Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Adjust your bookmarks
Orwell as blogger starting 9 August. (His diary entries will be submitted in the form of posts).
Saturday, July 26, 2008
A Trifle Uptight
Seriously. What is this guy's problem?
Poulos took a beating, and rightfully so, in the comments section of his earlier post regarding Obama's statement of being "...a proud citizen of the United states, and a fellow citizen of the world." He took initial attempts at defense by writing:
Now, instead of just saying something to the effect of "fine, let's move on," he goes off on a self-absorbed and bizarre tangent about liberty and supposedly European absurdities of pan-human brotherhood and the greatest absurdities of the human condition and...whatever, Dude. Deep breath, Poulos, deep breath. Calm down.
To take the 5 word phrase of "...fellow citizen of the world..." in a near 30 minute speech and then extrapolate it into a rambling diatribe about our supposed delusions of pan-human brotherhood and the Left's menacing ambition of world government is not only terrifically pedantic and petty--it is childish, dishonest, and, quite frankly, unhinged. Further, it makes one wonder if he even listened to the speech!
Global warming and pollution just so happens to be global. International terrorism is called international terrorism because--you guessed it--it's international. World trade involves the world. Similarly, 'World markets' imply 'the World.' As such, logic would seem to indicate that Obama is quite right in saying we can't deal with these issues alone.
Then there is the fascinating irony in Poulos being so apoplectic about Obama's phrase and about how he is full of "America's crap" of human solidarity. A universal yearning for freedom and liberty is exactly the reason America was founded. It is Man's commonality and it does bind us together. This idea, this 'European delusion,' is the very foundation of the country!
Poulos may want to disagree with that, but he will be disagreeing with the language of the Declaration of Independence and every single administration since the founding of the nation. The continued existence and success of the United States, after absorbing almost every language, ethnicity, and culture on the planet however, would seem to indicate that Obama just might be on to something. If America has shown the world anything of value, it is that we are not so terribly different and that, yes, there is something that can universally bind. It doesn't make us brothers and sisters, but it does make us human beings that can, normally, coexist peacefully. And that's plenty good enough for me.
Poulos took a beating, and rightfully so, in the comments section of his earlier post regarding Obama's statement of being "...a proud citizen of the United states, and a fellow citizen of the world." He took initial attempts at defense by writing:
"My great scorn for Obama’s remark — even if it was lifted from Kennedy, or if it’s supposed to apply to all of us, the content of my objection stands — should not be confused with scorn for his appearance in Berlin or even his speech. It is undeniable that Obama is an incredible asset to what is often discussed as ‘America’s image abroad’, and should really just be described as America. In several important ways, Obama is full of crap, but it is our crap that he is full of, and people all over the planet still love it.""...great scorn..." and "...full of crap..."?
Now, instead of just saying something to the effect of "fine, let's move on," he goes off on a self-absorbed and bizarre tangent about liberty and supposedly European absurdities of pan-human brotherhood and the greatest absurdities of the human condition and...whatever, Dude. Deep breath, Poulos, deep breath. Calm down.
To take the 5 word phrase of "...fellow citizen of the world..." in a near 30 minute speech and then extrapolate it into a rambling diatribe about our supposed delusions of pan-human brotherhood and the Left's menacing ambition of world government is not only terrifically pedantic and petty--it is childish, dishonest, and, quite frankly, unhinged. Further, it makes one wonder if he even listened to the speech!
Global warming and pollution just so happens to be global. International terrorism is called international terrorism because--you guessed it--it's international. World trade involves the world. Similarly, 'World markets' imply 'the World.' As such, logic would seem to indicate that Obama is quite right in saying we can't deal with these issues alone.
Then there is the fascinating irony in Poulos being so apoplectic about Obama's phrase and about how he is full of "America's crap" of human solidarity. A universal yearning for freedom and liberty is exactly the reason America was founded. It is Man's commonality and it does bind us together. This idea, this 'European delusion,' is the very foundation of the country!
