Modern Liberalism Explained
Two weekends ago I turned you on to a fabulous 75 minute YouTube on global warming. This weekend, I only need you to set aside 48 minutes.
This speech, by a guy named Evan Sayet, is pure brilliance. I don't know why I've never heard of him before. For years I've been looking for a "grand unified theory" of why liberals are so fucked up, and this dude came up with a real contender. He presents his thesis within the first couple of minutes, and when I heard it I was like, "whoa, that's amazing, I've never thought of it like that before."
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 08:40 PM (I0gpu)
2
Good Gawd woman! Now you're reduced to reposting Rodger's week old work? Not that it isn't worth watching. It definitely is. Sayet was on Dennis Miller's radio show today. BTW, this was the first week of Miller's show, and he's GREAT! His guests are as esoteric as his wit.
This is the way the blog ends,
This is the way the blog ends,
This is the way the blog ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
There were some good times here. Snapping Victor with wet towels; bitchslapping LF and Procain Amy; taunting senescent USC fans; but life must go on; For all things change, the darkness changes,
The wandering spirits change their ranges,
The corn is gathered to the granges.
The corn is sown again, it grows;
The stars burn out, the darkness goes;
The rhythms change, they do not close.
They change, and we, who pass like foam,
Like dust blown through the streets of Rome,
Change ever, too; we have no home,
Only a beauty, only a power,
Sad in the fruit, bright in the flower,
Endlessly erring for its hour,
But gathering, as we stray, a sense
Of Life, so lovely and intense,
It lingers when we wander hence,
That those who follow feel behind
Their backs, when all before is blind,
Our joy, a rampart to the mind.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 08:53 PM (2gORp)
3
nice, Casca. Can't follow it with equal eloquence. A few years ago, I would've been devastated that this blog was ending. Since, I've come to be more religious, to trust God's plan more. It's God's plan that all things come to an end. I'm okay with it now. Been some nice times hanging out here, with all you guys. Truly.
I actually took notes during Evan Sayet's video. His premise: Liberals are not okay with the continued existence of war, poverty, crime, and injustice, reminds of the way I wasn't okay, a few years ago, with the reality of everyone dying dying, and of everything coming to an end. Liberals, like me a few years ago, have a complaint with the Creator. They just don't know it.
What is funny, about Liberals choosing not to employ discriminate thought about competing options, is that everything is a choice, including the choice not to choose amongst competing options. Liberals are discriminating as to whether to use discriminate thought about option, or whether not to do so. Humans cannot avoid employing discriminate thought. The entire Liberal premise - as described by Evan Sayet - is slashed to pieces by this reality.
I enjoyed the video.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 30, 2007 11:15 PM (n+fl+)
4
More and more people are cottoning on to the imminent death of Annika's Journal.
I shall have to write a Korean-style death poem for it. Or draw something particularly filthy to commemorate its passing.
"Passing..." Yes, that gives me an idea...
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 31, 2007 06:56 AM (1PcL3)
5"Passing..." Yes, that gives me an idea...
Kidney stones?
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 07:41 AM (I0gpu)
6
Think bowels reagan80, like this...
...and gcotharn, considering your comment on "everyone dying dying", consider these other lines from "casca's" poem:
Fasten to lover or to friend,
Until the heart break at the end:
The break of death that cannot mend;
Then to lie useless, helpless, still,
Down in the earth, in dark, to fill
The roots of grass or daffodil.
Down in the earth, in dark, alone,
A mockery of the ghost in bone,
The strangeness, passing the unknown.
...That death will change because it must;
ITS a good video, well deserving of a repost, better watch than any of that michael moore tripe, but still, the daily show is funnier...
Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2007 04:19 PM (nE8Mg)
Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2007 04:24 PM (nE8Mg)
8
Thanks, Scof. You surprised me.
I was worried that it would be a "tub girl" or "goatse" link. No one deserves to have their eyes raped by those.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 04:40 PM (I0gpu)
9
Annika,
I don't know what theis guy was drinking the night out that he had his epiphany but it wasn't logic juice.
He is completely guility of the logical flaw that the R always makes. If you don't agree with my plan to attack my enemy than you must perfer my enemy to me"
If one thinks the aftermath of the Iraq invasion is a tragedy, then, Saddam was a good guy who should have been left in place.
If you thought 911 beat up America but you don't agree that beating up Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911, is the oppropriate response, then, you must have enjoyed the 911 attack and thought America deserved it.
If you think a woman's right to choose is more important than the concept of ending the progress of the life in her womb, then you must be part of the culture that promotes unprotected sex and promiscuity.
If you think that America still has problems with institutional racism then you are a hater of our country because S. Africa, Poland, Germany, and Borneo have greater problems with racism.
If you think that universal health care is a good idea then you are a communist and Russia lover because they though it was a good idea too and looked what Stalin did.
And if you think descrimination is often used to marginalize segments of the population than you are a proponante of indiscriminate thinking.
The man is an idiot. The basis for the ideas he espouses are so riddled with generalization and
sophistry that I wonder why he doesn't get laughed of the stage. And why, you, a reasonable woman would find this simplistic reasoning the answer to lifes big question-Why Liberals hate America.
He infact said nothing about the why's. He said nothing about the complex reality of the world will live in. Just dumb equations-if you don't want to kill an evil man, you too are evil. This is the kind of crap GB lives and breathes
Posted by: strawman at March 31, 2007 06:00 PM (9ySL4)
10
If you want to gauge the validity of Sayet's theory, just look at one of Strawman's classic rants.
Observe the way he even talks shit about the military in the '91 Gulf War.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 06:59 PM (I0gpu)
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 07:09 PM (I0gpu)
12
If you have friends and family who still believe in this whole global warming thing, pass this link on to them.
http://www.gorelied.notlong.com
It goes to that video
Posted by: ted at March 31, 2007 11:09 PM (hEbb8)
13
as the peasant in Holy Grail said:
"I'm not dead yet!"
Posted by: annika at April 01, 2007 06:10 PM (WfR6S)
14
Since this blog won't be around for the second anniversary, I would like to take this time to formally congratulate Annika's Journal for remaining the #1 search on Google for "bullet shaped titties".
For those that were disappointed with the absence of the desired visuals when their search brought them here, I will finally offer a meek token of consolation. Enjoy!
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 07:13 PM (I0gpu)
15
yah you laugh now, but when my graphic novel gets made into a feature film, you'll all say you knew me way back when.
And what are you doing searching for bullet shaped titties, Reagan?
Posted by: annika at April 01, 2007 08:02 PM (WfR6S)
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 08:22 PM (I0gpu)
17
Okay, okay, I admit not being very forthcoming there. I apologize. I was kidding about Skippy. He had nothing to do with it.
Actually, beLIEve it or not, I saw that YTMND site first and it reminded me of that old post for some reason...
Hey, if I can remember Strawman's old posts, then surely I can remember your classics, such as that entry you made about the classmate sitting away from you due to problems with rigor mortis in his pants or something.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 09:42 PM (I0gpu)
18 If you thought 911 beat up America but you don't agree that beating up Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911 . . .
Sweet Jesus, help me.
Read this s l o w l y, straw:
WE DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ AS A RESPONSE TO 9/11.
WE ATTACKED IRAQ FOR ACTIVE SPONSORSHIP OF TERROR, WHICH HAS BEEN HEAVILY DOCUMENTED, AND LED TO 9/11.
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:15 PM (7A5PO)
19
I listened to this in its entirety last week. His thesis is impressive and does make a ton of sense. Examine liberalism from top to bottom and a lack of standards is what tends to dominate.
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:21 PM (7A5PO)
20
A great article by Sayet:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408339/posts
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:36 PM (7A5PO)
21
It has been a few days now since I saw this, and I have been thinking about his thesis. I believe I can even pinpoint when this type of thinking was first codified. H. G Wells wrote a book back in 1923 called Men Like Gods. He put forth this idea that if mankind could just jettison religion, philosophies, nations, and ethnicities, then we would be malleable and could be shaped by an elite vangaurd into realizing our full potential. We could be like gods.
Now, it is a simplistic, and utterly naive belief. But it is true, many many otherwise educated people have bought into some version of this banality.
Posted by: kyle N at April 02, 2007 01:45 AM (WzccO)
22
Like a lot of ideas, that sounds pretty good, until one realizes that many men are devils.
Posted by: Casca at April 02, 2007 06:26 AM (Y7t14)
23
Annika, thanks for the video. I just bought The Closing of the American Mind and look forward to reading it.
Posted by: Sarah at April 02, 2007 07:41 AM (vrR+j)
24
Mark,
One word. Lies. Oh, another couple: the indiscriminate thinkers who believe them.
