Hey! The economy grew at a blistering 3.5% last quarter. Pop the corks kids 'cuz were in high cotton. What ... are you just sitting there? Get up offyerbutt and go out and spend your windfall.
But, before you do, let's try a little thought experiment.
Suppose you had two thousand dollars in the bank. "Yay," you say, "I've got two large to cover my expenses until next payday."
Now suppose some scoundrel broke in and swiped a thousand of your dollars. "Boo-hoo-hoo," you say, "half my savings have just disappeared."
Further suppose your spouse went out and charged a hundred dollars worth of clothes on the old MasterCard, went directly to the pawn shop, resold them for fifty, and deposited that money in the bank giving you now a thousand and fifty smackers.
Would you...
A. Dance about yelling, "Woot, woot, my personal economy grew at a rate of five percent, I'll make up for that stolen dough in no time!"
or...
B. Be very sad because, not only are you out a thousand dollars, you are also an additional hundred dollars (at 20% interest) in the hole and don't even have any new clothes to wear to bankruptcy court.
I do not know which terrifies me more, the thought that our overlords think we are stupid enough to believe a single quarter of borrowed-money-fueled GDP increase is good news, or that they might believe it themselves.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Mr. Beck writes that the new U.N. proposals for controlling small arms make for some interesting reading.
I like this sort of thing because it lends it self easily to the game of "Internet Compare And Contrast".
From the report, comes a glowing review of the wonderful work they are doing in South Africa:
I like this sort of thing because it lends it self easily to the game of "Internet Compare And Contrast".
From the report, comes a glowing review of the wonderful work they are doing in South Africa:
The Firearms Control Act (FCA) of 2000 replaced earlier apartheid-era regulations covering civilians and state arms holders. The parliamentary committee was directed to ‘produce progressive policy proposals which will contribute to a drastic reduction in the number of legal firearms in circulation in South Africa.’ Under the new law, civilian owners must be, among other things:
• a South African citizen or a permanent resident;
• be 21 years or older (previously the minimum age had been 16);
• a ‘fit and proper person’;
• of a stable mental condition and not inclined towards violence;
• not addicted to drugs or alcohol;
• not convicted of a violent crime within the past five years;
• in possession of an appropriate firearm safe; and
• in possession of a competency certificate.
To obtain the competency certificate, applicants must demonstrate knowledge of the gun laws
and demonstrate safe handling. The process also includes a background check and may include
interviews with intimate partners and/or neighbours. An individual may possess a maximum of
four licenses, with only one designed for self-defence. Licenses must be renewed on a regular
basis (every five years for self-defence guns, ten years for sports shooting, ten years for a private collection, two years for a business license and ten years for hunting licenses). The law also prohibits owners from lending his or her firearm to another person unless the borrower is ‘under his/her immediate supervision where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose’. All of these regulations apply to civilians, private security officers, police and security force users.
So how is it working out? The magic Google eight ball finds a Sept. 2008 article from the Economist containing this nugget:
Police figures put the murder rate in 2007-08 at more than 38 per 100,000 and rape at more than 75 per 100,000. This marks a big fall over the past several years, but is still astronomical by international standards (the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States last year).
Gun free paradise to be sure.
It may be a stretch. But what the heck, I'll go out on a limb here: I don't think all the caring, sharing, morally progressive types who write this stuff for the United Nations give a rat's patoot about diminishing suffering; I think they are more interested in shoving their agenda down the world's throat so they can sit around telling each other how caring, sharing, morally progressive they are.
I wonder what the people who do the real work of helping those in need could do with the money that went into writing, researching, and distributing this report.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Show Trials
I noticed on Ace, a story about the upcoming investigation into the CIA - headline: "Senate to investigate CIA's actions under Bush". I see they are not investigating the CIA's actions under Clinton, though many of the same people were doing the same things. I also suspect they are not trying to discover who in the CIA leaked sensitive and classified information to the media, thus undermining the fight against muslim terrorists.
I don't know much about the CIA, but after thirty years of simply holding a job, I know a lot about how people in organizations act. I know the lessons I have learned are scalable - the same backstabbing that gets you ahead at McDonald's, gets you ahead at Microsoft, gets you ahead in politics, gets you ahead at the CIA. The difference is simply one of degree.
I know the CIA may always have been, but is certainly now, a political organization - the Church Committee used the crisis of confidence of the 1970's to give politicians in congress more control over intelligence operations. Whether done to make the CIA more accountable to oversight, or to carve out for the legislative branch a slice of power heretofore held by the executive, is irrelevant - the results speak for themselves, the CIA is both player and pawn in the Washington tug of war.
For the last eight years, some in the CIA were brave whistleblowers, exposing the excesses of the evil Bush administration, or they were sleazy double dealers selling their country down the river to curry favor with the leftist establishment - toe-may-to, toe-mah-to. For the last eight years, some in the CIA were dedicated civil servants doing their best under difficult circumstances to protect the nation from those who wanted to do it harm, or they were unquestioning fascist drones mindlessly following the orders of the sinister syndicate who controlled the White House - poe-tay-to, poe-tah-to.
The past doesn't matter, because what is being shilled as an investigation into the abuses of the neocon cabal, is really of course, a purge - the house, senate, and president want to make sure what was done to Bush is not done to them, so anyone who seems to harbor too much loyalty to the previous regime has to go.
