here.  For the uninformed, whores have sex for money, sluts have sex because they can't get enough!  And before you castigate the "Wall Street whores", Kay, bear in mind they tend to donate to the Democrats more than the GOP.


Anyway, Ed Schultz has apologized to Satan’s Disciple for letting the truth slip out and he’s been suspended from his show to give himself time to think up better adjectives to describe ole Laura with...

Amusing to hear an avowed Christian-bashing Atheist refer to someone as "Satan's Disciple."  Oh, and Ed originally equivocated his actions on his radio show, presumably before MSNBC execs realized that attacking a breast-cancer survivor and Catholic, church-going, adoptive mother of two was pure poison for their already-basement ratings.


Ed, if you need help, let me know. The rabid right wing has been after me for years and calling me a ’slut, cunt, bitch, whore, lesbian, asshole’ is something they do weekly! 
Given your predilection for hyperbole, you'll pardon me if I don't believe a word you say.  OK, I'd buy that someone has called you a bitch.  You certainly act that way, though it doesn't justify someone sinking to your level.

I’ve got lots of adjectives for you to use that have been given the okay to be used by the trolls because they use them so often! See? I’d be glad to help you.
So if the "trolls" on your blog (which I'd argue are the commenters you agree with) use these terms in the highly-anonymous environment of the Internet, logic follows that Ed Schultz should be able to use the terms on radio and TV and sign his name to them, huh?  My God you are stupid.

Laura Ingraham is a phucking asshole!
Either Kay has proof that Ingraham has had intercourse with a player from the Philadelphia Phillies, had intercourse while under pharmaceuticals, or had "machine intercourse" (up until hearing this term, I had considered myself "worldly").

Or Kay just can't fucking spell.


 

24 May 2011

God, give it a rest already!

So, an acquaintance of mine cites the infinite wisdom of Stephen Colbert:



EFL:   "It's easy to deny gays equal rights. What is going to be difficult is explaining that to our grandchildren." -Stephen Colbert

to which another acquaintance replies:

JC: :) Love him & Jon Stewart both. I keep thinking if people were allowed to vote on whether african-americans got the same civil rights in the 60s, that the results would have been the same as putting gay marraige to a vote today. Sometimes, leadership isn't popular, but is necessary.
This from a woman who has for years been the head of a non-profit in Minnesota.  I've heard more than one person describe her stewardship of said organization as "tyrannical."  I've encountered her "leadership" style:  It's a rare form of bullying.

I will refrain from pointing out the percentages of Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, versus the percentage of Democrats.  But I will point out the huge non sequitor:  Gay marriage, or marriage of any kind, is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.  It's a religious institution.  Regrettably, the line between civil "marriage" and the religious sacrament of marriage has been blurred, and I will concede the couples out there with biologically-incompatible genitalia have a point:  Separate the two flavors of institutions, give the homos their frickin' benefits, and let's just shut up about the issue!

SL: Now the effort is to only allow those with photo ID's the right to vote-how far back in time do we really need to go? Womens suffrage-maybe American Indians shouldn't get to vote anymore either???

Oh.  My.  God.  Please tell me you were drunk or hit your head when your scribbled out this piece of shit.  Do yourself a favor, SL, and get your "news" (aka what a reasonable person would call "talking points") from a source other than The Huffington Post or MSNBC.  Just because you don't see the potential for fraud within Minnesota's "fantastic" system just means you're not capable of devious thought.  Good for you.  In the meantime, ask some election judges from the last election held in MN about the large groups of college students who got people to vouch for their eligibility to vote in MN. True, only two students are under investigation, but there's an old saying:  "Where there's smoke, there's fire."


The reality is that voter fraud is damn difficult to prove.  Under the current laws, you pretty much have to have the person confess of their own free will, since voting is done by secret ballot.  And if the Left were so damned worried about disenfranchisement, why don't they worry about the nullification of my vote by an ineligible voter?!
EFL: We've got so far to go....

True, EFL, so far to go before you and your like-minded peers consider for the briefest of possible moments that the other side is not evil, and they just might have a few good ideas.

07 May 2011

So Thursday night on TV, ABC aired the episode of Grey's Anatomy where gay couple Drs. Callie Torres and Arizona Robbins get "married".

Of course, it's not legal, and that was kind of the point that Grey's Anatomy Sondra Rhimes was making, I believe.

But Rhimes couldn't just stop there:  Nope, we had to hear about how Robbins and Torres couldn't get a priest to marry them, and they had to search high and low for a minister who would perform the ceremony.

* boo hoo *

Gee, wonder why?  Could it be that you're expecting a religious official to disregard the religion that ordained him or her?  Or expect the religion you're a willing member of to just conform to your viewpoint so you could feel better about yourself?

Marriage is a religious institution.  The gay marriage proponents have made an interesting point, however:  If we are to recognize marriage as the religious institution that it is, then a secular society can no longer sanction them.

But what we will put in place of the religious institution of marriage?  Some sort of secularly-recognized status?

Ooh, I get it!  Civil unions!

Give the gay community federally-recognized civil unions with the same rights and privileges as marriage, and let's drop this silly issue.