History is beginning to write the epitaph to the whole debacle. Bush, the worst ever, ignorant, naive, insulated, fervent believer of bullshit surrounded by the uncritical, bungling manager of corrupt bunglers (people who truly hate America and will steal her resources, capital and compromise the safety of her people for their own agrandizement ad profit), mismanager of domestic resources, believer in faith not science, supporter of creation "science", could not read Hamlet if his life depended on it, caused the complete turnaround of Republican influence in America (a good thing), no less a murderer than Karadzic and too much else to list.
Keep smiling Mark, its only going to get worse, and NO i don't hate America any more than I hate my son after a bad day on the playground where he might have struck a playmate without provocation. I'm angry, I wish he had acted better and I look for new ways to teach him how to behave but I don't hate him. It appears this complexity has eluded the great thinker Evan Sayet.
SInce when is indiscriminate the opposite of descrimination? Maybe to the indiscriminate.
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 07:59 AM (9ySL4)
25
Did straw reply to anything I posted, or did he just change the subject 180 degrees and resort to insults and smears?
Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2007 08:14 AM (krump)
26
Mark,
You said well documented and I say lies.
You said ton of sense theory of Liberalism and and i said it is not well reasoned.
Where is the shift?
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 08:35 AM (9ySL4)
27
I'd love to meet this spamming twat and show him why I was called Vlad the Impaler in the washroom at Angola State Pen. He will soon go from "true patriot" to "Ben Dover".
Posted by: Spanky at April 02, 2007 09:58 AM (I0gpu)
28
Slight twist on the same old damage-control rant.
WE ATTACKED IRAQ FOR ACTIVE SPONSORSHIP OF TERROR, WHICH HAS BEEN HEAVILY DOCUMENTED, AND LED TO 9/11.
The evidence is so miniscule and irrelevant that even the Duchy of Grand Fenwick would have declined to send their army.
Posted by: will at April 03, 2007 05:01 AM (GzvlQ)
29
straw,
The "shift" is that "lies" is not a response, (it's more of an knee-jerk accusation). Kindly explain why those statements were "lies."
Again, "not well reasoned" isn't a response. Anything you disagree with could be "not well reasoned." Why is it "not well reasoned?" I'm not suggesting that his presentation was 100% flawless. Of course not. But what exactly did he say that was incorrect in your view, and what are your reasons for thinking that those statements were incorrect? If you rather not give me a point by point rebuttal, that's fine, but don't call statements "lies" when they are not, and don't claim that an argument is "not well reasoned" unless you can (attempt to) prove it.
__________
will,
It was hardly "miniscule" and hardly "irrelevant." Saddam had huge connections to global terror: he housed the bastards, he fed them, he gave them places to train, he met with them, he supported them and their families financially, etc. Apart from mailing you a signed and notarized letter, I'm not sure what else the man could have done.
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2007 10:47 PM (LfDKS)
30
Mark, I'll take you up on your offer;
- Which terrorist organizations, specifically?
- Of those, which did he house (and for how long)?
- Met = support, even if he blew them off? Please provide substantive rationale.
We'll dissect the evidence to see how well it stands up to scrutiny.
Posted by: will at April 04, 2007 05:37 AM (GzvlQ)
31
MArk,
If you read my first post you will see my arguments. The method he uses to support his conclusions is a tried and true tool of the propogandist. He finds and common thread to join to elements than switches to a non common element then claims that the second and most outrageous idea is also shared when it is not.
If a person wishes the US to leave Iraq he must hate America, love the terrorists and bask in delight that America is losing a war. He must also be a supporter of Saddam and rape rooms and torture chambers.
To Sayets way of arguing all these things follow from a dissagreement about the reasons we went to war with Iraq and how we might resolve the problems that have resulted from that decision.
Is that how you feel Mark? I love Saddam, I think his reign should be continued, that I enjoy soldiers dying and that the misson of the Islamist radicals is something I wish success?
This make sense to you and must be the nature of my beliefs because I think the reasons for going to war were trumped up and that there were altnative actions that could have been taken.
Posted by: strawman at April 04, 2007 08:23 AM (9ySL4)
32
What a coincidence! Doug TenNapel sent us this just the other day, trying to influence my husband away from his Democratic leanings. I thought the same thing--brilliant--and I've been comparing every liberal I hear to this theory ever since. Pretty freaky! I love his phrase "9/13 Republican."
Posted by: Joules at April 04, 2007 09:40 PM (u4CYb)
Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.
. . .
Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?
Indeed. Why do the Europeans bother pretending that they have any spine at all?
Royal Marines don't apologize. Not willingly. But so what? They don't need to, eventually their government apologizes for them.
What we need here is not "de-escalation" rhetoric. The Iranians are playing the same hand they played in '79, because they know it works. Somebody needs to look them in the eye and say "not this time." But nobody is willing to do it. And so if nobody has the guts, why bother pretending? They should all just go home.
1
Exactly. Well said by both VDH and Annika. The left-wing jibberish spouted by the Euros places them in a tough position when the barbarians start acting out. These effete appeasers don't know what to do if pandering and blaming the Jews doesn't work. (Actually, at some point, I'm sure the "Palestinian Issue" will somehow be weaved into the Iranian demands.)
Posted by: blu at March 30, 2007 11:10 AM (Z0MKU)
2
Iran has declining oil output and is facing bankruptcy. Every time they create an incident oil shoots up from $55 a barrel to $70 a barrel.
In effect the West pays Iran to raise hell, and Iran will continue to do so to keep oil prices up.
Posted by: Jake at March 30, 2007 11:32 AM (V6rxT)
3
We're not at the endgame yet. Let's see what happens. If nothing has been done after a couple more weeks, I'll have to agree with you. It takes time to arrange something big, and this is a great opportunity to hit their nuke sites, along with their navy.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 05:23 PM (2gORp)
McCain Was Almost A Democrat?
Who knows if this story is true? The source is two former Democratic lawmakers, who say that McCain's chief of staff approached them in 2001 about McCain switching parties. The chief of staff denies it, although he's now a Democrat himself, which is bad enough for McCain. Of course in these types of things, it doesn't really matter if the story is true, all that matters is that the story is out there, and it fits the narrative.
McCain may be done.
My prediction for the next big Republican drama: H. Ross Thompson. Will he or won't he? (Fuck everything up, that is.)
1
Does having a good candidate fuck things up? For who?
This race is a long way from the finish; how can our host justify leaving in 60 days (or less)?
Annie, you will have to answer to a higher authority. Maybe I should grade your Bar Exam answers?
Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 04:42 PM (JQe3J)
Posted by: reagan80 at March 29, 2007 05:18 PM (pTNVX)
3
McCain has to be a Democrat because MSM loves him. That disqualifies him from every job except for night watchman in a girls' dormitory.
Posted by: Jake at March 29, 2007 07:17 PM (V6rxT)
4
I don't see that he can pull a Perot. If anything, he'll be a solid conservative candidate that the Republican base can finally rally around. He won't have the liberal social issues to face that McCain and Giuliani have, and the people who have no idea what his name is will remember his face from Law and Order.
I think Thompson may fuck things up for the current front runners, but only by the fact that he will sprint passed them both at the finish line.
Posted by: Frank at March 29, 2007 08:45 PM (Jk/pP)
Posted by: Casca at March 29, 2007 08:47 PM (2gORp)
6
I'll tell you how H. Ross can fuck things up. According to the latest Fox News poll, he is already stealing 10% from the legitimate candidates, YET 53% of respondents never heard of him!
Posted by: annika at March 29, 2007 10:49 PM (WfR6S)
7
My gut feeling is, he won't get into the race, but any of the front runners would do well to connvince him to be a running mate. Personally I am OK with either Giuliani or Romney. In a perfect world we get another Ronald Reagan, but it aint a perfect world. And either one would be a better president IMO than G W Bush.
I carried water for Bush because he was right on a few important issues, but the incompetance and fecklessness of this administration is horrible.
Posted by: kyle N at March 30, 2007 03:44 AM (dPrxc)
8
Kyle, you also carried water for Bush because the alternatives (Gore, Kerry) were too horrible to imagine.
That's why most of us will support the Republican candidate this time around as well, because Shillary Ramrod will be too horrible to imagine as President of the United States of America.
Casca, Newt will be Secretary of State, and I predict, a great one. He has forgotten more history than most of our Secretaries ever knew.
But, sadly, he just isn't electable as President, maybe VP for Rudy might just work.
Posted by: shelly at March 30, 2007 06:47 AM (JQe3J)
9
Shelly, don't let the CW wash what you know to be true out of your brain. It's too early to be predicting a winner, let alone who will be in the race. He's one televised Republican debate away from being the frontrunner.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 07:26 AM (Y7t14)
10
Shelly's right.