There are a couple of things I know from watching innumerable city council, planning commission, and architectural review board show trials ... er, meetings: first, the issues are already decided before the show starts, and second, the first ones in the dock are the erstwhile allies of the new boss - every new boss with a modicum of sense disposes of old friends before going after new enemies. This does not bode well for last year's whistleblowers who are now looking to the new powers-that-be for rewards for services rendered. Any Joe Wilsons or Valerie Plames still working at the CIA should take note.
And finally, just to kill any optimism anyone might have - consider the implications of this snippet from the article:
That's certain to end well. Machiavelli put it best:
Translation: if you are going to have a purge, do it quickly, completely, and if possible, in one night - if you drag it out for a year, expecting your target to wait passively for the ax to fall, you are a fool, or a member of the senate intelligence committee.
I don't know much about the CIA, but after thirty years of simply holding a job, I know a lot about how people in organizations act. I know the lessons I have learned are scalable - the same backstabbing that gets you ahead at McDonald's, gets you ahead at Microsoft, gets you ahead in politics, gets you ahead at the CIA. The difference is simply one of degree.
I know the CIA may always have been, but is certainly now, a political organization - the Church Committee used the crisis of confidence of the 1970's to give politicians in congress more control over intelligence operations. Whether done to make the CIA more accountable to oversight, or to carve out for the legislative branch a slice of power heretofore held by the executive, is irrelevant - the results speak for themselves, the CIA is both player and pawn in the Washington tug of war.
For the last eight years, some in the CIA were brave whistleblowers, exposing the excesses of the evil Bush administration, or they were sleazy double dealers selling their country down the river to curry favor with the leftist establishment - toe-may-to, toe-mah-to. For the last eight years, some in the CIA were dedicated civil servants doing their best under difficult circumstances to protect the nation from those who wanted to do it harm, or they were unquestioning fascist drones mindlessly following the orders of the sinister syndicate who controlled the White House - poe-tay-to, poe-tah-to.
The past doesn't matter, because what is being shilled as an investigation into the abuses of the neocon cabal, is really of course, a purge - the house, senate, and president want to make sure what was done to Bush is not done to them, so anyone who seems to harbor too much loyalty to the previous regime has to go.
There are a couple of things I know from watching innumerable city council, planning commission, and architectural review board show trials ... er, meetings: first, the issues are already decided before the show starts, and second, the first ones in the dock are the erstwhile allies of the new boss - every new boss with a modicum of sense disposes of old friends before going after new enemies. This does not bode well for last year's whistleblowers who are now looking to the new powers-that-be for rewards for services rendered. Any Joe Wilsons or Valerie Plames still working at the CIA should take note.
And finally, just to kill any optimism anyone might have - consider the implications of this snippet from the article:
The inquiry, which could take a year or more to complete, means the CIA will once again be the target of intense congressional scrutiny at a time when it is engaged in two wars and its ongoing pursuit of Al Qaeda.
That's certain to end well. Machiavelli put it best:
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed ought drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.
Translation: if you are going to have a purge, do it quickly, completely, and if possible, in one night - if you drag it out for a year, expecting your target to wait passively for the ax to fall, you are a fool, or a member of the senate intelligence committee.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
What do you do...
when the lesser of two evils turns out to a totalitarian motherfu**er? Please note this bit of bipar***nship* found at The War on Guns.
New republican rebranding slogan: Hey! We can be just as intrusive, statist, and authoritarian as the democrats - plus with us, you get extra stupid sauce!
*it's more obscene than anything in a porn flick - hence the asterisks
New republican rebranding slogan: Hey! We can be just as intrusive, statist, and authoritarian as the democrats - plus with us, you get extra stupid sauce!
*it's more obscene than anything in a porn flick - hence the asterisks
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WHAT!!!
Normally, I read the news and spend a lot of time shaking my head at the folly of it all. I know I am stupid about some things - everyone is. But I guess knowing that, at least gives me a leg up on those who don't.
I try not to adopt the facade of world-weary cynicism common to teenagers, Europeans, politicians, and the rest of the mentally immature. Sometimes however, I run across items of such monumental stupidity, paleo-ignorance, bedrock knuckle-headedness that I am left gasping.
Our hairy-assed ancestors came in two flavors, those who felt large carnivores should be poked, and provoked, and those who felt they should be avoided. The former did not live to reproduce, while the latter did. Face it, "cave bear tag" is not a pastime for those who want to have kids.
Apparently however, some of them were frozen in ice before the consequences of their idiotery (Hey, I made a word!) were suffered. The are called democrats, and many of them ended up in the New York general assembly.
From Greg Mankiw, Harvard Economist and someone who should be in charge of things, comes the following:
Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions Opposed by Landlords
Maybe, "Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions That Will Bankrupt Building Owners; Leave Hundreds Of Vacant, Deteriorating Structures Filled With Vermin And Crazy People; Create A Black Market In Housing; Stimulate Political Corruption; And Help To Further Wreck The Economy" was too long.
Or maybe in bizarro New York Times Land, forcing someone to charge less than the market rate for their products is considered a good incentive to get them to produce more. You, know, the "You're losing money on every sale, but you'll make it up in volume" theory.
According to the story anyway, that's seems to be the idea:
*That last sentence might have been a little garbled - I was dizzy from banging my head on my desk.
I try not to lose hope, but sometimes it is hard.