And what gay-marriage promotion would be incomplete without the obligatory Christian-bashing?

You see, the character of Callie Torres is Catholic.  And her mother had, well, issues:
  • She didn't want to hold her granddaughter, a child born out of wedlock, going so far as to call her a bastard.  Which is what you call a child born to unmarried parents.
  • She astutely pointed out that the wedding wasn't legal.  She went on to state how the whole thing had an element of fakery to it.
  • To top it off, she was concerned her daughter wouldn't get into Heaven.
Well, yeah.  That's her religion.  Her religion informs her that the marriage is wrong.  The whole thing clearly made her uncomfortable.  And I get that weddings mean the bride (or brides, in this case) pretty much gets to be treated like a princess for the day while everyone else endures some discomfort.  But did Callie have a reasonable expectation that her mother, a deeply religious woman, would turn her back on her faith, as Callie did, to sate her daughter's narcissism?  That's a pretty tall order.

01 May 2011

Finding offense...

Everything is a matter of perspective, I suppose.  a former colleague of mine has this picture and comment on her Facebook status:

Found this as I was looking through the coupons from the Sunday paper. How is this not really, really insulting and offensive?? Try as I might, I can't figure out how the message of this ad could be interpreted positively, especially by working moms. Great job, P&G.
Followed by a series of comments from her like-minded friends, and a comment by her:

Apparently! "In case you've forgotten, moms, Mr. Clean is here to remind you what your 'real' job is. And that bathtub had better be SPARKLING by Sunday."


Normally, I'd just hit the "Remove" button on the post and chalk it up to my former colleague spending too much time in a Bohemian place and state of mind. It's sad that her reading comprehension skills have suffered. The ad doesn't say what the moms' "real" job is. It says "get back to the job that really matters."  It's an innocuous ad unless you're prepared to take offense.  Remember, the Left is always telling us how NUANCED their thinking is!

In this case, P&G isn't insinuating that a working mom's real job is cleaning the house.  It shows the mom cleaning with her young daughter.  She's being a mom.  That's the "job" that "really matters."

I suppose after the ad with the little boy with hot pink toenail polish, the liberals think they deserve a "freebie".  I can see where the knee-jerk reaction would be to take offense, and perhaps P&G should've paid for a few more words to clarify that moms can be something besides moms, but being moms is the the job that matters.

UPDATE:  I decided to leave a polite comment:

####, I have a slightly different take on this ad: It's showing the mom spending time with the daughter. I don't think it's insinuating that's what the mom's real job is. Moms can be something besides moms, but the ad is stating that b...eing the mom is the job that "really matters." It's a cleaning product, so they're gonna show mom and daughter cleaning. It's analogous to showing a father and son working on a car in a Father's Day ad for Valvoline. Granted, the wording's vague.

If nothing else, I was able to get people in the thread thinking that there are different ways to see the ad.  One FB friend:

That's just what moms want to do, spend their time with their kids cleaning. Hell no! If they wanted to show parents spending quality time with their kids it should be reading together, playing ball, on a family vacation, etc etc. To me, this ad screams "a woman's most important job is to keep their house clean to to teach their daughters how to clean as well"
Mind you, I can't do anything about their reading comprehension. Once again, there is a world of difference between "most important job" and "job that really matters."  The first statement implies moms are supposed to do housekeeping first and foremost.  What the ad is talking about is that being a mom is the job that really matters-- to the kids.  And being a mom is not about cooking, cleaning, or anything else.  It's about bonding with your children.

Fortunately, the author of the thread understands what I'm getting at:

###: I agree, that's probably what they're going for. However, the implications are just bad. There are LOTS of other things the mom and daughter could be doing to spend quality time together -- cleaning the bathroom (and the implication th...at that's what moms should do on Mother's Day) is probably not one of them. I disagree that this is analogous to the dad working on the car with the son -- a better analogy could be gardening or scrapbooking. Cleaning is work, not a hobby.

And after she reads the rest of my comment:

Also, I understand that they're selling a cleaning product and not gardening products or board games or other 'family fun' products. As such, a much better message would have been something like "hey kids, let mom take a load off and clean the bathroom yourselves." Not, "hey Mom, clean the bathroom on Mother's Day to show your kids how much you love them."
 Huh?  Where is she getting that?  And by the way, showing the kids cleaning the bathroom while the mom takes a load off is going to get you into trouble with people who have no sense of humor about child labor.

To be fair, one of the other FB friends on the thread whom I estimated to have an I.Q. in the Cro-Magnon range actually produced this bit of logic:
I disagree with that, #####. I would find working on the car and gardening equal to cleaning the house. It's work, not a hobby, —something I don't want to do if I don't have to. The context of that woman cleaning is in the eye of the beholder. Just as an ad of a man working on car would be the same.
 Looking at the thread, I see the distribution:  Males see nothing sinister about the ad, women find it offensive.

Glad I'm single.  I can picture myself going 10 rounds with Tawny over this.

25 April 2011

Pink toenails? No thank you...

I can't quantify it, but there's something repulsive about the J.Crew ad that everybody's talking about.