Poulos may want to disagree with that, but he will be disagreeing with the language of the Declaration of Independence and every single administration since the founding of the nation. The continued existence and success of the United States, after absorbing almost every language, ethnicity, and culture on the planet however, would seem to indicate that Obama just might be on to something. If America has shown the world anything of value, it is that we are not so terribly different and that, yes, there is something that can universally bind. It doesn't make us brothers and sisters, but it does make us human beings that can, normally, coexist peacefully. And that's plenty good enough for me.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama Does Berlin
And did it well (embedded below). How can McCain possibly beat this guy? Patrick Appel (guest blogging for Andrew Sullivan) has a round-up of blog reviews here.
Beyond the addition of yet another outstanding speech, however, is the fascination I have with the bitter reaction of some conservatives to it, and the cynicism others have even to the idea of him giving a speech in Berlin now.
I can perfectly understand disagreeing with Obama on any and all political points, but what could possibly be wrong with an American presidential candidate being respected, and even adored, by a European audience? How could it be a mistake to say "I am a proud citizen of the United States and a citizen of the world" (the 'citizen of the world' phrase used by both Presidents Bush and Reagan, btw)? What could possibly be so regrettable about *finally* having a President--after all these horrible 8 years--who is greeted with cheers vs. protests and venom and derision and mockery? Talk about "Change We Can Believe In!"
Have some conservatives become so twisted around that they honestly think being liked around the world is some sort of stain or cause for concern? That it will somehow turn off American voters? Sad, if true. But I very sincerely doubt that many Americans who are still on the fence or were leaning toward Obama watched this and said something to the effect of "Gosh, he did have my support, but now that he seems to be respected and liked in Europe I'm not so sure anymore. If only he was a lightning rod of worldwide animosity and mockery. Then he would have my vote for sure."
To someone who would never vote for Obama anyway, sure, this speech might not have done him any favors. But if anyone has looked more presidential than he did, commanding the attention of over 200,000 Berliners while giving yet another stellar speech (fully from memory from what I could tell), I would like to know how I seemed to have missed the last 30 years of my life.
I don't think these conservatives hate Obama, but I think they hate how good he is and--perhaps--hate even more the idea of having to accept Obama and a left-of-center government in the US for a long time to come. It looks as if the GOP will be in the minority for quite a few years now and, for them, that has to hurt.
Beyond the addition of yet another outstanding speech, however, is the fascination I have with the bitter reaction of some conservatives to it, and the cynicism others have even to the idea of him giving a speech in Berlin now.
I can perfectly understand disagreeing with Obama on any and all political points, but what could possibly be wrong with an American presidential candidate being respected, and even adored, by a European audience? How could it be a mistake to say "I am a proud citizen of the United States and a citizen of the world" (the 'citizen of the world' phrase used by both Presidents Bush and Reagan, btw)? What could possibly be so regrettable about *finally* having a President--after all these horrible 8 years--who is greeted with cheers vs. protests and venom and derision and mockery? Talk about "Change We Can Believe In!"
Have some conservatives become so twisted around that they honestly think being liked around the world is some sort of stain or cause for concern? That it will somehow turn off American voters? Sad, if true. But I very sincerely doubt that many Americans who are still on the fence or were leaning toward Obama watched this and said something to the effect of "Gosh, he did have my support, but now that he seems to be respected and liked in Europe I'm not so sure anymore. If only he was a lightning rod of worldwide animosity and mockery. Then he would have my vote for sure."
To someone who would never vote for Obama anyway, sure, this speech might not have done him any favors. But if anyone has looked more presidential than he did, commanding the attention of over 200,000 Berliners while giving yet another stellar speech (fully from memory from what I could tell), I would like to know how I seemed to have missed the last 30 years of my life.
I don't think these conservatives hate Obama, but I think they hate how good he is and--perhaps--hate even more the idea of having to accept Obama and a left-of-center government in the US for a long time to come. It looks as if the GOP will be in the minority for quite a few years now and, for them, that has to hurt.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Don't Mess With China
These guys look pretty serious (or at least photogenic in drills). I especially like guys on the automatic walkers with mini guns. If I had a dollar for every time that stopped a crisis!
Actually....come to think of it, I don't think that would do much good. But here's to theater!
Actually....come to think of it, I don't think that would do much good. But here's to theater!
The Brass Ring
So I got a shot at a gig that pays big money for me to do cool stuff from home and--for the most part--make my own hours. It's not mine yet by any stretch, but things look good so far.