I try not to adopt the facade of world-weary cynicism common to teenagers, Europeans, politicians, and the rest of the mentally immature. Sometimes however, I run across items of such monumental stupidity, paleo-ignorance, bedrock knuckle-headedness that I am left gasping.
Our hairy-assed ancestors came in two flavors, those who felt large carnivores should be poked, and provoked, and those who felt they should be avoided. The former did not live to reproduce, while the latter did. Face it, "cave bear tag" is not a pastime for those who want to have kids.
Apparently however, some of them were frozen in ice before the consequences of their idiotery (Hey, I made a word!) were suffered. The are called democrats, and many of them ended up in the New York general assembly.
From Greg Mankiw, Harvard Economist and someone who should be in charge of things, comes the following:
Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions Opposed by Landlords
Maybe, "Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions That Will Bankrupt Building Owners; Leave Hundreds Of Vacant, Deteriorating Structures Filled With Vermin And Crazy People; Create A Black Market In Housing; Stimulate Political Corruption; And Help To Further Wreck The Economy" was too long.
Or maybe in bizarro New York Times Land, forcing someone to charge less than the market rate for their products is considered a good incentive to get them to produce more. You, know, the "You're losing money on every sale, but you'll make it up in volume" theory.
According to the story anyway, that's seems to be the idea:
Democrats in Albany cheered what they said was a step toward making living in New York more affordable for working families. Then adjourned to cover themselves in Alpo and go wrestle the tigers at the Albany Zoo.*
*That last sentence might have been a little garbled - I was dizzy from banging my head on my desk.
I try not to lose hope, but sometimes it is hard.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Stimulus Package II
I was looking for a hook on which to hang the next part of my post, and behold it is provided to by none other than the president himself - hope and change indeed.
To its credit, the Washington Post, left the comments section open, but rather than have my reply lost among thousands of similar missives, I shall post it here to be lost among millions of similar blogs.
I read the president’s letter in stunned disbelief. He can’t be this dumb, can he? He doesn’t really believe this crap – no one could. The Russians never took the fullest advantage of Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jimmy Carter, because the culture of the politburo was such that the dumb ones died young, leaving only the most cunning predators to run the show, and they were constitutionally incapable of believing Carter was as stupid as he seemed. They felt his clueless demeanor must have been a mask for deviousness of such subtlety that even they could not fathom its depths.
Therein lies a historical axiom for those so inclined: Both geniuses and idiots overestimate the intelligence of idiots.
It must be the same with Obama’s stimulus - a trillion dollar crap sandwich so obviously doomed to failure you’d need a PHD in political science not to see it. It must be a deep conspiracy to sink the country into socialism by wrecking the economy and making a once free people dependent on government handouts – there can be no other explanation.
But what if there is? What if the seat warmers in D.C. are simply bloated tax leeches sitting around whining, “The plan has to work, if it doesn’t, I’ll have to get a job! Hey, push that button, maybe that will get things started!"
To its credit, the Washington Post, left the comments section open, but rather than have my reply lost among thousands of similar missives, I shall post it here to be lost among millions of similar blogs.
I read the president’s letter in stunned disbelief. He can’t be this dumb, can he? He doesn’t really believe this crap – no one could. The Russians never took the fullest advantage of Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jimmy Carter, because the culture of the politburo was such that the dumb ones died young, leaving only the most cunning predators to run the show, and they were constitutionally incapable of believing Carter was as stupid as he seemed. They felt his clueless demeanor must have been a mask for deviousness of such subtlety that even they could not fathom its depths.
Therein lies a historical axiom for those so inclined: Both geniuses and idiots overestimate the intelligence of idiots.
It must be the same with Obama’s stimulus - a trillion dollar crap sandwich so obviously doomed to failure you’d need a PHD in political science not to see it. It must be a deep conspiracy to sink the country into socialism by wrecking the economy and making a once free people dependent on government handouts – there can be no other explanation.
But what if there is? What if the seat warmers in D.C. are simply bloated tax leeches sitting around whining, “The plan has to work, if it doesn’t, I’ll have to get a job! Hey, push that button, maybe that will get things started!"
The theory gains some merit based on the president’s prescription of what is required:
What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.
Uh, Mr. President … Americans with over room temperature IQ's know that actions from Washington are the primary cause of the urgency they feel in their daily lives - and swiftness, boldness, and wisdom – from you guys? You're kidding, right?
Could it be that simple? Does out national leadership consist of a bunch of Peter Principled numbskulls willing to sell the whole thing down the toilet because if they admit they haven't the faintest clue about what to do, they won’t get to stay in Wonderland-On-The-Potomac playing grabass with the interns?
I’m feeling a little queasy.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Bernie Madoff is a piker
I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a joyous Ida May Fuller day. Thanks to The New Editor for the hint.
We are so screwed.
A twenty two thousand return on a twenty dollar investment? Not even old Ponzi himself would have tried anything so brazen.
We are so screwed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Riddle Me This
From "The Hill" via Lucianne...
Dems: GOP will pay political price for stimulus vote
So, the democrats won the vote handily, and will be the sole beneficiaries of the political rewards when the economy jumps up like Lazarus on meth.
Hey, the thing is done - it will happen, and there will be great rejoicing. Nan, Harry, and Babar can stand around waving like homecoming queens basking in the adulation of the little people. So, what's the problem? Why are they so upset about the republicans bowing out and leaving them the full measure of glory?