I think because of its subtlety.

If you question the appropriateness of the ad, you're a bigot.

We hear all these stories from other "men" about how their little boys' favorite color is pink, or they played with dolls, or they've worn eyeliner, dresses, nail polish, etc.

It all comes back to acknowledging something that once was universally accepted to be a mark of masculinity: The fine line between being civilized and being a wild animal.

Animals are driven on instinct, they don't adorn themselves with anything.

Historically, men have been conquerors.  They don't care about looking good.  They care about looking like conquerors.

Pink nail polish doesn't cut it.  After all, it's nail polish.

Polish: (n) a substance used to give smoothness or gloss.

As a verb, it means to render refined, elegant, or finished.

Was looking refined paramount to King Leonidas?  Caear?  Attila?  Genghis Khan?

No, refinement didn't strike fear into the hearts of their enemies.  A willingness to at least appear savage and willing to go to any lengths for victory is what did it.

24 April 2011

Objectivity is hard to come by these days...

Retired WDFL-- er WCCO anchor Don Shelby recently apologized for presenting balanced coverage on anthropogenic climate change:

The TV newsman’s mea culpa about having misreported climate change came after of years of treating the story the same as he would any other, requiring the views of two opposing parties, Shelby told the packed lecture hall of the chemistry building.
But, he said, climate change is not a pro or con issue; it’s a scientific fact. And journalists who work to “balance” a story present an inaccurate picture when they give equal weight to sources promulgating inaccurate facts.
I see.  Inaccurate?  Or did he mean inconvenient?

The reality is that when it comes to ACC, the facts are not known.  There's a "consensus" among a group of scientists that continues to fluctuate in size.  There's volumes of data that are incongruous with intricate data models fully understood only by the researchers whom promote them.  ACC is far from being accepted as scientific fact.  It's theory.  If a scientist has a competing theory that also fits some or all of the data, shouldn't that be given due consideration by a true journalist (You know, the near-mythical kind interested in telling the reader/viewer/listener the Who-What-Where-When-Why-How?)

Then there's this commentary gem from the Minneapolis Star & Sickle:

The Republican self-deception that draws the most attention is the refusal to believe that President Obama is American-born.
But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist.

The title of the opinion piece by the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt?
 How does one have discourse with deniers?

Well, Fred, if you were interested in a discourse, I'd recommend not calling us "deniers".  We're skeptics.  We're not disregarding facts (as some on your side are apt to do), but you haven't sold us on the conclusions drawn from the available data.

First off, the Birther movement draws the most attention because that's the way the media wants it.  It's easier  to portray conservatives as a bunch of loons rather than engage them in debate.  Methinks an insecurity is betrayed by such an action.

Second, Fred, Republican lawmakers have to routinely adjust taxes down because Democrat lawmakers like to adjust them up.  I wonder if Democrats think the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is a straight line, versus the more nuanced view the Republicans have with regard to the Laffer Curve.  Also, population increases allow tax revenues to be collected from a more diverse base.  If government can live within its means, it can raise plenty of revenue by focusing on volume.  Keep taxes low, and middle-class people can afford to have more kids, meaning additional revenue 18 years down the road.  Keep taxes low, and upper-class people can put more of their money at risk in ventures that result in more jobs.

Wait a minute, that's too forward-thinking for the party of instant-gratification!  Why am I bothering to explain macro-economics to people who've formed a preconceived notion that the very engine of their existing wealth and the wealth of their nation, capitalism, is evil?

Take your Easter greeting and stick it...

So KayInMaine posted this morning:

As an Atheist, I don’t have a religious bone in my body, but I do know some of my readers are religious, so this post is for you. Happy Easter!
Hmm, guess this supposed to make up for the rest of the year when she's hostile to Christianity.?

A quick search of the site turns up:

Pardon me if I tell her what she can do with her momentary olive branch to Christianity.

Tomorrow, she'll go back to xeroxing posts from unbiased sources such as ThinkProgress and TalkingPointsMemo, and normalcy will return to the universe.

22 April 2011

Barry can be a prick sometimes...

OK, he can be a prick all the time, actually.

His latest antic?

“There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens,” Obama told about 200 guests at the residence of internet billionaire Marc Benioff

Surest way to lose credibility for your argument and any respect you had from me?  Call an ACC skeptic a "denier".  As I've said before, it tells me everything I need to know about the rigidity of your own position.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
-- Winston Churchill


It occurs to me that we should take a page from the liberal playbook when debating the severity of our debt.  We should just start screaming:
  
NO!  WE'RE BROKE!  THE DEBATE IS OVER!


Get it shrill enough, and the libs might actually get the concept of a finite supply of money.

You keep using that word...

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, though, I know that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Socialist.

A former colleague of mine actually used the word...to describe me.

Here's the context.  My colleague comments on seeing this "clever" bumper sticker, which I've previously commented on.  I point out the silliness of the logic behind the bumper sticker:

My gearshift doesn't have a "D" on it, *****. Besides, you can drive forward off a cliff :-)

Prompting this comeback:

Yes,*** , it is a good idea to protect the masses from driving off a cliff. I didn't realize you were so compassionate. Are you turning into a socialist?
Wow, right there is an insight into my colleague's viewpoint:  They're not people, they're masses.  Guess who else referred to them as "masses"?