If I have a point in this post at all though, it's only to say that because of my field (IT Security) there are a range of well-paying opportunities available to me that just aren't there for most--even very well trained and/or educated people. Further, this job (as with all my previous jobs) really does nothing in the way of adding value to the economy in that it's service-oriented.
One gets the feeling sometimes that to really get the high-paying jobs, one needs to get into the service industry (and I don't mean just restaurants and hotels). We don't seem to value production and building in the same way we used to and I don't know why. But it worries me a bit. I think that one of the best things our new president could do would be to massively invest in the infrastructure of the US. It's bi-partisan, it's good for the economy, we need it, and it could re-establish jobs that actually add value to the economy as good, interesting, and rewarding occupations. Having to become a doctor, lawyer, broker, or IT weenie can't be the only way to make big bucks and have a rewarding career.
If I have a point in this post at all though, it's only to say that because of my field (IT Security) there are a range of well-paying opportunities available to me that just aren't there for most--even very well trained and/or educated people. Further, this job (as with all my previous jobs) really does nothing in the way of adding value to the economy in that it's service-oriented.
One gets the feeling sometimes that to really get the high-paying jobs, one needs to get into the service industry (and I don't mean just restaurants and hotels). We don't seem to value production and building in the same way we used to and I don't know why. But it worries me a bit. I think that one of the best things our new president could do would be to massively invest in the infrastructure of the US. It's bi-partisan, it's good for the economy, we need it, and it could re-establish jobs that actually add value to the economy as good, interesting, and rewarding occupations. Having to become a doctor, lawyer, broker, or IT weenie can't be the only way to make big bucks and have a rewarding career.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The downside of San Francisco
More than one douchebag abounds--though this glorious specimen is from Toronto, for the record.
http://view.break.com/527579 - Watch more free videos
http://view.break.com/527579 - Watch more free videos
Friday, July 11, 2008
Class
Jesse Jackson displays a slight lack of decorum (and/or a glimpse into his ego maniacal self). By the way, isn't it quite lovely how the old guard--left and right, black and white, seem to despise Obama? I can't help but think that it's for the oldest of reasons--they covet him. Well, that combined with frustration. He just doesn't fit a mold they've trained so hard to detect, and that whirring in their head is the sound of marginalization.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
$250 a barrel
Remember that this is a dirty Russian scumbag talking, but he's a very powerful Russian scumbag.
The chief executive of the world's largest energy company [Alexey Miller] has issued the most dire warning yet about the soaring the price of oil, predicting that it will hit $250 per barrel "in the foreseeable future".
If You Have to Have Anal Cancer..
May as well make a few bucks out of the deal. You're so brave, Farrah! (I think I just vurped).
Saturday, June 7, 2008
US Immigration Policy
I try not to be frustrated and angry, but then I read things like this. Gonzaga wants to recruit a shooting guard from Canada, but...
Even if the State Department thinks it's possible for a 7 year old child to fake being a refugee in order to hatch his mastermind terrorist plot--which is a bit of a stretch, I should hope--does his behavior over the last 13 years count for nothing?
I don't think the State Department is keeping him out because they think he's a terrorist. Even the drooling, giggling beasts at the INS aren't *that* stupid. I'm sure the young man is being turned down because some part of the process can't be fulfilled the way it normally is and it would put them in a position of having to rub a couple synapses together to work through. So they just reject the request and go put more coffee in their sippie cups because, well...fuck him--plenty of others standing in line.
Substantial reform of the State Department (and especially the INS and immigration law, since I mentioned it) would be enough to make a Obama a "good" president in my eyes. The task has to be daunting, at best.
Kong, 20, is originally from Sudan, which is listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. Although he has lived in Canada since age 7, he does not hold citizenship there. He has been denied a visa to study in the United States three times, and it is unclear if he will ever satisfy the requirements for entry.
Even if the State Department thinks it's possible for a 7 year old child to fake being a refugee in order to hatch his mastermind terrorist plot--which is a bit of a stretch, I should hope--does his behavior over the last 13 years count for nothing?