Perhaps the headline should read, "Dems: GOP will pay for leaving us to take the blame when this thing goes belly up"
Just sayin.
Dems: GOP will pay political price for stimulus vote
So, the democrats won the vote handily, and will be the sole beneficiaries of the political rewards when the economy jumps up like Lazarus on meth.
Hey, the thing is done - it will happen, and there will be great rejoicing. Nan, Harry, and Babar can stand around waving like homecoming queens basking in the adulation of the little people. So, what's the problem? Why are they so upset about the republicans bowing out and leaving them the full measure of glory?
Perhaps the headline should read, "Dems: GOP will pay for leaving us to take the blame when this thing goes belly up"
Just sayin.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
DeMint
It's an odd thing about politics - a hundred million voters, each one convinced the fate of the republic depends on their choice at the polls. I guess this is what Plato's noble lies were all about.
Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat - only for this year's primary though. I did it so I could vote for Hillary to keep the lefty bloodletting going since McCain was already the republican nominee and it didn't matter on that score. (and no, I'm not a Rushbot - I decided on my own to do it - mostly as a lark)
In truth, I've been a republican since I was old enough to vote (for Reagan in 1980). I grew up in a political family of old school, union democrats. How I ended up as the lone rightwinger, I'll never know. But after reading this from Politico about how the party's leadership is treating a guy who is trying to come up with a winnning strategy, I think it may be time to admit the Reagan revolution began and ended with its namesake.
They say generals are always fighting the last war, but usually this refers to complacent, winning generals. The losers have incentives to think outside the box, and innovate so as to win the next war. But for some reason, the party that's had its ass handed to it in the last two elections seems to feel doing the same things over and over again will eventually work. (Note to republican bigwigs: see Haig, Douglas).
I don't really know that much about Jim DeMint, but if he is really trying to reform things and the atricle is correct in noting:
They should understand clearly that legislative gridlock is their duty, and bi-partisanship really means they're just helping to hold us down while the democrats go through our wallets.
Yes, trying to stop the sinking of the country when so many seem to want it sunk, will get you scapegoated as an obstructionist; it might even cost you your seat. But going along to get along won't work either, and if you are going down, it might as well be fighting.
Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat - only for this year's primary though. I did it so I could vote for Hillary to keep the lefty bloodletting going since McCain was already the republican nominee and it didn't matter on that score. (and no, I'm not a Rushbot - I decided on my own to do it - mostly as a lark)
In truth, I've been a republican since I was old enough to vote (for Reagan in 1980). I grew up in a political family of old school, union democrats. How I ended up as the lone rightwinger, I'll never know. But after reading this from Politico about how the party's leadership is treating a guy who is trying to come up with a winnning strategy, I think it may be time to admit the Reagan revolution began and ended with its namesake.
They say generals are always fighting the last war, but usually this refers to complacent, winning generals. The losers have incentives to think outside the box, and innovate so as to win the next war. But for some reason, the party that's had its ass handed to it in the last two elections seems to feel doing the same things over and over again will eventually work. (Note to republican bigwigs: see Haig, Douglas).
I don't really know that much about Jim DeMint, but if he is really trying to reform things and the atricle is correct in noting:
...Senate Republicans doubt his fiery tactics can lead their party out of the political wilderness when the public is seeking an end to legislative gridlock.
They should understand clearly that legislative gridlock is their duty, and bi-partisanship really means they're just helping to hold us down while the democrats go through our wallets.
Yes, trying to stop the sinking of the country when so many seem to want it sunk, will get you scapegoated as an obstructionist; it might even cost you your seat. But going along to get along won't work either, and if you are going down, it might as well be fighting.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Why Can't We All Just Get Along
Here's Adam Brodsky of the New York Post thinking he is making a point. The times are bleak, he tells us, and we must listen to the better angels of our nature because unity is our only hope.
Horsecrap.
The times are indeed perilous, and our only hope is to fight like mad to keep our new president and his cohorts from wrecking the country even more. It's going to be an uphill battle, and today at least, things don't look so bright.
Brodsky does edge into a truth - sideways and blind squirrel like, when he says:
I agree with him here, but not for the reason he gives:
We have to refrain from slanderous, bad-faith attacks on Obama, because those things only work for the left, not us.
The same guy who spouts spittle-flecked accusations about George Bush, and the Masons, Skull and Bones, or Enron, rolls his eyes if asked about William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Point out the creepy cult of personality vibe of Obama's little blue book, (I hope it's a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be) and the adoration shown to a guy who is, in the end, just a politician, and be met with the same look my cat gives me when I start explaining calculus.
Lies, therefore, will not work - we do not have ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times, Hollywood, and just about every public school, university, and probably pre-kindergarden to boost our message along on its way. We do not have the institutions necessary to make lies seem like the truth. All we have is the truth - it might work, if repeated enough, shouted enough, whispered and screamed enough.
So, Brodsky is right, again for the wrong reasons - to fall back on the tactics of the deranged left is to fall into despair - the belief that the house is better burned to the ground than run by someone other than us.
But as far as his belief in the efficacy of hopey change, a little anecdote is in order.
In October 1864, there was a battle at a place called Cedar Creek in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. At first, the Confederates drove the Union from the field, but then Phil Sheridan, the Union commander, led a counterattack to save the day. During the fight, Sheridan, who was one of the most inspiring of battlefield leaders, came across a young bluecoat bleeding on the ground. "What's wrong with you?" asked the general.