Religion is the opiate of the masses
--Karl Marx

And apparently, compassion has suddenly become the purview of the Left?

Hardly.  I have plenty of compassion for people and for animals.  My colleague demonstrates how little he knows about me.  I don't go around broadcasting all of my volunteer work or the things I've done for complete strangers.  Why not?  Because I don't do it for recognition.  I do it because of values instilled in me by my family and friends.  Because at the end of the day, I can look in a mirror and acknowledge that I inconvenienced myself to help somebody else's day, knowing that some day I may rely on the kindness of a stranger to improve my day at the cost of his or her convenience.

But my compassion is tempered by what I've seen of some people in this world, who feel entitled to my unwilling compassion in the form of money.  They are able-bodied individuals who've never worked a day in their life.  Over the past 40 years, they've been inculcated to believe they are entitled to my money, that it's my job to take care of them.

To quote Judge Smalls from Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too.

But I digress.  Asking if I'm turning into a socialist because I care about what happens to this country?  No, of course not.  My colleague mistakes patriotism and motivated self-interest for near-worship of the State.  Doubtful that he's lived in a socialist country.  I have, by the way.  And let me tell you closet socialists that the reality never works as great as the theory.

So to it round it off, I shut down my colleague's feeble attempt at name-calling with this brief reply:


No need for name-calling, *****. I won't thread-jack *****'s status further, so anytime you feel like verbal jousting, my wall's available.

UPDATE:

So my colleague posted the following on his wall:

Easter canceled, they found the body.

Really?  What a prick!  What is it with these anti-Christian liberals and their need to tear down the Church?  It's not enough to exercise your right to not believe in a Supreme Being, you've got to demean and belittle people of faith.  Why is that?

My theory:  Liberals are control-freaks.

Think about it:  They think government controls of the economy is the way to prosperity.  They think speech codes on college campuses is the way to go.  They think we should throw our entire way of life into upheaval to try to counteract global temperature increases predicted with models based on severely flawed data.

I know in their mind, being jerks towards those of faith is their way of trying to drag "the masses" out of "superstition" and into "reason".

Just one question:  Who the fuck asked them to do this?

Oh, I get it:  They know better than us.  Riiight.

Next time one of these liberal pundits claim we conservatives are being melodramatic about the "War on Christmas" or the "War on Easter", point out all the "tolerant" atheists who insist on being dicks during the two most important times of the year for Christians.

Now, I expect to see similar "tolerance" shown for the Muslims during Ramadan.  Come on atheist pricks, let's see some consistency!

18 April 2011

Logic for dummies...

So I heard 14-year-old speaker Tricia Willoughby at the recent Madison Tax Day Tea Party was drowned out by protesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic&feature=player_embedded

Here's what the teenager actually said:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpeF4X7Ubo.  Yeah, really extreme stuff.  Really deserving of being called a "brat".

One commenter named willonomous, with an obvious learning disability said:
Also, for petes sake, if she's 14, she can't vote, yet it's okay to make her stand upto people telling them her views? If she's mature enough to have a unbiased view, she'd be allowed to vote. But she's not, because she's 14, so isn't

* Face-palm *

God, please tell me this commenter's not a teacher of anything that requires mastery of logic.    If he/she/it is a teacher, let's hope it's something harmless, like art.

Or journalism.

Let me see if I get this right:  She's 14.  The government says because she's 14, she can't vote.  It doesn't matter how "mature" or "unbiased" she could become in the eyes of willonomous (in other words, how much her opinion meets his/her/its approval), she still can't vote.

Perhaps if willonomous had been able to hear the speech instead of the protester's mouth, he would've realized that her speech was about how the reckless spending of the federal government carries a price borne more by Tricia's generation than the loud-mouthed buffoon shouting at her.

10 April 2011

Violence abounds

A shooting occurred at a grocery store I used to frequent before moving to IA.


Will the event deter me from going back to the store?  No.

First off, this wasn't some random act or robbery gone bad.  It involved three of the grocery store's employees.  It was a love triangle.  Unless you were a participant in the triangle or unfortunate enough to be in the line of fire, you weren't in very much danger.

Know what I'll do next time I'm in the neighborhood of that grocery store?  I'm going to go shop there.

Why?  Because I inherited something from my mother called "spite".  I refuse to live my life in fear of what might happen to me in a place already touched by violence.  If I did, the purveyors of violence and evil would win.

It's similar to a gang-related shooting that took place a few miles to the south a number of years ago at a movie theater.  Despite the high cost and lower quality of the cinemas, I and and a co-worker went to the movie theater out of spite.

Interestingly enough that some hack at the University of London has produced a study that sampled from 90 college students who "self-identified" themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative.  I've posited what I think of journalists who self-identify themselves as "moderate" when their bias betrays a pervasive liberalism in their thinking.  Anyway, the researcher claims a correlation between an enlarged amygdala (the "fear" center of the brain) and a propensity toward conservatism, while denser gray matter (where conflict resolution occurs) may leads towards a person being more likely to be liberal.

