Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
David Duke is ok with Obama?
Either it is the End of Days or Obama is starting to look as if he has come as advertised--the first post-racial candidate. David Duke doesn't mind him so much it seems. He doesn't like him, of course, but perhaps we are all growing up a little.
There can never be, and will never be, a clear line when ethnicity or skin pigmentation simply "doesn't matter." Not in centuries, anyway--if not milennia. But Obama has been so disciplined in his message and so constant in the public eye that it continues to matter less and less. And, I should think, that is a very, very good thing.
[F]ar from railing at Obama's rise, Duke seems almost nonchalant about it. Self-described white nationalists like himself, he explained cordially, "don't see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton--or, for that matter, John McCain." Sure, Duke considers Obama "a racist individual," citing his Afrocentric Chicago church. But soon the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People was critiquing Obama as overhyped and insubstantial in terms you might hear from, say, Clinton strategist Mark Penn. "They say he's for change. What change? He's become almost a cult figure. I don't see any shining light around Obama's head. I don't see any halos," Duke said.
There can never be, and will never be, a clear line when ethnicity or skin pigmentation simply "doesn't matter." Not in centuries, anyway--if not milennia. But Obama has been so disciplined in his message and so constant in the public eye that it continues to matter less and less. And, I should think, that is a very, very good thing.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Nader is a Turd
Honestly, what the hell is this? Nader is going to run for president why? There is no other reason in the world to do it except to be a grade-A A-hole. Period.
Nader followed with "I before E except after C" and "A stitch in time saves nine." And I thought Bush was out of touch. Most Americans--and particularly people in the younger generations--don't go for this crap (see: John Edwards). A good number of us are employed by corporations and do pretty well for ourselves. To play the "evil corporation" card will fall on deaf ears, save the few sophomoric pseudo-hippies out there.
What we do know is that there are a lot of idiots running these corporations and can't wait until the old guard leaves (see: Obama). One has to be smart to be evil. Stupidity and incompetence reveals itself as vulgar, ugly, and unpredictably dangerous (see: Pres Numbnutz and a good number of American corporations out there).
Nader would be wiser to bash corporate idiocy rather than corporate "evil." And, at 74, it seems better for him to continue to write, speak, and petition the government rather than make a ridiculous run at the presidency when all of the press is following Obama around like lovesick teenagers. The only possible answer that can even begin to answer why he would run for the presidency is ego. Only ego. And that, IMHO, makes him not just a turd, but a heaping plate of turd, garnished in turd.
Nader called Washington "corporate occupied territory" that turns the government against the interests of the people. "In that context, I have decided to run for president," he said.
Nader followed with "I before E except after C" and "A stitch in time saves nine." And I thought Bush was out of touch. Most Americans--and particularly people in the younger generations--don't go for this crap (see: John Edwards). A good number of us are employed by corporations and do pretty well for ourselves. To play the "evil corporation" card will fall on deaf ears, save the few sophomoric pseudo-hippies out there.
What we do know is that there are a lot of idiots running these corporations and can't wait until the old guard leaves (see: Obama). One has to be smart to be evil. Stupidity and incompetence reveals itself as vulgar, ugly, and unpredictably dangerous (see: Pres Numbnutz and a good number of American corporations out there).
Nader would be wiser to bash corporate idiocy rather than corporate "evil." And, at 74, it seems better for him to continue to write, speak, and petition the government rather than make a ridiculous run at the presidency when all of the press is following Obama around like lovesick teenagers. The only possible answer that can even begin to answer why he would run for the presidency is ego. Only ego. And that, IMHO, makes him not just a turd, but a heaping plate of turd, garnished in turd.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Low Class Return to Blogging
Sorry--got new job that is keeping me really busy. This is a really low class way to come back to it, but...it's pretty funny.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
An Atheist's Spirituality
Guess is goes both ways when seeing the supernatural.
"I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed a fairly typical small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring," Chapman told local newspaper The Huddlesfield Express. "However the direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs, as well as the changing shades emanating outwards from this black hole, were very clearly similar to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that one would expect following the Big Bang. It's the beginning of the world!" he added excitedly.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ds Dead Even
Hillarah has more delegates in total, but that's mostly due to her super delegates, which I don't count as valid right now. Conceivably, if this remains even, they become crucial. But if either of the two have a substantial lead in pledged delegates, I can't conceive the governors and senators not coming along.