I don't think the State Department is keeping him out because they think he's a terrorist. Even the drooling, giggling beasts at the INS aren't *that* stupid. I'm sure the young man is being turned down because some part of the process can't be fulfilled the way it normally is and it would put them in a position of having to rub a couple synapses together to work through. So they just reject the request and go put more coffee in their sippie cups because, well...fuck him--plenty of others standing in line.
Substantial reform of the State Department (and especially the INS and immigration law, since I mentioned it) would be enough to make a Obama a "good" president in my eyes. The task has to be daunting, at best.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Oh Johnny
Johnny Mac looks like a Jr. High Dorkus Aerileus up there. I knew he was a pretty lousy speech-maker, but this was just painful to watch and listen to.
You're giving a speech, Senator, not reading a limerick. And even if you were, it's not funny. And even if it was funny, your delivery makes it fall flat. McCain needs to stick with town halls and debates--this speech making just isn't for him and, at his age, he ain't gonna learn how to do it quickly enough.
You're giving a speech, Senator, not reading a limerick. And even if you were, it's not funny. And even if it was funny, your delivery makes it fall flat. McCain needs to stick with town halls and debates--this speech making just isn't for him and, at his age, he ain't gonna learn how to do it quickly enough.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Relax, Ds. Relax
So much fretting about whether Obama can win...please. Forget about Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Ohio. Who phukin cares about them?
As an armchair pundit, it's easy to see Obama winning the following states:
That puts him at 286 electoral votes--16 over the 270 level necessary to win. McCain will probably have these states lined up:
That puts him at 93 electoral votes--177 shy of the necessary majority. Which, of course, means he would *have* to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arkansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Georgia, Alaska, *and* Nevada *and* steal a few states from Obama just to win a razor thin majority of electoral votes. All Obama has to do is win over a state or two (or not) and walk into the Oval Office.
It's not that Obama could not lose, but the task presented McCain is so overwhelming, I don't think the best GOP candidate on her best day could pull it off.
As an armchair pundit, it's easy to see Obama winning the following states:
| WA |
| OR |
| CA |
| CO |
| NM |
| KS |
| MO |
| SD |
| MN |
| WI |
| IL |
| LA |
| MS |
| SC |
| NC |
| NY |
| VT |
| ME |
| CT MA |
| RI |
| NJ |
| NH |
| IA |
| DC |
| MD HA |
That puts him at 286 electoral votes--16 over the 270 level necessary to win. McCain will probably have these states lined up:
| MT |
| WY |
| ID |
| UT |
| NE |
| AL |
| TX |
| KY |
| WV |
| AZ |
| OK |
That puts him at 93 electoral votes--177 shy of the necessary majority. Which, of course, means he would *have* to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arkansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Georgia, Alaska, *and* Nevada *and* steal a few states from Obama just to win a razor thin majority of electoral votes. All Obama has to do is win over a state or two (or not) and walk into the Oval Office.
It's not that Obama could not lose, but the task presented McCain is so overwhelming, I don't think the best GOP candidate on her best day could pull it off.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Lugubrious
Lugubrious:
adj. Mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially to an exaggerated or ludicrous degree.
adj. Mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially to an exaggerated or ludicrous degree.
A word I haven't used since college, probably, but the only one I can think of now. Will the Clintons please leave? Andrew Sullivan opines here and is pretty close to spot on, but it's not hard to do just that--meaning, not hard to report the very palpably obvious. Sullivan goes on to talk of McCain and Obama and how he looks very much forward to a McCain-Obama debate, as do I. But back to Hillarah (a constant theme), I think of the McCarthy hearings and the question directly posited him: "Have you no shame?" I wouldn't begin to compare Hillary Clinton to McCarthy, but I would ask her that same question.
Won more of the popular vote?! One gets a feeling that she is starting to believe her own bullshit. Caucus states, literally, don't count as part of the equation? She doesn't think that a single person in Michigan would have voted for Obama if he put his name on the ballot? She doesn't think the election dynamics would have changed a slight bit if they could both campaign in Florida? I've already said too much.
Her popular vote claim is not only very easily disputed and argued, one wonders what she intends to get out of it. It seems quite clear that she is all too willing to subvert the leading candidate of her party for personal gain/vindication. I truly believe that, at this moment, she hopes for a failure of the Obama presidency so she can say "I told you so."