"I'm shot through and dying," replied the trooper.
"Nonsense, you ain't hurt a bit. Now get up and charge," was the reply.
With that, the young soldier rose to his feet and ran forward.
Only to collapse and die a few steps later.
The lesson here is fine speeches, and piles of glorious good feeling only get you so far. Someone who is bleeding out needs real help of the right kind, or all the good feeling in the world will accomplish nothing.
Horsecrap.
The times are indeed perilous, and our only hope is to fight like mad to keep our new president and his cohorts from wrecking the country even more. It's going to be an uphill battle, and today at least, things don't look so bright.
Brodsky does edge into a truth - sideways and blind squirrel like, when he says:
Republicans, in particular, will have to resist temptations for revenge, after Democrats savaged George Bush - and by extension, his party.
I agree with him here, but not for the reason he gives:
Because hope and support can be self-fulfilling - much as gloom, despair and disaster can be. And at the moment, so much is at stake.
We have to refrain from slanderous, bad-faith attacks on Obama, because those things only work for the left, not us.
The same guy who spouts spittle-flecked accusations about George Bush, and the Masons, Skull and Bones, or Enron, rolls his eyes if asked about William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Point out the creepy cult of personality vibe of Obama's little blue book, (I hope it's a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be) and the adoration shown to a guy who is, in the end, just a politician, and be met with the same look my cat gives me when I start explaining calculus.
Lies, therefore, will not work - we do not have ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times, Hollywood, and just about every public school, university, and probably pre-kindergarden to boost our message along on its way. We do not have the institutions necessary to make lies seem like the truth. All we have is the truth - it might work, if repeated enough, shouted enough, whispered and screamed enough.
So, Brodsky is right, again for the wrong reasons - to fall back on the tactics of the deranged left is to fall into despair - the belief that the house is better burned to the ground than run by someone other than us.
But as far as his belief in the efficacy of hopey change, a little anecdote is in order.
In October 1864, there was a battle at a place called Cedar Creek in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. At first, the Confederates drove the Union from the field, but then Phil Sheridan, the Union commander, led a counterattack to save the day. During the fight, Sheridan, who was one of the most inspiring of battlefield leaders, came across a young bluecoat bleeding on the ground. "What's wrong with you?" asked the general.
"I'm shot through and dying," replied the trooper.
"Nonsense, you ain't hurt a bit. Now get up and charge," was the reply.
With that, the young soldier rose to his feet and ran forward.
Only to collapse and die a few steps later.
The lesson here is fine speeches, and piles of glorious good feeling only get you so far. Someone who is bleeding out needs real help of the right kind, or all the good feeling in the world will accomplish nothing.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
animal house
I've spent the last few months and the first few days of the new Obama era trying to get a fix on what the appeal of the guy is, and all I could figure was people just wanted to sit with the cool kids; and I figured they were bound to be disappointed. In time, they would wonder what the hell they were thinking.
I thought to myself, "It's like that scene from Animal House...
Thanks to the magic that is Youtube, I watched it again, and was absolutely struck by the symmetry of the thing.
Langland's Plowman could not create a more apt allegory than those few minutes of of old film.
They're all there: the fat, blubbering, albeit earnest, everyman, desperate to be liked, to fit in with the cool people. So desperate in fact, that he will give them free reign with his treasured possessions. Also there, are the glib, careless, clever people - the ones who will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions, offering instead, to commit fraud rather than face the music. I have no doubt who would be left alone holding the bag should the bit of larceny described in the conclusion of the scene be found out.
And the line, "When I get done with this thing, you won't recognize it." If that isn't Barney and Chris talking about the economy, I don't know what is.
If I were a republican strategist, I would have the theme for the next half dozen election cycles...
"America, I know you want to hang out with the beautiful people, but Ashton and Demi made their pledge, dusted off their hands and went on to other acting projects leaving you with the tab. Bruce sings a wonderful song about how tough the blue collar life is, but he doesn't actually have to live it. And guess what? Bill and Hillary are only faking it when they say they feel your pain. America, you're a little overweight, your hairline is receding, and and you sag a little bit - the pretty people want your stuff and your adoration, but please, use the servants entrance when you deliver it."
I see a big sign with Obama's benign face... Hey America, you fucked up; you trusted us.
I thought to myself, "It's like that scene from Animal House...
Thanks to the magic that is Youtube, I watched it again, and was absolutely struck by the symmetry of the thing.
Langland's Plowman could not create a more apt allegory than those few minutes of of old film.
They're all there: the fat, blubbering, albeit earnest, everyman, desperate to be liked, to fit in with the cool people. So desperate in fact, that he will give them free reign with his treasured possessions. Also there, are the glib, careless, clever people - the ones who will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions, offering instead, to commit fraud rather than face the music. I have no doubt who would be left alone holding the bag should the bit of larceny described in the conclusion of the scene be found out.
And the line, "When I get done with this thing, you won't recognize it." If that isn't Barney and Chris talking about the economy, I don't know what is.
If I were a republican strategist, I would have the theme for the next half dozen election cycles...
"America, I know you want to hang out with the beautiful people, but Ashton and Demi made their pledge, dusted off their hands and went on to other acting projects leaving you with the tab. Bruce sings a wonderful song about how tough the blue collar life is, but he doesn't actually have to live it. And guess what? Bill and Hillary are only faking it when they say they feel your pain. America, you're a little overweight, your hairline is receding, and and you sag a little bit - the pretty people want your stuff and your adoration, but please, use the servants entrance when you deliver it."