Bush may have been possessed by LBJ, but the GOP has plenty of Nixon wannabes to replace him while the Dems only have McGovern-ites.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 07:30 AM (I0gpu)
11
Hey all. Maybe it's the long hours I've been pulling, but I can't stop giggling when I think about my new dream ticket:
Newt & Joe. The lizard and the Jew. Raw, inside-the-beltway political effectiveness meets principled, independent respectibility. I like the combo so much I still don't know which one would be my prez & which would be my veep. It makes *such* a good t-shirt.
Between Obama & Hillary, democrats are getting all the "First [X] President Ever" attention. First Jewish president ever? First reptilian president ever? Can't beat that.
Posted by: max at March 30, 2007 09:03 AM (dLe9c)
12
Still too early one way or another, except for those candidates that have dropped out. A number of candidates have come from the middle or back of the primary pack, i.e, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, for starters. What a circus we are in the midst of indeed.
Posted by: will at March 30, 2007 09:25 AM (GzvlQ)
13
I really hate it when Will is right.
Still too early to tell. (But, my bet regarding Newt still stands, Casca.)Rush just spent a few minutes talking about how the MSM is beginning to hammer Rudy. So, we will soon learn how firm his support actually is. (He's my preferred candidate, so I hope he survives.)
Another right-wing, Southern white boy ain't gonna cut this time folks. The Dems are either going to come with a female or a black on some part of their ticket. PC or not, our side needs to show a similar capacity to move beyond the standard red/blue tie, white male for both Prez and VP.
Be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Regardless, '08 is gonna be a tough sell for Reps - especially the way this war has been executed and is being portrayed by the media.
Posted by: blu at March 30, 2007 10:26 AM (Z0MKU)
14
Hillary/McCain vs. Giuliani/Thompson or Giuliani/Newt
who wins? ack.
re: kyle's comments on Bush: we don't have to revere Geo Bush as Geo Washington, yet, I believe, he will be very well regarded by history. He deserves better than to be casually dismissed. Perhaps you are too young to remember the venomous in office criticisms of Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan(!). I remember them. These Presidents were excoriated. Apparantly Jerry Ford as well. Now, having passed, both Reagan and Jerry Ford are respected as they never were while in office. The job is tough. DC is a nest of vipers. The electorate is fickle. We could be doing a lot worse, a LOT worse, than having Geo Bush in office.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 30, 2007 10:44 AM (n+fl+)
15
"He deserves better than to be casually dismissed."
I agree.
However, he might have invented perpetual motion...
...in the form of Reagan spinning in his grave.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 11:36 AM (I0gpu)
16Countdown To The End Of Annika's Journal...Søndag 20 Maj 2007 23:59:59 [-08:00]WTF? Why? Are you spending the summer groupying for Phish?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 30, 2007 01:59 PM (qlNCk)
17
Where have you been, Red?
She has to study for the California Bar Exam. Three years of school and three months of prepping for three days of testing.
Pass rates usually in low 40's.
It is daunting to face; give the girl a break.
Posted by: shelly at March 31, 2007 01:13 AM (JQe3J)
18
Gothern,
Sure, we coulda had Strom or an autistic child after that I'm ata loss unless you will admit Warner cartoon characters.
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 10:14 AM (9ySL4)
Bronco Bomber Polling
Is it racist for a liberal to say "I like Obama, but I'm supporting Hillary because America's not ready to elect a black president?"*
Whether or not it's racist, that kind of attitude betrays a characteristic pessimism and contempt for America that many liberals hold but won't admit. The psychological term is called "projection," where a person attributes oneÂ’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and emotions onto another. Liberals are famous for projecting their own faults, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few closet racists in the Democratic party.
I know it's early, but Hillary still isn't beating Giuliani in head-to-head matchups, and I can't understand why Obama isn't gaining traction with Democrats. In almost every aspect, he's a better candidate for the liberals. Consistent on the war (despite the latest Clinton lie, he never flip-flopped), more likeable, a better speaker, less political baggage, got more integrity, etc., etc. And because he's from a new generation, nominating Obama over Hillary represents a step forward, not a step back.
Plus, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I think Obama is the tougher matchup. Let's look at the polling.
The RealClearPolitics average has Obama losing to Giuliani by only 2.2%, whereas Queen Hillary loses to the Mayor by 4.5%. Those numbers seem close, but remember they're averages of about 4 or 5 different polls. The key is that Obama wins two of the five polls averaged in the Giuliani/Obama matchup, with Giuliani winning the other three. By contrast all four polls in the hypothetical Giuliani/Clinton matchup swing for Giuliani.
Both Hillary and Obama run neck-and-neck against McCain, but I'd give Obama the edge. RealClearPolitics has Obama beating John McCain by 1%, while Hillary loses to McCain by 1.6%. I know, I know, margin of error. But in McCain vs. Obama, McCain has the same problems as Hillary. There's a large swath of people who will never vote for the man (myself included), and his generation represents a step back, not forward.
In other matchups, while Clinton beats Romney convincingly, Obama beats Romney going away. Obama's average lead over Romney is almost 20%, and is 7.1 points higher than Hillary's lead. Actually, even John Edwards polls better against Romney than Hillary does. There's no chance that Romney could ever beat any Democrat in the general election.
Things are changing on the Democratic side, however. In the west and the south, Obama has apparently pulled dead even with Hillary. She still retains a two to one lead in the northeast. With the new über-Tuesday election giving more weight to the big states, it's going to be anybody's race, especially if Obama can take California. Even though I'm voting Republican, I'd so love to see Obama beat Hillary. I hate coronations.
_______________
* I realize I'm vulnerable to the same criticism, since I have always scoffed at the Romney candidacy. But the reason I don't think Romney can win is not because he's a Mormon. It's because he's a nobody, he looks plastic, and the country is in the middle of an anti-conservative backlash right now. Romney's been marketed as the conservative's conservative, and that's not going to go over well in the general. By contrast, Giuliani has crossover appeal because he's the anti-conservative conservative. His liberal social views make him more acceptable to the average general election voter, who fancies him or herself more "tolerant" than the typical primary voter.
1
I am on record as having said, a long time ago, that I do not believe Hilary could ever be elected president. I stand by that. Presidential candidates, when it gets close to election time, are scrutinized very closely by that part of the public who normally are not very political. And they are the swing voters.
They will never vote for such a shrill woman.
Posted by: kyle N at March 24, 2007 02:25 PM (b3yka)
Posted by: annika at March 24, 2007 02:38 PM (WfR6S)
3
It's TSTT, too soon to tell. That's why we have campaigns. The Clintonistas own the levers of power in the D party. O'bama will be the VP candidate if he plays nice. He'll be stupid if he doesn't take that deal, since he probably isn't in a position to win reelection in Illinois against a real candidate.
The Clintons should both be getting out of prison about now. Instead, they're in position to move back into the White House to steal more furniture. It's a mistake to dismiss them, no matter how venal and grating they may be to the sensibilities of anyone who has their eyes open.
Posted by: Casca at March 24, 2007 03:15 PM (2gORp)
4
As one who has been married many times, I have to say I like the idea of a Giuliani White House where the president and the First Lady each have two ex-spouses.
And I still believe John Edwards is the most electable of all three major candidates on the Democratic side. He'll team up with Bill Richardson as his Veep; Giuliani can pick up Mike Huckabee, and it'll be a very interesting battle.
Posted by: Hugo at March 24, 2007 04:09 PM (ApisT)
5
Giuliani does have crossover appeal. Maybe I'm projecting - b/c I calmly accept that no candidate will ever agree with every one of my own beliefs - but I don't think conservatives will stay away from voting for Giuliani, assuming he is the Repub nominee. There are lots of issues, and conservative voters are accustomed to their candidates disagreeing with them on some issues. Giuliani will be no different.
I hear one liberal commenter after another proclaim that conservatives will not vote for Giuliani. I think they are scamming, and/or projecting their own rigidity. They have zero self knowledge. They cannot see it is them who are truly the rigid voters. They cannot see it is them who would vote their abortion views above all else. Every time they scornfully denounce some perception they have about "the religious right", they are opening a window for us to look inside them.
I still love Giuliani. But, I would have to look hard at Fred Thompson also. Things are awfully entertaining for March, 2007.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 24, 2007 05:36 PM (n+fl+)
6
Giuliani with Gingrich could beat anyone the Dem's throw at them.
Can it happen? I don't think so, bu5 I'd go to the wall for that slate.
Posted by: shelly at March 24, 2007 10:59 PM (JQe3J)
7
Giuliani Gingrich would be a great ticket. But anybody who thinks Thompson is the savior is dreaming. Sure, he's a solid conservative, but he can't beat Hillary.
Posted by: annika at March 26, 2007 02:19 PM (zAOEU)
8
Fred Thompson is like the back up QB, he is always the fan's favorite, until he gets on the field.