So, with Hillarah at 632 and Obama at 626 (counting only pledged delegates), this is becoming a race of attrition. From everything I heard on TV last night, that's what the Obama campaign was trying to get to. They have more money, they're gaining ground, and their man usually wins states he has time to campaign in. It makes sense, I suppose, but getting more votes in California would have been the beginning of the end for Hillarah. Now it's still up in the air.
How will either do in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and Texas? Guess we'll find out, but Texas should be the most interesting. Personally, I think it should scare Obama with all those Latinos--who still find it hard to vote for a black man--but nobody knows at this point and the polls have been extremely inaccurate thus far.
Whoddathunk this race a year ago?
So, with Hillarah at 632 and Obama at 626 (counting only pledged delegates), this is becoming a race of attrition. From everything I heard on TV last night, that's what the Obama campaign was trying to get to. They have more money, they're gaining ground, and their man usually wins states he has time to campaign in. It makes sense, I suppose, but getting more votes in California would have been the beginning of the end for Hillarah. Now it's still up in the air.
How will either do in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and Texas? Guess we'll find out, but Texas should be the most interesting. Personally, I think it should scare Obama with all those Latinos--who still find it hard to vote for a black man--but nobody knows at this point and the polls have been extremely inaccurate thus far.
Whoddathunk this race a year ago?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Johnny Mac Should be Pleased--Mostly
The guy has won all of the Northeast in play, save MA (where Romney was Governor, of course). He's either winning, or strong in the South, and he should sweep the Midwest, AZ, and NM. Still, winning along the Atlantic and in his backyard doesn't seem like a really strong message for a Republican. It's certainly not bad, but not "good."
California is still quite a question mark, however. Romney has to win it--doing well isn't enough. But if he wins it and has MA under his belt, he should be "ok." Just ok, but not in the worst shape. He will easily win Utah, probably Montana, has done well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and will have some pull. Not a lot, but some.
Then there is Huck. He's won WV, AL, AR, and will probably win GA. That, along with the primary win in Iowa, will make him a formidable asset to have in a campaign and, as much as it pains me to say, McCain will have to put him on his short list of VP considerations should he win. I doubt seriously he is Mac's first choice. But to keep the Solid South solid and assuage the anguish of the Bible thumpers, he may well have to choose him. In a way, it might be the best way to start getting the GOP band back together. Mac can help the GOP compete in the center, and Huck can help explain to the evangelicals that Jesus might not be coming back in the next 5 minutes.
Anyway...still very interesting.
California is still quite a question mark, however. Romney has to win it--doing well isn't enough. But if he wins it and has MA under his belt, he should be "ok." Just ok, but not in the worst shape. He will easily win Utah, probably Montana, has done well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and will have some pull. Not a lot, but some.
Then there is Huck. He's won WV, AL, AR, and will probably win GA. That, along with the primary win in Iowa, will make him a formidable asset to have in a campaign and, as much as it pains me to say, McCain will have to put him on his short list of VP considerations should he win. I doubt seriously he is Mac's first choice. But to keep the Solid South solid and assuage the anguish of the Bible thumpers, he may well have to choose him. In a way, it might be the best way to start getting the GOP band back together. Mac can help the GOP compete in the center, and Huck can help explain to the evangelicals that Jesus might not be coming back in the next 5 minutes.
Anyway...still very interesting.
Not So Good So Far
It's still very, very, early, but it's not looking good for Obama right now. He's getting trounced in NJ, MO, and MA. Hillarah was always expected to win there, but Obama appeared to have significantly closed the gap in the last couple of weeks according to polls. Yet again, the polls may be waaaaaaaaay off.
Like I said, it's early, but I don't like the trend thus far. Like I said earlier, California is extremely, extremely important. He has to either win or make it very close. Otherwise, it seems just too difficult to compete. Even making it just close might not be enough. Hillarah will win NY, NJ looks to be hers, and though Obama won IL, I don't think GA, AL, and whatever Mountain states he takes will be enough.