I see a big sign with Obama's benign face... Hey America, you fucked up; you trusted us.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Interesting Times
So you’ve paid off the credit cards and torn them up. You’re driving a ten year old car that gets thirty mpg, and you change the oil and do the maintenance yourself. The only real debt you have is a mortgage, and you can afford that because you get your butt out of bed every day and go to work.
You selfish bastard – don’t you know there are people out there with no visible means of support and half million dollar mortgages who are going to lose their homes – you owe them. There are car companies out there who have been forced to make cars no one wants and to employ union guys who have sweetheart deals with the government – you owe them. There are public employee unions whose platinum parachute pensions are going down the toilet because their agreements with the politicians they supported basically came down to, “Don’t worry, we’ll make the taxpayers cover the difference.” You owe them. Them and every other tax-sucking parasite with a lobbyist and a political action committee.
And you're going to pay too. The legislature is going to get all bi-partisan you see. I read it in the Washington Post - Pelosi has streamlined the rules so none of that pesky debate can get in the way of saving your hide. Nationalize the banks – check! Healthcare? We are the government and we’ll just pass a law against being sick. Auto industry? Hey those new green, run-on-fairy-dust cars aren’t going to build themselves. Your 401K? What do you mean your 401K? You don’t want grandma to have to eat cat food now… do you? Fork it over. Global warming? Real or scam? Whothehellcares! We’re going to save you from that too. A trillion bucks to have people dig holes and fill them back in? That’s what we call infrastructure baby.
What, you don’t want any of the things we’re buying you? Who died and left you in charge? Just pay the bill and shut up.
Over on the senate side, Chris Dodd is making statesmanlike noises:
"There's something transformational happening here," … "It's the kind of year historians will write about. . . . Can this institution deal with it?"
For the last two years, Dodd and his ilk have been treating the American economy the same way someone with Munchausen by Proxy treats their kids, so he should take a moment to consider whether that historian is going to be more Doris Kearns Goodwin or Bruce Catton.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Modern Worries
I hope the sudden surge in gun buying results in an overstock and price drop before the bans finally come down the line. My bank account tells me I’m in no position to be forking out for black rifles of any variety. But if a credit card has to be maxed out in order to get what I need, I guess there are worse things in the world.
Over at Sebastian’s place, he links to some folks who think I’d be crazy to worry about what THE ONE is planning regarding my civil rights, because didn’t he pinky swear to not try to go for more gun control unless he can get big majorities in the house and senate, or it’s Tuesday, or he feels blue, or he needs an issue to give him the illusion of doing something about something.
How can one fail to be reassured by that level of commitment to the second amendment?
Personally, I think it’s just jealousy – here we have an industry which is booming (tee hee hee) in response to the ascension of His Messiah-ness, and the poor ink and pixel stained wretches of the media can’t even get a reach around after the massive knee pad party they just threw.
Hey ABCCBSCNNNSNBCNYTWAPO et.al., here’s is a hint: Make a product that people consider valuable, and they will go out of their way to buy it.
Over at Sebastian’s place, he links to some folks who think I’d be crazy to worry about what THE ONE is planning regarding my civil rights, because didn’t he pinky swear to not try to go for more gun control unless he can get big majorities in the house and senate, or it’s Tuesday, or he feels blue, or he needs an issue to give him the illusion of doing something about something.
How can one fail to be reassured by that level of commitment to the second amendment?
Personally, I think it’s just jealousy – here we have an industry which is booming (tee hee hee) in response to the ascension of His Messiah-ness, and the poor ink and pixel stained wretches of the media can’t even get a reach around after the massive knee pad party they just threw.
Hey ABCCBSCNNNSNBCNYTWAPO et.al., here’s is a hint: Make a product that people consider valuable, and they will go out of their way to buy it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Immigataion Reform
Via Hot Air, I found this piece of hyperventilating, panty bunching, giggle fodder from some euro-type who, when the inevitable demographic shift occurs, and England becomes an islamic country, should not under any circumstances be given refugee status. Make the twerp stay in his own fouled nest.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Department of not getting it department
So I was listening to the local talk radio on the way to the store for extra bacon for the pig candy and there is this fellow - a serious lefty lawyer who gets a couple hours of rebuttal time on Saturdays to balance the Medved/Prager/Ingraham blabfest from the rest of the week.
He was one of the "Bush -worst- president- in the- history- of- the -U.S." sort of people and all that implies, and he's livid- sputtering, and stomping his little feet over the Palin pick. From what I could gather - between bouts of spittle-flecked microphone biting, he felt that MaCain chose the Alaska Governor in a cynical, underhanded attempt to turn the simple country folk, what with their cow milking and hay making, against their dazzling urbanite betters and thus drive a wedge between these heretofore natural allies in the battle against the Darth Vadars of the Republican party. He was shocked that a political organization would stoop so low as to pander to different demographic groups. Any political organization other than the democrats that is.
Apparently, his thinking goes, if the party of Lincoln wins with a strategy like that, it puts at risk gender norming, race-based college admissions, minority only business enterprise zones, taxing the successful to ease life for the stupid, hate crimes legislation, and sending global warming deniers to re-education camps - you know, the things that bring us all together in one big warm hopey-changey group hug.