Yeah, I rolled my eyes too.  These lefties will stop at nothing to not win the debate, but merely overwhelm it with diversions and distractions.  Conservatism's a disease.  Your amygdala's too big.

Anybody peer-review this guy's findings?

Unsurprisingly, the fingers point to Glenn Beck.  I listen to the man's radio program and occasionally watched his television program.  I'm not sure it could be characterized as fear-mongering.  A more apt description would be that he is encouraging his fellow citizens to be vigilant of what their government's doing, or what some people are doing with the government's blessing.  Since when did a healthy distrust of one's politicians become paranoia?  Never forget, they are contractually-obligated employees.  The contract?  The U.S. Constitution.

Alas, I've decided that the brouhaha about enlarged amygdalas and Glenn Beck dovetails nicely with how every act of violence directed against politicans, members of law enforcement, or "immigrants" (where the media conveniently drops the "illegal" adjective is the result of a mindless right-wing drone whipped up into a "violent frenzy" by the "hate speech" from talk radio.

Of course, point out the well-documented trail of violence from the Left, and you get described with some "colorful" adjectives in lieu of debate.  After all, liberals are more nuanced thinkers.  Or so they keep telling us.  Meanwhile, they're also telling us civilization as we know will come to an end if the government shuts down.  Or public employee unions losing some of their power is the first step on the road to indentured servitude.  Or questioning the allocation of funds to the EPA means that Republicans want to poison the earth, air, and water.

Um, who's the one fear-mongering again?

Back to the study.  Dense gray matter correlates with the likelihood of being liberal?  Consider the fact that many young people start out as liberal until their rampant altruism collides with the reality that
  • there is no money tree from which a government can pluck T-bills in hopes of solving all of society's ills
  • trying to help someone improve their station in life can backfire because you have taken an incentive away
  • the money comes from others, many of whom have figured out how to be self-reliant, begging the question of why the person being helped cannot also help themselves.
 at which point they become conservative.  Does the gray matter transform into an enlarged amygdala overnight or something?

Oops, I just realized I used the word "self-reliant" above.  Let me translate it into liberal-speak:  "selfish".  After all, acting in your own self-interest is never to the benefit of others.  Unless your successful business venture means jobs for your community and increases your ability to donate to charity.

Yep, selfishness (ability to care for yourself and others), paranoia (ability to recognize a threat to your way of life and be vigilant), and violence (ability to kick said threat in the ass it doesn't leave your way of life alone). 

Sign me up.

09 April 2011

The GOP blinked

That's my feeling.  The Democrats, whom never met spending they didn't like, aside from funds allocated to the DoD, pushed the GOP to the wall over $61 billion in cuts to a budget that grew by $1 TRILLION the past two years!

If that's all the cuts we could find, the government needed to shut down until our elected representatives could find better accountants!

Last year's trouncing of the Dems in the mid-term elections demonstrated one thing:  The much-maligned and oft-underestimated Tea Party is growing in strength.  People are sick of endless and reckless government spending with OUR MONEY!  Yes, the U.S. has a revolving debt, paying off the debt-holders from time to time by borrowing from other debt-holders.  This economic system has survived for generations because of the confidence of the debt-holders in the continued existence of the U.S., and it's continued ability to pay its debts.

But we are fast approaching the point where the federal debt will be 90% of our GDP.  Unless we can increase the growth rate of the national economy, it becomes increasingly more difficult for that debt to ever hope to be paid off.  Debt-holders lose confidence in the U.S. economy, and become more reluctant to lend us money.

What sort of math are they teaching in schools?

rwhitten

11:11 AM on January 22, 2011

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore rwhitten. Show DetailsHide Details

There are questions about whether ethanol is actually carbon neutral, but it is probably better than oil. The problem with ethanol is that the government is choosing the alternative energy to supplement fossil fuels via subsidies.

A better solution is to gradually increase tax on fossil fuels at the point of consumption and rebate the proceeds equally to everyone. This is a revenue neutral scheme proposed by Dr. James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist from small town Iowa. The result is that those who conserve fossil fuel use are rewarded and those who waste are punished. The market place would respond by making more energy efficient devices and investing in alternatives that wouldn't yet be viable. The market place would choose winners and loosers, not the government. The market place can respond more quickly to changing technology than can the government.


This comment was posted on a recent article about the coming introduction of E15 to fuel pumps in Iowa.

Um, rwhitten, people who conserve fuel are already awarded and people who waste it are already punished.  It's called the Free Market.  When I drive my SUV, I'm punished more by having to visit the gas station more often than when I drive my sedan.  What is so complicated about this?  Instead, rwhitten cites Dr. James Hansen, the balanced individual who thought climate skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity".  A revenue-neutral scheme?  With many things liberal, it sounds good in theory, provided that theory is surface level.  How much will it cost to collect the extra taxes at the pump?

22 March 2011

Am I psychic? Or are these anti-nuke morons that predictable?

The no-nukes crowd haven't surprised me.