Posted by: kyle N at March 26, 2007 04:11 PM (frqsE)
9
I'm "anyone", and I'm dreaming of Fred Thompson kicking Hillary's ass. Fred has charisma, and he looks at many issues exactly as I do.
Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:39 PM (n+fl+)
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:40 PM (n+fl+)
11
Duncan is an honest to goodness white knight. On the downside, he's from a solid R district, and one doesn't learn political skills running against weak opposition. Sadly, it shows.
Posted by: Casca at March 26, 2007 06:23 PM (2gORp)
12
How about Giuliani and Thompson? I am on record as thinking Giuliani will be the next President, but I haven't really come up with a good VP candidate for him. Thompson would be a good choice in many ways--As a southern Conservative he balances the ticket geographically, and would reassure those Republicans who are worried about Giuliani's social views, he is a serious individual who is respected on both sides of the political divide, etc. Personally, I think a Giuliani-Thompson ticket would be very difficult for the Democrats to counter. OTOH, I wonder if Thompson is serious about running for President, much less willing to consider the second spot, and he has a few stumbling blocks in his past, too.
Posted by: DBrooks at March 26, 2007 08:01 PM (VA3Jg)
13
It is time for Barack to implode. The articles calling attention to his lies in his Selma speech are the beginning of the end.
The Clintons are getting ready to bury him; there will not be enough left of him to get him reelected back to the Senate.
Mark my words; Bronco Bomber is done. Put a fork in him.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at March 27, 2007 03:28 AM (JQe3J)
14
Can someone explain to me how Giuliani is a "conservative"?
Posted by: Mark at March 27, 2007 12:12 PM (2MrBP)
15
Mark,
He's not. He is a law and order democrat who supports a womenÂ’s right to choose, gun control because protecting cops is more important to him than some vaporous and childish idea about a "right" to bare arms and he will impose fiscal responsibility unlike spend the spend thrift conservatives. He will, I feel, retreat from the pointless non-war on terror in Iraq and maybe make stabilizing Afghanistan a priority. Nor is he a religious man and the lobbying efforts of the christo-fascist segment of our populace will fall on deaf ears. No ten commandments in his courtrooms, and a great deal of other religious bullshit that permeates our current whorehouse of a Whitehouse. Rudy will not withhold money from clinics that don't preach abstinence, will spend on stem cell research because he doesnÂ’t suffer from that brain lock about protected life beginning at first division of cells. In other words he is neither frightening nor an insult to reasonable people. I received a fund raising letter on behalf of Rudy the other day from a friend who supports him. A wealthy, liberal, NY Jewish lawyer (Doc PomusÂ’s brother) who like most people I know has nothing but distain for the Republican Party and the Imperial Chimp but who is a good friend of RudyÂ’s and thinks highly of him.
So I don't know what you are all wishing for? I would not be happy if he won but neither would I be a tenth as appalled and embarrassed as I am now with this ignorant and inept son of a bitch whose administrationÂ’s biggest challenge, and one that they blow every time, seems to be keeping their lies straight. Goodbye Speedy G.
Posted by: strawman at March 27, 2007 01:02 PM (9ySL4)
16
I will never give up my right to "bare" arms...
Posted by: gcotharn at March 27, 2007 06:22 PM (n+fl+)
17
goth,
Skin cancer, don't forget is not protected by the constutition.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 01:05 PM (9ySL4)
18
straw,
It's takes real talent to insert falsehoods, distortions, half truths, or angry insults into every sentence. I guess this is the "tolerance" and "compassion" I keep hearing about.
Anyone who still resorts to this mindless "right to choose" slogan without admitting that it's an utterly dishonest and thinly veiled euphemism has not thought much about the topic. Ironically, those who elevate choice into a sacrament are strongly against choice in other matters.
Regarding gun control, COPS SUPPORT the right to BEAR arms. Where gun control is weak, crime tends to be low. Where gun control is oppressive (D.C. and Chicago) crime is high. (See John Lott from University of Chicago who has proven this in two books. See also, "Law of Unintended Consequences.")
To call the Invasion in Iraq a "pointless non-war" could only come from someone who has not followed the Invasion since Day 1 with any honesty or consistency. Despite the many problems (inherent in all wars, by the way) much has also been accomplished.
Regarding stem cell research, Republicans support ADULT stem cell research, which have merely resulted in 72 (or more) treatments, cures, etc. Embryonic stem cells? NOTHING, NADA, ZERO. Have you pondered WHY researchers in embryonic stem cells are begging at the public trough? Because the private sector (investors) knows what you don't: embryonic stem cells are fraught with valid moral problems and are a scientic failure.
When you're not making uninformed comments, you drop rather vicious insults. Your mother must be proud.
I fail to understand what you get from regularly polluting this blog with misinformation and very little independent thought and research. Perhaps you take great pleasure in making consistently invalid, incomplete, illogical statements. If so, you must be approaching orgasm.
Posted by: Mark at March 28, 2007 01:59 PM (2MrBP)
19
Annika, I would support this whole post, except I'm not ready to suppport the views of a woman. I don't feel America is yet ready.
Otherwise I would say that this was a good post.
Posted by: RightWingDuck at March 28, 2007 02:43 PM (pl1ju)
20
Good one Mark, but it is the custom here to ignore the fulsome strawfuck.
RWD, it's always good to meet a brother in the He-Man-Woman-Haters Club.
Posted by: Casca at March 28, 2007 04:24 PM (2gORp)
21
Mark,
You have not heard about tolerance and compassion from me for those who don’t need it The people of Iraq need some but not fools sitting by their keyboards all over this country blowing smoke up each others asses. They need a blow to the side of their heads so the crap can seep out their ears. The world is spinning out of America’s control as the huge populations of China and India are developing a consumer class and we have nothing to sell them. Our influence is diminishing as any bully’s does because a stick is only emblematic of his lack of imagination. “To a man whose only tool is a hammer all problems look like nails” The current and many past administrations have been hobbled by their reliance on the paucity of tools they are willing to bring to bear on the problems we and the world face. We are acting scared and have created a policy out of fear. Grabbing Iraq was the policy of a cabal that feared for the demise of America, saw an opportunity to insert our influence in a part of the world we think is vital to our continued growth and they completely fucked it up. Iraq is now a corrosive canister threatening to explode and spatter its tainted innards around the region and cause deeper and more profound wounds than the WTC and we refuse to open our fist and let go or to at least look for alternate solutions.
Please do not pitch the superior morals crap. You are comfortable watching Iraq dissolve in a pool of blood and tissue at the hands of our military and the Iraqi people yet you insist a woman be compelled against her will to gestate a child because you think not doing so is a trespass against god. What a bull shitter. What do you say to your god on Sundays when He asks you what part donÂ’t you understand of his admonitions about killing and his other clear messages? Pick the ones you like, shuck and jive around the others.
Oh, Mark, please stop thinking about my orgasms, it's gross, man.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 07:04 PM (9ySL4)
22
Casca's right; sooner or later the attention whore will go ply some other street...
Posted by: shellly at March 28, 2007 08:29 PM (JQe3J)
23
Or, the parasite shall lose its host on May 20th.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 28, 2007 08:58 PM (I0gpu)
24
Egads; just when I thought it safe for the kids to come out and play again.
Lock up the kids and the wives. Break out the assault weapons.
Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 07:12 PM (JQe3J)
Paraphrased Quote Of The Day
Is by Frank J, paraphrased by me:
[Al Gore] got Cs in Yale in political science -- a type of science -- [yet he's] angry at the world [for] not submitting unquestioningly to his wisdom.
1
A type of science? I was endlessly derided by the physics majors in my dorm for majoring in economics. I imagine they would have believed that political science is an oxymoron. And they're probably right.
And, for what it's worth, the fact that someone with C's in political science could become a Senator and Vice President says more about our educational process than it does about our political candidates. School is not going to make your career for you, and it's not going to hold you back.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 22, 2007 10:03 PM (P8ktI)
2
Algore's problem isn't his grades, or his major. He was the only son of an old powerful political hack, and some arm candy. He was the original Fortunate Son, thus his egomaniacal behavior, and confidence in his own rectitude and right to power.
Posted by: Casca at March 22, 2007 10:11 PM (2gORp)
3
He is a fat fool who has become a caricature of himself. That he has any following at all is a surprise to me.
George W. Bush is not perfect, but the thought that Gore might have become President of the United States if it were not for a few hanging chads gives me shivers.
Posted by: shelly at March 23, 2007 07:20 AM (JQe3J)
4
"He is a fat fool who has become a caricature of himself. That he has any following at all is a surprise to me."
when i first read this comment, i read it off my phone and didnt know which post it was attached to, and i assumed you were talking about tom jones. lol
Posted by: annika at March 23, 2007 09:49 AM (zAOEU)
5
It's not unusual to be dissed by anyone, dadadadadada.
Heh Shelly, Ohio State v USC on the 31st.