With all due deference to anecdote not being data and all, I would beg to differ.
I do not have many acquaintances amongst the Bumpkin-American sector, but my travels to today's gun show did reveal a surprising number of people who were excited about the prospects of a Palin/McCain administration (yeah, I know she's not supposed to get top billing) ... old guys.
I hear your objection. I was at a gun show, and gunnies are a target audience for the republicans, but I was paying attention to the people who were visibly, and volubly happy; people who would go out of their way to bring up their love of the vice presidential nominee, and the ones who stood out from the crowd were the codgers.
One guy - a wrinkled, gray haired vet, was telling everybody who came to look at his wares that he was switching from Bob Barr to McCain because of Sarah Palin, another (full disclosure: father of a friend of mine) who could best described as a 77 year old anti-authoritarian populist who wasn't going to bother voting this year, sees her Governorship as a Harry Trumanesque figure. Hell, even Breda's 80 year old uncle (more than one purple heart from Korea) is dancing little jigs because Sarah Palin reminds him of his own wife.
I can't believe this represents any kind if intent on the part of McCain, but I think it does show there's votes to be won in the unlikeliest of places, and if this till now marginalized constituency
has become energized- there's no telling who else the democrats - a party who practically specialize in sneering condescension - have pushed past the point of no return.
He was one of the "Bush -worst- president- in the- history- of- the -U.S." sort of people and all that implies, and he's livid- sputtering, and stomping his little feet over the Palin pick. From what I could gather - between bouts of spittle-flecked microphone biting, he felt that MaCain chose the Alaska Governor in a cynical, underhanded attempt to turn the simple country folk, what with their cow milking and hay making, against their dazzling urbanite betters and thus drive a wedge between these heretofore natural allies in the battle against the Darth Vadars of the Republican party. He was shocked that a political organization would stoop so low as to pander to different demographic groups. Any political organization other than the democrats that is.
Apparently, his thinking goes, if the party of Lincoln wins with a strategy like that, it puts at risk gender norming, race-based college admissions, minority only business enterprise zones, taxing the successful to ease life for the stupid, hate crimes legislation, and sending global warming deniers to re-education camps - you know, the things that bring us all together in one big warm hopey-changey group hug.
With all due deference to anecdote not being data and all, I would beg to differ.
I do not have many acquaintances amongst the Bumpkin-American sector, but my travels to today's gun show did reveal a surprising number of people who were excited about the prospects of a Palin/McCain administration (yeah, I know she's not supposed to get top billing) ... old guys.
I hear your objection. I was at a gun show, and gunnies are a target audience for the republicans, but I was paying attention to the people who were visibly, and volubly happy; people who would go out of their way to bring up their love of the vice presidential nominee, and the ones who stood out from the crowd were the codgers.
One guy - a wrinkled, gray haired vet, was telling everybody who came to look at his wares that he was switching from Bob Barr to McCain because of Sarah Palin, another (full disclosure: father of a friend of mine) who could best described as a 77 year old anti-authoritarian populist who wasn't going to bother voting this year, sees her Governorship as a Harry Trumanesque figure. Hell, even Breda's 80 year old uncle (more than one purple heart from Korea) is dancing little jigs because Sarah Palin reminds him of his own wife.
I can't believe this represents any kind if intent on the part of McCain, but I think it does show there's votes to be won in the unlikeliest of places, and if this till now marginalized constituency
has become energized- there's no telling who else the democrats - a party who practically specialize in sneering condescension - have pushed past the point of no return.
Friday, August 22, 2008
This Just Might Be Interesting
We were in the backyard yesterday, celebrating my birthday with Full Sail Pale Ale (their slogan is "Ridiculously Tasty" - they ain't kidding), and some turtle watching, when Breda says she can't wait for the democratic coronat... er... I mean convention in Denver.
Personally, I prefer something less scripted, like pro wrestling or a Soviet show trial, so I asked why.
"For the fireworks, the protests, the blood in the streets, Chicago 1968 all over again" she answered (approximately).
"But", I countered, "these are democrats - you know, all marching in lock step. A vast sea of identical diversity worshipers all demanding freedom for themselves and people who believe exactly what they believe - why would they eat their young like that? Especially since they are this close to ultimate power, to having the means to build a kinder, more caring world where their enemies can be ruthlessly crushed and their heads placed on pikes in a kindly, gentle manner."
In reply she spoke but a single word... "Hillary."
I have my doubts, but they are not as absolute as they once were. For today I found via Instapundit, via Slate... a last ditch Hillary site.
I don't know what is going on here, or if these folk are serious, or influential or what. But it's enough to give a reactionary troglodyte such as myself a good case of the schadenfreude giggles.
Here is a sample from the schedule of events
She might not get the White House, but she gets the "national candle salute"?
I just might participate in that... I'll have my own lovely librarian figure out what 9:45 MDT works out to in flyover country, and go outside and point something in the air in a Hillary-ward direction to express my true feelings too.
Personally, I prefer something less scripted, like pro wrestling or a Soviet show trial, so I asked why.
"For the fireworks, the protests, the blood in the streets, Chicago 1968 all over again" she answered (approximately).
"But", I countered, "these are democrats - you know, all marching in lock step. A vast sea of identical diversity worshipers all demanding freedom for themselves and people who believe exactly what they believe - why would they eat their young like that? Especially since they are this close to ultimate power, to having the means to build a kinder, more caring world where their enemies can be ruthlessly crushed and their heads placed on pikes in a kindly, gentle manner."