The Japanese are still fighting a valiant fight against a reactor that threatens to melt down, possibly at the cost of plant workers' lives, and these limp-wristed panty-waists are ever so ready to say they told us so.

Really?

I listened to a liberal guest on Hannity's radio program this evening argue against building more nuclear power plants in the U.S., citing the drama going in Japan right now.  Never mind that the power plant was hit with a 9.0 Richter scale earthquake followed by a tsunami.  Not something that happens every day.  Hannity wisely framed it in the context of risk versus reward.

It seemed as though his guest, however, prefers to live in a world where everyone is safe all the time.  But that world doesn't exist.

I've never understood why the global warming folks aren't behind nuclear power.  Pound for pound, it has the smallest carbon footprint for the most energy produced.  Beyond the machinery used to build the power plant and the mining of the uranium fuel, the plant has no carbon footprint.  The cloud of vapor you see coming out of the nuclear power plant's cooling towers?  That's gaseous dihydrogen monoxide, a lethal chemical referred to in the Bible as having nearly wiped out mankind in the days of Noah and his ark.

It seems liberals have unrealistic expectations when it comes to many forms of alternative energy:
  • Solar power requires sunshine, lots of it, to generate low current.  For somewhere like Arizona, it's ideal, provided you can convince the environmentalists to give up hundreds of square miles of desert to power a small town.
  • Wind energy is great provided you live somewhere that's windy.  But ironically, the wind turbines are stopped and the blades feathered in strong winds to prevent damage.
  • Geothermal energy is by far the most sustainable, but we're limited by where we can drill to relatively shallow depths, because the deeper you drill, the longer it takes for the investment to pay for itself.  Geothermal advocates say the energy can sustain civilization for centuries.  It may take that long to pay for itself.
  • Hydro-electric energy is good.  Hoover Dam can meet the electricity needs of the American Southwest, but again, there is location and cost.
Sure, we could switch to these technologies tomorrow.  What do we do in the meantime?  Without on-demand power generation like coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, our civilization will starve.  Its development will be retarded.

Hannity's guest also commented on he wanted to see our energy consumption stay where it's at, alluding to adoption of the Volt as a way to do that.

*face-palm*

  1. The Volt costs around 80k to make, Government Motors sells it at a loss for 40k.  Consumer Reports wasn't impressed.
  2. If a majority of Americans buy the Volt, we will double the load on the electric grid.  Where are we going to get the extra electricity to supply that power?  Windmills?  No, we'll have to burn more fossil fuels.  In fact, after factoring in the step-down transformers between the power plant and your wall outlet, even using optimistic figures for the efficiency of the transformers, you'll probably burn more fossil fuel per year than if you just got a non-hybrid gas car.
Nuclear reactors continue to get safer.  Newer pebble-bed reactors use impermeable laws of physics rather than electro-mechanical devices to control the reaction.  The Fukushima reactor is 40+ years old.  I'm reminded of how environmentalists stopped construction of the Big Stone II power plant in Minnesota.  It was a coal power plant that had newer, more efficient scrubber technology that would've actually resulted in more efficiency and less pollution than staying with Big Stone I alone.  But environmentalist dogma trumped facts.

It's getting to be a mantra around here:  "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

Silly me

Silly me, expecting logic and rationale in a "debate" where neither were invited.

I routinely read White Noise Insanity, a VERY liberal blog.  I don't go there to educate myself about the other side's viewpoint.  I go there to check and see if the other side's viewpoint has a foundation in facts and logic.

I keep looking.  So far, nothing.

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives voting to defund NPR, a Democratic Congressman who thought he was being clever (Who am I to pull him out of Dream World?) proposed pulling funding for advertising on Fox News Channel in retaliation.

KayInMaine at White Noise Insanity made a post about it, commenting "Let the reich wing hissy fits begin!"

Well, hardly.  We evil conservatives don't rattle easily over some so trivial as federally funded advertising on a cable news ratings giant that gets plenty of money from other advertisers.  I politely pointed this out:

I doubt Fox News Channel would miss the ad revenue much, even though that advertising is largely recruiting commercials for the U.S. Armed Forces. Advertising on the cable news channel with the highest ratings just makes good business sense, especially when trying to drive enlistments. If you accept the premise that most members of the military are politically conservative, it’s an even more sound business decision, because it’s a target audience.
But if we’re to deny government funding of advertising on news outlets on the basis of those outlets’ bias, then should any of them get any money?
Why should I, as a conservative, see my taxes go to fund NPR or PBS when their own executives admit to a liberal bias? You wouldn’t want Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity to be subsidized with your taxpayer dollars, would you?

KayInMaine with this talking point:


 As a liberal, why should my tax dollars pay for wars that I don’t support?

OK, slight difference:  The Armed Forces are for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.  In fact, the Constitution also mentions providing for the common defense as one of the reasons the States originally formed a "more perfect union".  To answer her question, even though she didn't really answer mine, providing "for the common defense" is actually in the Constitution, and federally funding politically-biased media is not.