Like I said, it's early, but I don't like the trend thus far. Like I said earlier, California is extremely, extremely important. He has to either win or make it very close. Otherwise, it seems just too difficult to compete. Even making it just close might not be enough. Hillarah will win NY, NJ looks to be hers, and though Obama won IL, I don't think GA, AL, and whatever Mountain states he takes will be enough.
Romney Calls Shennagins
The Romney campaign is saying Johnny Mac did a dope deal with the Huckabee campaign and that is how he won West Virginia. Maybe (though there is no evidence as yet), but that's the way politics is, I thought. "I hereby support so-and-so and urge my supporters to get behind him...blah, blah, blah."
I realize that it would be different since it would be a front-runner doing it behind the scenes and could well be deemed shady to a point, but I don't see it as that big of a deal, really. People can vote for whoever they want and, if McCain's people said something to the effect of "Look, we can't win here in West Virginia, but we can beat Romney," it seems like a fair, tactical choice.
I realize that it would be different since it would be a front-runner doing it behind the scenes and could well be deemed shady to a point, but I don't see it as that big of a deal, really. People can vote for whoever they want and, if McCain's people said something to the effect of "Look, we can't win here in West Virginia, but we can beat Romney," it seems like a fair, tactical choice.
A Young Male Hillarah Supporter
Could there be anything more pathetic? At least he is honest about his loneliness.
I'm a young male Democrat, and I support ... Hillary Clinton. I may be the loneliest man at Georgetown University, where I'm practically a social pariah.[cough]DORK![cough]
Monday, February 4, 2008
A Conservative's Rage
I've linked to Andrew Sullivan on many an occasion and will continue to do so, I'm sure. What I like about him is that he isn't afraid to call conservatives traitors when they are truly traitors--as in traitors to the ideology and practice vs. not sufficiently Tagg-hagg Romney supporters like Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter.
He really calls out a "conservative" with this one:
He really calls out a "conservative" with this one:
If a Democrat ran for office today pledging a massive increase in entitlement spending, a decades-long multi-trillion dollar nation-building project in the Middle East, the biggest increase in discretionary spending since LBJ, a huge increase in the power of the executive branch, a doubling of the federal education budget, a de facto amnesty program for 12 million illegal immigrants, and a cool additional $32 trillion to the country's unfunded liabilities ... would Wehner be saying he is out of bounds for conservatives because he is a special interest group liberal?Ssssnap!
Big Mo for Big O
The conventional wisdom just a week or two ago was that Hillarah would take NJ, MA, and NY, and likely CA--most of the big states--while Obama would take Illinois and many of the smaller states. Maybe not. Obama and Hillarah are now reported to be in a statistical dead heat in Massachusetts, as well as California and New Jersey and Connecticut. The only states Hillarah seems to be hanging on to are NY and Tennessee.
What is really significant is that in the states that Obama had a lead in, he has maintained. In the states mentioned above, he has closed gaps of 10-20 points just since the South Carolina primary. There is a tsunami coming, it seems. And Super Tuesday may well put Obama in a truly leading position with Texas, Ohio, and Virginia as showdown states as we have never seen before.
If Obama wins California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts however, I can't help but think that it's functionally over. He will be the candidate that has won the majority of big states and the candidate that has won in the Widwest, Northeast, South, Mountain West, rural and urban, while Hillarah will be the candidate that won her "home" state, a small New England state, and Las Vegas (Obama carried almost all the other counties of Nevada). The delegate count will still be close, but Hillarah will have hit her ceiling and I can't see her winning many new converts past Super Tuesday.
I can hardly wait for tomorrow night. Man, this is fun!
What is really significant is that in the states that Obama had a lead in, he has maintained. In the states mentioned above, he has closed gaps of 10-20 points just since the South Carolina primary. There is a tsunami coming, it seems. And Super Tuesday may well put Obama in a truly leading position with Texas, Ohio, and Virginia as showdown states as we have never seen before.
If Obama wins California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts however, I can't help but think that it's functionally over. He will be the candidate that has won the majority of big states and the candidate that has won in the Widwest, Northeast, South, Mountain West, rural and urban, while Hillarah will be the candidate that won her "home" state, a small New England state, and Las Vegas (Obama carried almost all the other counties of Nevada). The delegate count will still be close, but Hillarah will have hit her ceiling and I can't see her winning many new converts past Super Tuesday.