Posted by: Casca at March 23, 2007 01:09 PM (Y7t14)
6
Al is not sane, its just that simple, and he really has not been sane for quite some time.
Posted by: kyle N at March 23, 2007 03:02 PM (/1wbO)
7
Well, I still root for USC basketball, except when they play UCLA. My undergrad school is UCLA and I was there during the Wooden years.
In football it's different, as I spent eight years on the Coliseum Commission, and UCLA was playing at the Rose Bowl, so I am a die hard USC Football guy.
So, I'll still be rooting for the Trojans to kick the Nutmeg's butts on the 31st, but will not be suicidal if OSU pulls out another lucky win.
On th eother hand, Columbus will shut down if their darlings don't make it to the last.
Posted by: shelly at March 23, 2007 03:14 PM (JQe3J)
Posted by: Casca at March 23, 2007 09:42 PM (2gORp)
10
He got an A in Political, and an F in Science. That averaged out to a C in Political Science.
Posted by: BobG at March 24, 2007 09:24 AM (sGD8S)
11
Did you ever see that "Kiss me, I'm Al Gore" web site? At the time, when he'd just given Tipper that huge, stagey smooch, it was really funny.
Posted by: Joules at March 24, 2007 11:59 AM (u4CYb)
12
Reading Anni's description and Casca's first comment, it seemed the subject was the current President. Funny about glass houses and all that...
Posted by: will at March 26, 2007 05:00 AM (GzvlQ)
13
Hey Will,
Well, at least, you found one person at this site that takes you seriously. Too bad, he's an anti-semite. Nice company.
Posted by: blu at March 26, 2007 10:58 AM (jcmjk)
14
I just realized, if Annika stops blogging, and Al Gore gets his wish, we will have a global ice age. Only unicellular organisms such as ice algae, Will and Al Gore will survive.
Posted by: Joints at March 27, 2007 06:59 AM (Dh/a/)
15
As a physical chemist, I deeply resent political "scientists" being lumped in with us hard-core geeks. Political science is to science what metaphysics is to physics. ;-)
Posted by: John at March 28, 2007 11:59 AM (ct7Ey)
16
Good call on getting rid of those bigoted comments, Annika.
Posted by: blu at March 28, 2007 03:00 PM (j8oa6)
17
I thought the story was that Al Gore and actor Tommie Lee Jones were roommates during their undergrad years at HARVARD.
Yale has a lot to be ashamed of, but I don't think you can blame Yale for Al Gore.
Posted by: David March at March 29, 2007 08:32 PM (a/QW9)
I actually saw Tom Jones in Vegas once. I went as a joke, but came out a believer. The man puts on a fantastic show! We got seated at a table in the front row too. I was so close I could see the spit and sweat flying. We got such great seats due to a tricky move by my boyfriend at the time. As we stood in line he kept a twenty clutched in his hand so the usher could see it. Then while the guy led us down front, my boyfriend palmed the twenty and handed him a five. I'm sure the usher was pissed, but what the hell. Oh by the way, chicks really did throw underwear up on stage for Tom to wipe his sweat with. I thought that was just an icky legend, but it's true. I managed to stay fully clothed though.
1
Whew, glad you answered that... cause you know, someone was bound to ask.
When I was a kid, he had a TV show. He's GOT to be older than Shelly!
Posted by: Casca at March 22, 2007 09:49 PM (2gORp)
2
Vaguely remember the show - or at least the opening of the show, where he sang "It's Not Unusual" or whatever it was.
Nothing wrong with being a showman.
Anyone else like his version of Prince's "Kiss"?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 22, 2007 10:00 PM (P8ktI)
Posted by: Amely at March 23, 2007 01:35 AM (FvjHi)
4
Hey, what did I do to deserve that? I didn't even comment howlousy OSU has been playing, barely pulling it out, game after game.
My Bruins had a good win last night; that's how you win a game, not by a lucky shot at the gun.
Posted by: shelly at March 23, 2007 07:23 AM (JQe3J)
5
"Hey, what did I do to deserve that?" It's the only way I have to check if you're still breathing.
Don't spend all your money. We might need a wager on the 31st.
Posted by: Casca at March 23, 2007 01:14 PM (Y7t14)
6
I remember his show from back in the days when there were variety shows on TV, some singing, some stand up, some corny skits, but they were better than most of the crap you get now.
Besides Tom, there was Glen Campbell, The smothers brothers, Carol Burnett, Dean Martin (noted for launching Rodney Dangerfield's career) and Even Johnny Cash had a show, and it was pretty good.
Posted by: kyle N at March 23, 2007 03:06 PM (/1wbO)
7
TOM makes a believer out of EVERYONE who sees him live! There's NO ONE like him.
Posted by: Ruth B at March 24, 2007 06:18 AM (kjoAI)
8
I don't know, I think all that potent masculinity is overrated. If you close your eyes and listen to him talk, he sounds like a Welsh leprechaun.
Posted by: Joules at March 24, 2007 11:55 AM (u4CYb)
9
Guys like Tom Jones or Wayne Newton, as kitschy or cheesy as some of their older material may be, have some serious longevity and ingenuity to constantly keep themselves in demand. And yes, they put out fabulous shows!
I also remember a rumor that he packs the front of his trousers... did you see any unnatural bulges?
10Oh by the way, chicks really did throw underwear up on stage for Tom to wipe his sweat with. I thought that was just an icky legend, but it's true.
So, being up front, it must have smelled like one of Pelousy's Chicken of the Sea™ factories! :-O
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 25, 2007 03:52 PM (cOyko)
11
I seen him as well. The woman were as wild as an Elvis concert. Great show...a true performer.
Posted by: Yabu at April 09, 2007 07:38 AM (b1/rU)
SHOCKING PROOF THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL
I have discovered amazing evidence that Global Warming is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that we are quickly approaching the end of the world.
I looked at my TTLB stats tonight, and the graph for average daily visits to my blog looked frighteningly familiar. By consulting my scientific sources (i.e. I googled it) I was able to find a graph showing the recent increase in average global temperatures.
Sure enough, when I superimposed the two graphs, an inconvenient truth emerged!
The debate is over, the science is in: My blog is at fault for global warming.
Well, as soon as I realized this, my first thought was, "how embarrassing." My second thought was, "If I am to blame, what can I do to save the planet?"
So now you know why, in sixty days time, I will retire this blog. Sorry about that.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 21, 2007 08:47 PM (I0gpu)
3
Think of your loyal posters as insurgents in Iraq.
You try to leave, we're coming after you...
Posted by: shelly at March 21, 2007 09:22 PM (JQe3J)
4
That's a good analogy Shelly. You know what happens when she pulls out... the guys with the most guns make the rules. Can one of you hold the camera while I cut a few heads off?
Posted by: Casca at March 21, 2007 10:55 PM (2gORp)
5
she's no good with the poker face, 60 days, bah!
Posted by: Scof at March 22, 2007 01:12 AM (nE8Mg)
6
If your blog ends in 60 days, we will revoke your membership in the IPP Party as retribution.
Do you want that? I don't think so.
Posted by: Preston at March 22, 2007 04:34 AM (HZZuA)
7
The alternative to global warming is global cooling. If you end your blog, the planet could end up covered with a one mile thick ice pack! Please think about this.
Posted by: joints at March 22, 2007 05:08 AM (Dh/a/)
8
The girl has to study for the Bar exam; it is quite understandable to those of us who have facedthis moment of truth.
I suggest we offer her a three month leave of absence and see if she'll consider that.
Posted by: shelly at March 22, 2007 05:20 AM (JQe3J)
9
Take the deal, Annie.
The alternative is...Jihad.
Posted by: shelly at March 22, 2007 07:32 AM (JQe3J)
10
Maybe Al Gore can take over the blog in the three month period. I want to hear more about the Lock...Box.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 22, 2007 08:21 AM (0Rrlw)
11
So, when are you going to start selling offsets?
Posted by: BobG at March 22, 2007 09:13 AM (6a2gq)
12
You're not quite there, but at least examining the data closely is a start. It's a very complex subject, so spin doctors from any angle can put their spin on a lay public.
Posted by: will at March 22, 2007 10:57 AM (GzvlQ)
13
What about *blogging* offsets? Each *server* uses electricity, not to mention the associated routers, switches, etc, so every blog is using a proportional share of the power sucked down by those devices.
We could have a group of patriotic global citizens who will accept contributions in order to foreswear blogging, and bloggers could then show their environmental bona fides, in the Al Gore tradition, by purchasing these offsets...
Posted by: david foster at March 22, 2007 12:35 PM (/Z304)
14
Where have you guys been? I've been selling offsets since March 4th. In fact Shelly was nice enough to buy the first set, and I never thanked him for it. Thank you Shelly, not only are you a sweetheart, you are a great environmentalist!