In reply she spoke but a single word... "Hillary."
I have my doubts, but they are not as absolute as they once were. For today I found via Instapundit, via Slate... a last ditch Hillary site.
I don't know what is going on here, or if these folk are serious, or influential or what. But it's enough to give a reactionary troglodyte such as myself a good case of the schadenfreude giggles.
Here is a sample from the schedule of events
Beautiful Protest and Rise,
Cheesman Park, 4-10pmIn Commemoration of Hillary Clinton’s Historic Presidential Campaign! What makes this historical event special, isn’t just that it’s named after the Maya Angelou’s famous poem “Rise,” but that it will also close with the lighting of candles to pay tribute to Hillary and all of her achievements, while also symbolically reigniting the flame to America’s great Democracy and Lady Liberty’s torch. Hundreds of participants are expected to attend, and candles are planned to Rise across the nation, community by community, in one harmonious gesture of participation. There is no doubt that this will be a marvelous occasion for everyone who has worked on behalf of Hillary Clinton, as well as all her supporters/fans who just believe and appreciate our Liberty and Democracy will all have an opportunity to come together and enjoy an afternoon and evening of festivities. This is a free event and all Hillary supporters/fans are welcome. PumaPac activities in the park will begin at 4p.m. and run until 6 p.m. The Rise speakers and entertainment will begin at 7 p.m. and end at 10 p.m., with the national “Rise” candle salute to Hillary, Democracy and Lady Liberty to Kickoff in Cheesman Park at exactly 9:45 MDT.
She might not get the White House, but she gets the "national candle salute"?
I just might participate in that... I'll have my own lovely librarian figure out what 9:45 MDT works out to in flyover country, and go outside and point something in the air in a Hillary-ward direction to express my true feelings too.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Pretty Girls
I'm long out of high school, but after listening to Barrack Obama for a couple of months, all I can think of is Pretty Girl Disease. You know the blond cheerleader who got her books carried home, and test answers slipped to her, and every door opened by a willing suitor. She may have ended up in the big house with the pool and the convertible, but unless she was a person of the highest character, she is also shallow, self-centered, ungrateful, and endowed with a colossal sense of entitlement.
And, frankly, much as I dislike McCain, I can at least sense some character there - Obama, nothing.
His entire life, the guy has been graded on the curve by people who saw in him validation of their own beliefs... "He's good-looking, glib, and fashionably dark, and he's going places! Oh boy aren't we just the grandest for supporting programs that made him possible."
And the press, and worshipful followers, are like the ugly kids who flock around the pretty ones hoping some of the glamor will rub off.
I hope I'm not naive, and I know you search the closets of any politician at your peril, and character is not the sole criterion for casting a vote, but when one candidate has some and the other guy has none, it becomes difficult to ignore.
And, frankly, much as I dislike McCain, I can at least sense some character there - Obama, nothing.
His entire life, the guy has been graded on the curve by people who saw in him validation of their own beliefs... "He's good-looking, glib, and fashionably dark, and he's going places! Oh boy aren't we just the grandest for supporting programs that made him possible."
And the press, and worshipful followers, are like the ugly kids who flock around the pretty ones hoping some of the glamor will rub off.
I hope I'm not naive, and I know you search the closets of any politician at your peril, and character is not the sole criterion for casting a vote, but when one candidate has some and the other guy has none, it becomes difficult to ignore.
Friday, August 1, 2008
It's The Guns
The next time some slimeball politician spews the old "more guns leads to more crime" canard, send the S.O.B. a copy of this story out of Albany, New York and found at Of Arms and the Law.
Short version: Woman accuses the police of misconduct, and in order to prove her wrong, and charge her with the misdemeanor of filing a false statement, the prosecutor offers a violent felon a plea deal to reduce his 15 year armed robbery sentence to 3 years if he will testify against her.
In 4 years when the now free felon kills, or beats, or rapes someone, at least the victim's family can take comfort in the fact that the cops drawing the chalk outline around the body have untarnished reputations.
More guns don't lead to more crime; giving light sentences to violent felons for selfish reasons leads to more crime.
P.S. I wonder if they would offer the same deal to a guy to testify against the police should the situation warrant it.
Short version: Woman accuses the police of misconduct, and in order to prove her wrong, and charge her with the misdemeanor of filing a false statement, the prosecutor offers a violent felon a plea deal to reduce his 15 year armed robbery sentence to 3 years if he will testify against her.
In 4 years when the now free felon kills, or beats, or rapes someone, at least the victim's family can take comfort in the fact that the cops drawing the chalk outline around the body have untarnished reputations.
More guns don't lead to more crime; giving light sentences to violent felons for selfish reasons leads to more crime.
P.S. I wonder if they would offer the same deal to a guy to testify against the police should the situation warrant it.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
When The History...
of the collapse of the repuplican party is written, the failure of the leadership to take this man into a dark corner of the Capitol and beat him with a sack of oranges until he bled out of his ears will be listed as a major cause.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Just One Thing
My favorite Librarian confirmed that Illinois does have constitutional provisions for citizen initiatives on the ballot. And since Mayor D...d.....d.....duh....Daley is so frightened of guns, he surely wouldn't want them near him. So how about a petition drive to make it illegal for any public employee of the State of Illinois to have an armed security detail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