I can hardly wait for tomorrow night. Man, this is fun!
Perils of Being Unlettered (and out of touch)
Oopsie! I wonder how much this is going to cost the company.
Hmmmm. Well, if they had no idea that 'Lolita' was associated with pre-teen girls and sex, how were they familiar with the name/term at all? Somebody there had heard the term, at least. Maybe they will be working on the Altar Boy Bunkbeds next.
A chain of retail stores in Britain has withdrawn the sale of beds named Lolita and designed for six-year-old girls after furious parents pointed out that the name was synonymous with sexually active pre-teens.
"What seems to have happened is the staff who run the website had never heard of Lolita, and to be honest no one else here had either," a spokesman told British newspapers.
Hmmmm. Well, if they had no idea that 'Lolita' was associated with pre-teen girls and sex, how were they familiar with the name/term at all? Somebody there had heard the term, at least. Maybe they will be working on the Altar Boy Bunkbeds next.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Ultimate Failure
I've written and blathered about how the baby-boomer generation was the first real failed generation in the US, but never really had any solid data to back it up (other than the obvious fiscal recklessness). Many cultural conservatives will point to divorce rates and children born out of wedlock, but I tend to stay away from that since it's hard to morally judge and compare, statistically. But this got my attention. It's just a bulleted list, so it's far from comprehensive, but it's still damning as to the state of our economy:
I have no idea if I'm right, or to what degree I might be right, but it seems as if one of the unintended consequences of the Reagan Revolution was the creation of a new, pseudo-gilded age in America. American corporations--eager to please the demands of a hyper-impatient Wall Street--will eke out as much profit per quarter at the expence of investment in the company or employees.
The hero worship afforded corporate leadership accommodates a grossly disproportionate salary to upper management--not just to CEOs. The culture of incurring debt for immediate gratifaction extends from American households all the way up to our federal government--regardless of party. There is more to the soap box prattling, but I'll stop there.
Except to say this. If the test of a generation is to see if it can leave a world better for the next (and I can't think of another way to judge it), I can't see how the baby-boomers have been, on the whole, anything but a failure.
[Hat Tip: Crooks and Liars]
Two-income families today make 75% more in inflation-adjusted dollars, but have less money to spend than one-income families did 30 years ago.
Two-income families today spend: 21% less on clothing, 22% less on food, and 44% less on appliances compared to one-income families a generation ago.
Every 15 seconds an American family files for bankruptcy.
This year, more kids will live through their parents' bankruptcy, than through their parents' divorce.
1.6 million families will file for bankruptcy this year, 9 million more are already in credit counseling.
Home mortgage foreclosures are up more than three-fold over the last generation and car foreclosures have hit record levels.
More than 62% of families say that they worry about making ends meet.
The average family spends 69% more in inflation-adjusted dollars on their home mortgage than their parents spent a generation ago.
The average family spends 61% more on health insurance, than their parents spent a generation ago.
Credit card default rates are at a record high.
I have no idea if I'm right, or to what degree I might be right, but it seems as if one of the unintended consequences of the Reagan Revolution was the creation of a new, pseudo-gilded age in America. American corporations--eager to please the demands of a hyper-impatient Wall Street--will eke out as much profit per quarter at the expence of investment in the company or employees.
The hero worship afforded corporate leadership accommodates a grossly disproportionate salary to upper management--not just to CEOs. The culture of incurring debt for immediate gratifaction extends from American households all the way up to our federal government--regardless of party. There is more to the soap box prattling, but I'll stop there.
Except to say this. If the test of a generation is to see if it can leave a world better for the next (and I can't think of another way to judge it), I can't see how the baby-boomers have been, on the whole, anything but a failure.