Posted by: annika at March 22, 2007 07:33 PM (WfR6S)
15
After much consideration I've decided to live with the increase in temperature and Sea level (I don't own coastal property) in favor of Annika's Journal.
Posted by: Mike C. at March 24, 2007 05:55 AM (fgJCh)
16
Thanks for solving this global temperature problem. Al Gore looks more like an angry chipmunk everyday...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
spread hysteria
wildly exaggerate
scare little kids not ready
.
Posted by: USpace at March 26, 2007 10:40 PM (uJemV)
17
Is this one of those Michael Jordan retirements? I hope not, but I'll take Annika playing basketball or baseball.
Posted by: Mark at March 27, 2007 12:16 PM (2MrBP)
18
Oh gosh, does this mean you also had something to do with Anna Nicole's baby girl?
Posted by: NOTR at March 28, 2007 08:43 PM (GCLgj)
Posted by: reagan80 at March 21, 2007 07:52 PM (I0gpu)
2
I rode my motorcycle out to Yuma on Sunday. It's about 400 miles roundtrip. After refueling, I went inside to purge fluids, and decided to have an ice cream cone. Total impulse purchase, but it was 80-some degrees, and I was wearing a full gortex riding suit.
As I stood there licking my ice cream cone, an old lady came in. She looked at me with a superball ticket in her hand, and asked, "Is this your ticket?" I told her, "no honey, it's yours." Turns out she had five of six numbers, and the ticket was worth more money than the store could give her. When they told her to log in on the web and all the instructions would be there, she responded that she didn't know how to do that. She was clearly addled. At this point, the epiphany struck. We all get everything we want, only not at the time in life when we can/could use it. Guess it's the same for pigs.
Posted by: Casca at March 21, 2007 08:37 PM (2gORp)
3
I was listening to the White Album on the way to work this morning. Some piggies are more equal than others.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 22, 2007 08:19 AM (0Rrlw)
1
Heh! When I got the genie out of the lamp, I only got one wish! Since I pretty much have everything that I could want, I told the genie that I've always wanted to visit Hawaii, but boats make me seasick, and I'm afraid to fly, but if I could drive to Hawaii, that would be great. Well the genie started to welch on me. He told me that the ocean is really deep out there, and it's a really long way, and he asked me if there wasn't something else that could make me happy? I thought for a minute, and it hit me. Why yes there was.
You see, all my life, I've never understood women, how they think, what their motivations are, why they cry at the oddest times. If I could understand women, that would make me happy.
The genie thought for a few minutes, then asked, "How many lanes do you want?"
Posted by: Casca at March 20, 2007 09:54 PM (2gORp)
2
What would your three wished be, and over what timespan would you assume they would be active?
Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 07:32 AM (GzvlQ)
3
This is the first time I have ever thought of Chinese cheese. Now oranges, that's another matter (ain't Wednesday poetry day around here?).
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 21, 2007 08:08 AM (YWsCw)
Posted by: Casca at March 21, 2007 10:21 AM (Y7t14)
5
LMAO, oh, two months to go, and NOW you get tough. I'm going to start calling you Dubyah. Besides, that was damned funny, lol, a boy named Sue. Who ever heard of such a thing? LMAO
Posted by: Casca at March 21, 2007 01:39 PM (Y7t14)
I guess when Ratzenberger got the call from ABC, it was a short conversation.
"So what you're sayin' is, I get to dry grind with the hottest body on the show, who's basically wearing a bikini and heels, but you can only pay me scale? Umm— I just have one question, can I borrow your pen?"
Posted by: shelly at March 21, 2007 02:01 AM (JQe3J)
3
Mind phrasing things a bit more carefully next time??!! I read fast, and when I saw your opening line, I parsed it "Cliff filling in big...", saw the picture and damn near electrocuted myself spit-taking Hawaiian Punch all over my laptop!
You know how hard it is to breath when you're laughing to the point red punch is coming out your nose?
------
And lookit Cliff's face! He's got that "Hey! Look at me! I'm pretend-bangin' this chick on stage!!" look on his face!
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 21, 2007 05:54 AM (xHyDY)
4
There are certain cultural phenomena that I purposely avoid, so I have to ask - when the leg stayed on, did everyone feel cheated?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 21, 2007 08:05 AM (YWsCw)
5
"Dry"? Who says? I think you mistake old Cliff's expression. It's: "oops."
Personally I lean toward Karina, with Edyta a close second.
Posted by: Matt at March 21, 2007 08:32 AM (10G2T)
6
karina looks amazing in a blonde wig, but cheryl is the cutest, and the best dancer, and my favorite.
Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 10:49 AM (zAOEU)
1
Heh, you're getting funnier! Are there going to be more pork pulling jokes, or are you headed down the chicken choking route?
Posted by: Casca at March 19, 2007 10:28 PM (2gORp)
2
Lemme guess...the pig picks up a lamp that is filled with newspaper - Danish cartoons soaked in alcohol. I'll nominate *you* for a Nobel Peace Prize...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 20, 2007 08:55 AM (BSx9z)
3
I don't like where this is going Annie....
Over and out,
X
Posted by: Major X at March 20, 2007 06:43 PM (N155d)
4
Dear Mr. Casca,
I've always been partial to "waxing the dolphin".
I mean not actually waxing the dolphin myself, but you know using the term. Although, I've been out on sortie many a times and it does get lonely, but I'm not admitting anything.
Beating the Bishop, thats a good one too!
Over and out again,
X
Posted by: Major X at March 20, 2007 06:45 PM (N155d)
5
Waxing the dolphin??...
No matter how hard I try, any attempt to regard that in an off color sense gets erased by a mental image of someone with an electric buffer by the side of a pool, powerbuffing a Tursiops truncatus.
Now "Beating the Bishop": That I can picture as self-flagellation.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 20, 2007 07:12 PM (J+r3D)
6
Is the author implicitly referring to the narrator in first person?
1
I've watched 10 minutes so far and don't have time to see the rest tonight. Who put this together? Does it say at the end? I've often suspected that global warming hysteria is just like the Emperor's New Clothes.
Posted by: Joules at March 18, 2007 08:58 PM (u4CYb)
2
Oddly enough, when your previous article reviles Time Magazine for being biased, you've wholeheartedly swooned over this piece where one of the scientists presented as supporting its thesis stated the video was "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." But I can understand how persons who are not close to both sides of the issue can be swayed by such disinformation.
This presents a very narrow skeptic perspective from the same old global warming critics, who previously used to say, "Global Warming is a LIE". Now they say, "Ok, it's warming, but to claim human influence is a LIE". And the majority of those have been funded by oil and coal companies.
Some of the claims are wildly preposterous, such as the claim that volcanoes release many more times the amount of carbon dioxide that human activity does. From the USGS;
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 199
- The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Over and over again as the main thrust of the video, they completely ignore the thorough explanation of the 1940-1975 cooling, something that Lindzen should be ashamed to have pretended not to know.
There's so many goofs in this polemic that I will simply direct you to a debunking for futher scientific discussion.
And not that tost of the time in the video is spent with non-climate scientists, such as :
* Phillip Stott - Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus on such issues.
* Patrick Moore is not a scientist but an activist.
* Nigel Lawson is a journalist who became a member of Parliament
* Nigel Calder is a author, editor, and TV screenwriter, not a scientist.
* Paul Driessen is lobbyist and currently a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.
* James Shikwati is a Kenyan libertarian economist.
* Piers Richard Corbyn is a British meteorologist, not a climatologist. He is best known for his controversial claims of an ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance through the study of solar activity, specifically sunspots.
I can understand why you were drawn in by this video, because many conservatives feel as strongly about this as they do abortion; however, emotion should not be the process by which the science is vetted.
And yes, I know you just love to yank my chain...
Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 03:59 PM (h7Ciu)
3
ERRATA:
"not that tost"
should be "note that most"...
My laptop screen is acting up, and I can only view pages in a tiny window.
Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 04:02 PM (h7Ciu)
4
Thanks for the tour of that great bastion of academic knowledge,Wikipedia, Will. I wonder how many of the people who worked on those links you so graciously supplied lied about their credentials?
And for all of you that like to casually surf the web, there are a ton of links out there that will take you through the lies, half-truths, and blatant propoganda that was Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 04:48 PM (jcmjk)
5
blu, why not list one of your URLS, so that we can examine one that you hold to be true, so that we can debunk it for you?
And feel free to find fault with any of the "Swindle" bios, since you questioned the veracity of those who provided the information.
Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 05:19 PM (h7Ciu)
6
Question the veracity of Wikipedia. Oh certainly not! Who in their right mind would question an open-source website that requires absolutely no credentials for posting. Certainly not I.
Hey, didn't Al Gore invent Wikipedia?
Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 05:29 PM (jcmjk)
7
Well since they haven't released the '07 IPCC report yet, just the Summary For Policy Makers which is created by gov't beauracrats and not scientists, we have to look at the '01 IPCC report for the actual science here that the man-made global warming crowd is relying on.
Now if you made it through that incredibly long sentence, there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming. It is an mix of computer models, incomplete computer models, which say this warming shouldn't be normal, ergo man must be causing it. This is the only "evidence" for man's role in global warming. If anything we should focus on adapting rather than fool hardy attempts to mitigate what is a natural process. I agree we should find better power sources than the internal combustion engine and reliance on fossil fuels, but the global warming crowd is using propaganda to try to achieve this goal.
Posted by: Scof at March 19, 2007 07:44 PM (nE8Mg)
8
Very interesting vid with very interesting points. Much gravitas thanks to the preponderance of British accents.
Thanks, A.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 19, 2007 11:24 PM (HSp2k)
9
Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute.
And Scof, all we have of the movements of the Solar System is computer models based on observations. For that matter, the same goes for link between tobacco and cancer; there is no absolute proof, only overwhelming evidence.
Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 04:12 AM (h7Ciu)
10
Here ya go, Will. Happy reading.
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm
http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts
Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2007 05:10 AM (fxGzi)
11
Give it up, Frank. Your mere links have no effect on our mighty platitudes.
Like Kuato, we shall liberate Annika's mind from the arch-conservative camp.
Before we're finished here, she'll be voting for Nader in no time!
Now, do what Kuato commands! Let me feel it, peons!
Posted by: Swill at March 20, 2007 09:02 AM (I0gpu)
12
"Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute."
Back at ya, Will. So far, you've managed to link to an open source, slacker website whose credibility has been called into question numerous times.
It's fun playing the Will game: never respond with substantial thought - simply say that your opponents are wrong without debating specifics points and then say something about where their funding might come from.
Your game is old, Will, and that's why nobody takes you seriously. Well, accept for you. No get back to that mirror so you can continue admiring yourself.
Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 09:37 AM (jcmjk)
13
Frank,
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm is just a rant site, no science (the 'author' is a Ruskie radiology scientist, no evidence of climate research), just bald assertions.
http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html
More extensive, and I will address this when I have time (running out the door to an embassy event).
Still waiting, blu, even after you attack the messenger...
Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 02:04 PM (GzvlQ)
14
Hey Will,
One of your global warming pimps took part in a Waxman's media circus. (The fact that the taxpayers have to pay for this crap ought to offend every American.Gotta give the Dems credit, though, they know that they have the MSM in their pocket and they use it will.) Dr. Hansen, political activist and global warming whore, who likened the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. The same man who openly campaigned for Dems; has given 1400 interviews pushing his point of view while working within the government; and recepient of a quarter million bucks from Dem activist, Teresa Heinz Kerry's, foundation. (You know, one of those non-political institutions with no political agenda or bias.) Darrell Issa tore this pimp a new rear-end and called him out as the political activist that he is. This guy has spent the last few years accusing the gov't of "politicizing" science all the while setting a standard for it.
The global warming movement is nothing more than a well-excuted marketing campaign.
Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 03:58 PM (jcmjk)
15
Full disclosure: I'm not typically an Issa fan - for reasons associated to the GWOT - and sure wish somebody else would have stepped and took the pimp to task.
Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 04:00 PM (jcmjk)
16
http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html
This is a 1997 article that is grossly out of date and easy to refute;
"Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming."
This is in fact true and has been addressed in countless postings here. Even the Lindzen/Spencer/Christy skeptics now readily admit it, though at one time called it a lie.
"Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. "
Again, out of date, as likely less than 1% of climate researchers deny anthropogenic warming.
The article mentions the Meteorlogical Society and the American Geophysical Union specifically as disbelieving. Here are current statements by those organizations;
Meteorlogical Society (2003): "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."
American Geophysical Union (2003): "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects."
"Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming."
From the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Summary: "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. " (which confirm the models' predictions of warming)
"Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems."
They talk about the lack of increase in hurricane activity, though this was to change dramatically after 1997.
From the 2007 IPCC Assessment Summary: "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more
frequent. it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become
more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs."
Conclusion: This article has been proven to be inaccurate in all of its claims. Little to no scientific research was referenced, so it was little more than a policy puff piece now discarded on the rubbish heap of history.
Scof,
"there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming.
Your claim is unsupported. Even the majority of the 1%-2% of those scientists identified as skeptics now agree that humans are influencing the climate, though they are simply saying 'we don't know how much'.
Blu,
When will you learn that ideological rants provide no basis for a serious discussion of scientific issues? Why should anyone care what Issa (or any pundit) says on this subject?
Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 04:49 AM (GzvlQ)
17
More debunking of 'debunkers':
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
This is just an opinion piece published in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology with no references to scientific findings (and rife through and through with fallacies itself).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts
This finally gets to the points of "An Inconvenient Truth". Let's take the points one at a time;
most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100.
What kind of claim is this?? How much? What will be submerged? Hardly a debunking of the movie.
Gore shows that many mountain glaciers are melting away all around the world—glaciers in Alaska, Europe and Mount Kilimanjaro—are responding to increased warming. (Though the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro seem to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns rather than to increased heat. Of course, it is possible that the shift in rainfall is the result of global warming.)
Is this 'debunking'? Very weak to non-existent. Global glacier mass balance has dropped significantly in the last 50 years. See the data and a striking graph of the data.
"The temperatures in central Siberia are thought to have increased by 3 degrees Celsius over the past 40 years. A Russian study in 2004 found that the average temperatures in Siberia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 6000 years ago warmed up by 3 to 9 degrees celcius in the winter, and by 2 to 6 degrees celcius in the summer. Due to changes in the earth's orbit which affect how much sunlight reaches the surface, pretty much the entire Arctic was warmer than now 6000 years ago."
The Russian study was not referenced, so we have no idea of its source, methods, or overall veracity, hence this is an empty claim.
"Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. "
The report is not referenced, yet this article wanders off track by referring to bear populations in general, not just polar bears. And the 6000 year claim from the one Russian 'paper' was not substantiated above. Building houses of cards with shaky findings does not lead to conclusive findings.
"Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists."
I would agree with this. The models predicted it, and it seems to be happening, though the data is not completely out of the margins of errors yet, so there is not a consensus among key hurricane researchers in the US.
"Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998."
Not much of a point here, especially since the article does not contend with the point that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Trends are what are important, and the trends are clear.
That's all I have time for now (I really must work for a living), but its clear that much of the 'debunking' that's been going on is more directed at public opinion that at addressing the science itself. And that, my friend blu, is called 'spin'.
Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 05:24 AM (GzvlQ)
18
Guys,
Go read the entire piece. Goebbels, errr, I mean Will, cherry-picked his response as you will see. The piece destryoys Gore's propoganda piece in a very detailed and devastating fashion. And this is just one of many that I've seen. By now, you should all know Will's "m.o.", so ignore him. BTW, op-eds rarely if ever cite references.
Posted by: blu at March 21, 2007 10:21 AM (j8oa6)
19
Anybody can blather rhetorically and claim to "destroy" their opponent; having solid references to back oneself up with is required just to get in the door of a scientific debate. And an op-ed piece is just an opinion statement intended to sway readership. If unsupported opinions are what you are basing your argument on, then those claims are groundless until shown otherwise. Which might be fine in a debate between ideologues in politics, religion, or philosphy, but they're not the subject domain at hand.
Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 12:46 PM (GzvlQ)
20
the scientists are right! Global Warming is real. Here is proof:
in 1955, Ansel Adams took this picture of Half Dome.
Now look at it today! Where's the snow?
Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 07:11 PM (lMqjc)
Unfreakinreadable
My mom gave me a gift subscription to Time Magazine last year. I've tried, I've really tried to read it every week, but it's damn near impossible. It's like they deliberately try to insult me every week. I know it's the thought that counts, but I think I'm going to have to cancel my free subscription.
The problem is that Time is a liberal op-ed magazine, masquerading as a non-partisan news source. I could respect them, and even read it occasionally, if they would just admit the truth. But to do so might reduce the effectiveness of the subliminal propaganda they spit out each week. There's no way to avoid it, unless you stop grocery shopping and visiting the dentist.
If I read something in the Village Voice, or Mother Jones, or the LA Weekly, saying "all conservatives are evil" I can take it with a grain of salt, it's no big deal. But when Time Magazine, in a "news" cover story starts out like this, I get mad.
George Bush's sense of humor has always run more to frat-house gag than art-house irony, so he may not have appreciated the poetic justice any more than the legal justice on display in the Libby verdict.
Or, to be more precise, the Cheney verdict.
In a mere 46 words, Time managed to call the president of the United States a lowbrow, call him stupid, then pronounce the Libby verdict as "justice" when it's actually 180° the opposite of justice. Then to top it all off, Time proclaims that Cheney was somehow convicted by the Libby jury. And that's just the first 46 words.