KayInMaine's writings indicate her consistency in being anti-war, especially in light of the most recent actions against Libya.  I'm unsure what we're doing over there myself, but while we may not support this war or that, people like her voted for Mr. Obama, and he's the one executing the orders as Commander-in-Chief.  She and her fellow voters entrusted him with that responsibility from 20 Jan 2009 until 20 Jan 2013.  Now on Libya, I question the constitutionality of Mr. Obama committing troops to a military engagement with the approval of Congress, but that is a another topic for discussion.

Some fact-challenged commenter named cliff then scribbled this out:


"Advertising on the cable news channel with the highest ratings just makes good business sense, especially when trying to drive enlistments."
Among senior citizens who are the majority of the Fake News delusional audience, yea that stupid comment makes sense to a conserv-o-tard.

Nice.  Remember how I said I was polite?  Why did I waste my time?  Something tells me cliff's bravery in implying I'm a "conserv-o-tard" would vanish if he had the opportunity to say it to my face.  Mind you, name-calling amuses me, since it tells me the other guy just lost.  Just so we're clear, brave ol' cliff has nothing to fear in physical violence from me.  After all, I'm not a union sympathizer!

As for the argument cliff was trying to make, the median age of Fox News Channel viewers is around 67.  For those who are mathematically declined, a normal, or Gaussian distribution includes a wide variety of ages, including twenty-somethings.  Interestingly enough, if we re-visit the demographics five years from now, that age will hardly shift at all.  Why?  The older people in the standard deviations to the right are dying off, but the younger crowd in the left standard deviations is moving towards the center, and being replaced with others.  Another way to read the distribution is to acknowledge that many young people are "changing their spots" as they age.

Most likely, cliff probably thinks I'm an old fuddy-duddy.  Wouldn't surprise me, since cliff has already so much as declared "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"

And then KayInMaine rounds out the thread with this "pearl of wisdom":

I’ll never forget the time WHITE NOISE INSANITY was mentioned by Sean Hannity on his Fox News program a couple years ago. Guess how many hits I got to my blog after he said it, Clif? Not even 200! LOL I guess those who are watching Fox are at LEAST 80 years old and don’t own a computer! 

Another possibility is that those under-80, computer-literate Hannity viewers don't need nor want to waste time on visiting your hateful little blog.  Go ahead and draw your self-deluding conclusions.  Me?  I thrive on chaos.  I love watching you lefties nourish yourselves with your hatred.  It's cute.  And nothing you say will ruin the perverse pleasure I derive from your fits of impotent rage.

*evil maniacal laugh*

Ok, my curiosity got the better of me.  I just had to see the context in which Sean Hannity would give free traffic to White Noise Insanity.  Here's the link: Katy Abram Responds to Liberal Attacks.

Sean Hannity quote:  And that's not all the left-wing blogosphere went in overdrive accusing Katy of everything from stupidity to racism. Now the blog White Noise Insanity argued, quote, "With a black man in the White House she's just feeling like the founding fathers would be livid because they wanted white power to the end."

Yeah, hard to believe they didn't stampede over to your blog, KayInMaine, with racist drivel like that.

UPDATE, 23 Mar 2011,0155 GMT

Ah, we have another contestant.  Grant in Texas wrote:

The military is made up of MANY Latinos, blacks, and poor whites from UNION families who at least grew up in Democratic homes. Since my partner was from a Democratic family he enlisted in the US Navy as a “Democrat” at age 18. He now realizes that over the years he had been brainwashed to be a conservative by his OFFICERS. He started voting straight Republican due to his commanders’ influences. He had heard over-and-over the BIG LIE that liberals “hate” the soldier and sailor. Since retirement, his mind has opened again and now realizes that the REICH actually cares little about the “boots on the ground”….even VA benefits for the retired. The GOP mostly cares about the rich, fat-cat MILITARY/Industrial contractors! Wearing a flag pin, wrapping up in a flag at a NASCAR opening ceremony or Country Music awards show is not really “supporting” the real military.

OK, Grant may not know this, but you can be a conservative Democrat.  They do exist.  More often these days, they prefer to be called "libertarians".  The line about Grant's partner amuses me:

...he enlisted in the US Navy as a “Democrat” at age 18.

Really?  I'm unfamiliar with that rank.  Does that outrank a seaman?

...he had been brainwashed to be a conservative by his OFFICERS.

Brainwashed?  Really?  They had to force Grant's partner to embrace things like small government, reduced spending and taxation, and family values?  You know what this means?  He is/was either weak-willed or saw something interesting in the political viewpoints.

He had heard over-and-over the BIG LIE that liberals “hate” the soldier and sailor.

Curious, I've never heard this, I'll have to check the connections on my terminal bringing me feeds from the Evil Conservative Network.

* wiggles wires*

Ah, loose connection.  Ah, here we are:

Code Pink defaces Berkeley military recruitment office
Military recruiters, confronted by crowd, leave campus job fair / Anti-war protesters at university block doors to building
ROTC, Military Recruiters Off Campus Now!
Protestors lay seige to US Capitol, smash window at military recruiter

Hmm, must be my fellow evil conservatives posing as unhinged anti-war leftists!  Those wacky guys!