[Hat Tip: Crooks and Liars]
Saturday, February 2, 2008
REALLY Big Brother
Bruce Schneier is angry, and he should be. From his post:
Indeed. Not to mention it's beyond ridiculous to even attempt. Even if it could be done (and it can't be), the surveillance would be limited to the US. Contrary to what our President might think, there are no "Internets," just one "Internet." As soon as a single packet went across a border or an ocean, we would then need to either consult with the myriad of foreign countries involved or resort to spying on their networks as well. Plus, encrypting email and instant messaging is incredibly easy and freely available. Any terrorist organization worth a nickel could encrypt all digital communications in a day without spending a single cent.
In a Jan. 21 New Yorker article, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell discusses a proposed plan to monitor all -- that's right, all -- internet communications for security purposes, an idea so extreme that the word "Orwellian" feels too mild.
Indeed. Not to mention it's beyond ridiculous to even attempt. Even if it could be done (and it can't be), the surveillance would be limited to the US. Contrary to what our President might think, there are no "Internets," just one "Internet." As soon as a single packet went across a border or an ocean, we would then need to either consult with the myriad of foreign countries involved or resort to spying on their networks as well. Plus, encrypting email and instant messaging is incredibly easy and freely available. Any terrorist organization worth a nickel could encrypt all digital communications in a day without spending a single cent.
Schneier concludes with this:
The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
Well put.
Mississippi Slimming
From the "You gotta be sh*tting me" Department: Drudge Report links to a bill proposed in Mississippi that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons. Two of the three sponsors are Republicans. You know, "real" conservatives--not like that goddammed hippie McCain.
HItchens on Iraq
Again, I find myself not quite sure what Hitchens is saying here except, and unless, it is the McCain position of keeping US troops in "as long as is necessary." That could never be defined scientifically, of course, and Hitchens doesn't try. But I cannot understand why a tri-partition plan is so terrifically out of the question.
I don't know, of course, but I should think that Hitchens would grudgingly support a tri-state settlement *if* a substantial amount of US troops were garrisoned in Iraq afterwards to preside over it for a good deal of time. I can understand that view and, I should think, Biden wouldn't want to carve up three pieces and then immediately walk away either.
But I don't think it can be plausibly denied that Iraq is a shockingly naive and arrogant creation of early 20th century colonialism. The sharp lines and neatly geometrical angles throughout the Middle East and Africa do, indeed, have much to do with unrest throughout the region and it cannot be expected to continue without continued unrest and tribal warfare. So, what do we do? Continue with this naivete and keep Iraq intact as envisioned by elitist, ignorant men? Can anyone confidently state that there is an Iraq or Iraqis left to us to keep intact?
I just don't know how else to get out of this without terrific amounts of more instability and unrest than a tri-state solution. Obama has, quite rightly, stated that there are only bad options and terrible options left to us. And it seems that if Hitchens (or McCain, or Biden, or Obama, or anyone) wants to try something at least somewhat sensible, maintain Kurdish autonomy, and keep other Middle Eastern states from intervening militarily, they have one "bad" option left to them.
I don't know, of course, but I should think that Hitchens would grudgingly support a tri-state settlement *if* a substantial amount of US troops were garrisoned in Iraq afterwards to preside over it for a good deal of time. I can understand that view and, I should think, Biden wouldn't want to carve up three pieces and then immediately walk away either.
But I don't think it can be plausibly denied that Iraq is a shockingly naive and arrogant creation of early 20th century colonialism. The sharp lines and neatly geometrical angles throughout the Middle East and Africa do, indeed, have much to do with unrest throughout the region and it cannot be expected to continue without continued unrest and tribal warfare. So, what do we do? Continue with this naivete and keep Iraq intact as envisioned by elitist, ignorant men? Can anyone confidently state that there is an Iraq or Iraqis left to us to keep intact?
I just don't know how else to get out of this without terrific amounts of more instability and unrest than a tri-state solution. Obama has, quite rightly, stated that there are only bad options and terrible options left to us. And it seems that if Hitchens (or McCain, or Biden, or Obama, or anyone) wants to try something at least somewhat sensible, maintain Kurdish autonomy, and keep other Middle Eastern states from intervening militarily, they have one "bad" option left to them.
Miss Coulter
Wow. This is so much fun to see her come completely unhinged. "McCain has no honor." A man who suffered torture under the Viet Cong for 5 years, and she rolls her eyes at his stance against water boarding...how very noble of her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)