It has to hurt. She had everything going for her until this uppity Negro inspired a movement and beat her--and narrowly at that, which makes it all the more bitter. But she is going out with such a lack of grace that she is actually staining everything both she and her husband worked for and accomplished. It didn't have to be this way. She made it come to this. Ugly. Vulgar. Arrogant to the point that it approaches the behavior of a sociopath. Leveraging racism, playing sexism, all to infuse doubt into the decision of voting for the leading candidate of her party.
Her actions and words suggest naked aggression on acid--or at least a lot of whiskey--and makes one wonder, does she love herself more than her party and her country? The answer has to be yes, which should not only disqualify her from office, but should give one pause and ask the question inapplicable to McCarthy: "Why are you running for the Presidency of the US?" I would like to hear the answer from her after a dose of sodium-penathol.
Won more of the popular vote?! One gets a feeling that she is starting to believe her own bullshit. Caucus states, literally, don't count as part of the equation? She doesn't think that a single person in Michigan would have voted for Obama if he put his name on the ballot? She doesn't think the election dynamics would have changed a slight bit if they could both campaign in Florida? I've already said too much.
Her popular vote claim is not only very easily disputed and argued, one wonders what she intends to get out of it. It seems quite clear that she is all too willing to subvert the leading candidate of her party for personal gain/vindication. I truly believe that, at this moment, she hopes for a failure of the Obama presidency so she can say "I told you so."
It has to hurt. She had everything going for her until this uppity Negro inspired a movement and beat her--and narrowly at that, which makes it all the more bitter. But she is going out with such a lack of grace that she is actually staining everything both she and her husband worked for and accomplished. It didn't have to be this way. She made it come to this. Ugly. Vulgar. Arrogant to the point that it approaches the behavior of a sociopath. Leveraging racism, playing sexism, all to infuse doubt into the decision of voting for the leading candidate of her party.
Her actions and words suggest naked aggression on acid--or at least a lot of whiskey--and makes one wonder, does she love herself more than her party and her country? The answer has to be yes, which should not only disqualify her from office, but should give one pause and ask the question inapplicable to McCarthy: "Why are you running for the Presidency of the US?" I would like to hear the answer from her after a dose of sodium-penathol.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Why Kids Drink
And reason # 429,789,212 or so why Pinal County Arizona is vacuous blackhole for faith in mankind. A yearbook that has kids with tattoos and piercings?!?! Even alluding to potential homosexuality amongst the Student Body?!?! GASP! I haven't seen the high school yearbook in question, so I guess I shouldn't comment fully, but it's not like they showed kids hitting a bong or nudity or something clearly beyond the pale.
He is a parent, so he has every right to be concerned--more right than me, truthfully. But aren't there more important things to worry about than a couple tattoos or piercings? Once these kids try to get a job, they will realize that showing off your tramp stamp and/or the piercing in your eyeball is counter-productive to personal wealth and they will drop it. Well, most will--some will not. But need I remind the Reverend that he lives in *Pinal County, Arizona*? It's a divining rod for Caucasian refuse. What could he possibly expect--assuming he leaves the house now and then? And besides, as was stated in the uplifting script of Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
"To me it was glorifying things that were against the law for children in high school," said Van Camp, who is also pastor at the San Tan Heights Church.
He is a parent, so he has every right to be concerned--more right than me, truthfully. But aren't there more important things to worry about than a couple tattoos or piercings? Once these kids try to get a job, they will realize that showing off your tramp stamp and/or the piercing in your eyeball is counter-productive to personal wealth and they will drop it. Well, most will--some will not. But need I remind the Reverend that he lives in *Pinal County, Arizona*? It's a divining rod for Caucasian refuse. What could he possibly expect--assuming he leaves the house now and then? And besides, as was stated in the uplifting script of Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Check to You, W
Al Sadr makes a bloodless, and potentially brilliant, move. Do you really want democracy in Iraq, Mr. President? Enough to let the voice of the Iraqi people potentially tell you 'no more?' Guess we'll find out.
BTW, when a half-crazed murderer and all-around thug can consistently out-maneuver you...time to admit that politics just isn't your thing.
BTW, when a half-crazed murderer and all-around thug can consistently out-maneuver you...time to admit that politics just isn't your thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)