Since retirement, his mind has opened again and now realizes that the REICH actually cares little about the “boots on the ground”

Funny that your partner is so open-minded that he's with a bigot like you, who refers to the GOP as the "REICH".  Hope he's not much more open-minded:  His brains might fall out.  Oh, and the right doesn't care about the boots on the ground, eh?

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Troops in Baghdad

The GOP mostly cares about the rich, fat-cat MILITARY/Industrial contractors!

You know, the contractors providing high-paying jobs designing and building new technologies that save American lives and actually cost fewer enemy lives because of their decisive impact in warfare.  That darned selfish GOP, trying to save the lives of American citizens!

Wearing a flag pin, wrapping up in a flag at a NASCAR opening ceremony or Country Music awards show is not really “supporting” the real military.

Curious how liberals are always telling us how not to support the "real" (vs. fake?) military, but do they ever tell or show us how we should support the military?




Never mind, they've already showed us.





15 January 2011

"It was eight years ago, let it go"

So said a commenter on Media Matters in response to Rush Limbaugh's comparison of the Memorial Service for the victims of the Tucson shooting with the Memorial-turned-pep-rally for Sen. Paul Wellstone in Minnesota in 2002.

Let it go, the commenter said. It was eight years ago.

Hmmm, you mean like the way the liberals have let go the Bush-stole-the-election meme from 2000, ten years ago?

08 January 2011

A mixture of emotions just beneath the surface...

Every time one of these nutjobs goes on a killing rampage, there is a universal constant:

No-class lefties will find a way to assign blame to the right wing BEFORE they even offer their condolences.

Think about that for a moment: They place their ideology above a person's life. They are that despicable. Yet, I can't be angry with them. I can only pity them.

The alleged shooter may very well be a right-winger. But is it really the time to be arguing this?

I can't say I'm surprised. I once had dinner sitting next to a seemingly-normal middle-aged man who fervently believed that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated by the Bush administration.

Some people are blind to the possibility that those whom do not agree with them are not sociopaths.

Of course, another favorite debate tactic of these despicable human beings is to characterize them and anybody with similar political beliefs as mindless drones who get whipped up into a frenzy by "inflammatory rhetoric."

Yes, because everyone on the left thinks for themselves, and no one on the right does. Remember the woman who stood in line for "Obama money"? Or the rash of gunmen whom have been ascribed as "right-wingers" until someone found their readings habits just a little to the left of Mao?

People who commit acts of violence to promote their politics have a screw loose, regardless of whether they're Marxists, anarchists, Fascists, or "Centrists" (usually self-described). Usually, their ideology does not make them violent. Otherwise, I and the Wellstone conspiracy theorist might have gone three rounds. Granted, I took an immediate disliking to the man as soon as he shared his nutty theory. Had I declared myself a member of the Right, would he have tried to beat me into submission with his fists? Doubtful.

The immediate reaction to this from the Far Left, and their aptness to quickly blame "divisive" language follows a pattern. Not too long ago, I wrote of the ridiculous notion that "words can hurt." Could it be that the Far Left wants to tie every act of violence immediately to words they don't agree with? I thought they were the champions of the First Amendment?

04 January 2011

Visited countries

Visited Countries

Visited Countries Map from TravelBlog

When building a case against conservatives...

... a little bit of advice:  Your first piece of "evidence" shouldn't be allegations of racial epithets shouted at members of Congress, especially when there were thousands of protesters in attendance, many of them with phones capable of capturing video.  Strange that no one has come forward to claim Andrew Breitbart's $100k reward for video evidence.  I'm fairly conservative, but if I had proof, I'd give up a member of my own family for the chance to pay off the mortgage in one fell swoop.

But the story beats on:  Liberals accept at face value the word of a member of Congress, despite video from several angles that doesn't corroborate the accusations.  Or the witnesses' ability to have heard the epithets.  Or their recollection of what they did in reaction to them.  Other than that, the claim is perfectly verifiable.

Wait a minute!  Since when do we accept the word of a politician?  For years now, have we not heard "Bush lied, people died"?  Strange that witness testimony is unimpeachable if the witness has a "D" next to his or her name.

Wait a minute, I'm using liberal logic:  The burden of proof is on me, the evil, baby-eating, Gaig-killing conservative to prove that hateful words were not spoken.  Just like it's up to me and my kind to prove the allegations made against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this past political season weren't true.

Naturally, the Left still hasn't let this go.  Know why?  Righteous indignation:  How dare you call Rep. Lewis a liar for saying you Tea-baggers *hee-hee* called him a nigger!  Why he marched with Martin Luther King, Jr!

So?  So did Jesse Jackson, expert shakedown artist behind PUSH.

MLK has been dead for thirty years.  People change.  Including people that marched with him.  Not that they were ever entitled to absolute moral authority on anything!

And to this day, facts still trump absolute moral authority.  No video footage of it?  And the only footage there is doesn't prove anything?  Sorry, Facts and a pair of Fives still beats Absolute Moral Authority and three Aces.  No, I will not respect your authoritah!

Seriously, I'd be willing to split the $100k with anyone who's got the video.