You know, there's a lot of folks in this country who voted for the President, and like the President. There's a lot of folks who really like Dick Cheney, and we're not stupid. We understand that there are people who don't think so, but it's insulting to read a supposedly unbiased news magazine calling the Vice President a criminal, as if I'm supposed to agree. Like saying the Dow was at 11000, or the temperature in Minneapolis yesterday was 53°.
A few weeks ago I tossed the magazine with the pro-abortion cover in the trash without even opening it. I didn't open the one that asked "Does sending more soldiers to Iraq make any sense?" either. I knew the answer to that question. I also knew their answer, and that it was different from mine. But next week's cover really takes the cake: Ronald Reagan crying. First of all, they have no right to touch, let alone re-touch that great man's picture. Second, I simply don't trust them to write about conservative discontent without it being a 3000 word essay on schadenfreude.
And it's not even well written, or well reported. Lately they've taken to using introductory phrases like "here's how..." and "here's why..." As in "With the U.S. tied down in Iraq, a new superpower has arrived. Here's how to deal with it." Or, "The Iraq Study Group says it's time for an exit strategy, Why Bush will listen." Of course, when the President rightly ignores the ISG's report, Time ignores its faulty prediction. But that doesn't stop them from continuing to use that annoying phraseology. Another example: "As the U.S. strikes al-Qaeda, a new government tries to restore order. Here's what it will take."
That phrase bugs me so much because it's like they're assuming some sort of know-it-all status, without ever demonstrating to me that they know anything. When you're wrong as often as Time's writers are, they shouldn't be so presumptuous.
The Time story intro has become so formulaic, I could probably write a script for it if I knew how to write code. All you do is take some story that is happening, insert some anti-Republican or anti-war spin, then promise the reader that you'll have all the answers in the article by saying "here's how."
Here are some examples, just off the top of my head:
A story about JetBlue delays might be introduced like this:
While JetBlue executives struggle to regain passengers' confidence in the wake of storm caused delays, experts say global warming could damage airline stocks even further? Here's how you can protect your portfolio.
A story about Valerie Plame's testimony?
With the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, new questions surround pre-war intelligence as Valerie Plame wows Congress. Here's why her testimony will doom the Bush admistration.
Nintendo's Wii?
Millions of Americans have fallen in love with the new Wii gaming platform. Here's how Alberto Gonzales intends to ruin their fun.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 18, 2007 05:25 PM (I0gpu)
2
Annie, you're too young to remember "Life" magazine, however, my parents used to tell me "Life is for people who can't read; Time is for people who can't think."
Posted by: shelly at March 18, 2007 06:38 PM (JQe3J)
3
"A disaffected right-wing blogger had issued yet another whiny tirade against the mainstream media. Here's how you can renew your subscription to TIME so that you can continue to receive accurate news reporting."
(I was going to use my favorite perjorative term, "fascist," but most "objective" news outlets wouldn't stoop that low.)
I've rarely read any weekly newsmagazine since about 1983, so I'm not really qualified to comment on how we are today. However, since 1983 there has been a sea change in how we get our information. Because printed media (especially weeklies or monthlies) isn't going to have timely information, they need to resort to analysis to justify their existence. TIME, of course, has been analyzing for years, although its slant has changed (Formosa, anyone?). At this point I'm pondering whether McPaper is actually a more valuable source of information; at least they print two sides to major issues.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 18, 2007 08:45 PM (P8ktI)
4
Honey, you're late to the party. Time went in the shitter when Whitacre Chambers quit editing The World section. Subsequently, Joe Kennedy gave Henry Luce $75K to put JFK's pic on the cover after the release of his ghostwritten Profiles in Courage. They're whores.
Posted by: Casca at March 18, 2007 10:09 PM (2gORp)
5
The magazine has taken an even farther turn to the left in the last year or so.
Since you're a subscriber, I would consider sending those overpaid leftists your post, or atleast a letter of some sort, letting them know what you think. Will it achieve anything? Perhaps not, but so what? They need to hear someone tell them that they're whoring their profession.
Posted by: Mark at March 19, 2007 10:26 AM (2MrBP)
6
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Can anyone suggest an alternative? I was thinking maybe US News & World Report, but I don't know much about that one...
I'm gonna call TIME now and have them cancel my subscription, it's really not even worth lining my bird's cage with it, it's that bad.
7
USN&WR is pretty worthless, and it's not even pretty to look at.
Neither is National Review, but I'd recommend it over any of the big three "news" magazines.
Lots of people swear by The Economist, but have you ever tried to read it? boooooring. plus its liberal. I think people say they like the Economist just to impress people. I doubt anybody actually reads it.
Posted by: annika at March 19, 2007 04:11 PM (zAOEU)
8
Yeah,I'm not much of a Time fan; it's too much like a Reader's Digest, only a week behind the times, so to speak.
I get the same reaction as you when I watch most news programs on TV, Fox included.
Sifting news sources for bias is a hobby of mine, which is why I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer so much; he just lets both sides duke it out, calling them out from time to time.
Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 05:36 PM (h7Ciu)
9Cathy Seipp is bidding farewell to everyone.
A couple days ago, we lost one of our conservative engineering professors to cancer as well. This sucks.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 19, 2007 06:31 PM (I0gpu)
10
Hear Hear! Any magazine that would name Gorbachev Man of the 80's is puerile
Posted by: Scof at March 19, 2007 07:39 PM (nE8Mg)
11
Annika,
I think your wishes about how you think things aught to be are getting in the way of seeing how things are. Nothing in the Time's 46 words is biased or god forbid untrue.
Bush prides himself on his lowbrow, non-book reading, gut feeling appeal and for the 2000 election he especially played it up. (By 2004 his handlers thought it was time to put a book or two on his night table the way you stage an apartment before putting it on the market.) He would be more put-out if you called him intelligent and an intellectual. Irony is generally lost on him and though not stupid he is uneducated, inarticulate and if given the chance will quickly demonstrate his lack of understanding of most topics.
Rove did engineer VPÂ’s outing and will not be prosecuted. Libby lost track of the time line and has been rightfully convicted of lying. Was it justice? Who the f*ck knows. Was he involved; certainly.
Did Bush fire anybody involved? No. Did he swear he would? Of course.
Is any of this surprising? Not in the least.
We are now going to see Pedro the WH talking Burro take a fall for Rove. Pretty Harriett too!
Posted by: strawman at March 20, 2007 07:40 AM (9ySL4)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 20, 2007 08:55 AM (zVyb+)
13
I love National Review.
City Journal is excellent too.
Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2007 08:59 AM (2MrBP)
14
Hey Red,
Whats a matter? Spent all the money I paid you to sit for that casting?
Posted by: strawman at March 20, 2007 10:22 AM (9ySL4)
15
"he is uneducated..."
Yeah, right, Straw. Degrees from two of the best schools on the planet with grades as good or better than the two dip-shit Dems he defeated in the past two elections. BTW, how does your academic pedigree measure up to the President's? Did you make it past the 12th grade?
and,"inarticulate"
well, that's probably true. he's a poor public speaker.
Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 03:45 PM (jcmjk)
16
I used to think there was some benefit to understanding where the other side was coming from. Now I can tell without looking. National Review.
Posted by: Mike C. at March 20, 2007 06:19 PM (GQv1b)
17
Blu,
Of course your comment is not on point. The discussion was if the Time article displayed a bias. We have discussed his education many times. BTW, I never asked you what you thought the box was under his jacket at the Kerry debate as long as we are dicussing how dumb he is and how poorly he thinks on his feet, and what help he might have needed.
Blu, I don't think he could hold my interest on a short plane ride.
Posted by: strawman at March 20, 2007 06:33 PM (9ySL4)
18
My apologies, Straw, for veering of course. Yes, I think Time Magazine is a left-wing, commie rag that I've never, ever spent a penny on. (I'm proud of that if you can't tell.) Any magazine that would employ a retarded sophist like Barbara Ehrenreich deserves neither my money nor my respect.
Oh, and Straw, when you start talking about the magic "box", you put yourself at the intellectual level of those that think Bush and the gov't planned and executed 9-11. Now, I rarely agree with you but have never thought you dumb. So, please, for your own dignity's sake, don't play the silly conspiracy card. It's beneath you.
Finally, I think you are wrong about Bush and a plane ride. My memory is that the people who meet Bush - regardless of affiliation - generally like him personally, finding him to be genuine, good-natured, and funny. (Unlike, say Clinton, who many people found to be a horses rear. Interestingly enough, though a very different personality, Bush the Elder was also personally well-liked by his colleagues.)
To sum up:
Time Sucks
There is no magic box
Bush might hold your interest on a plane ride
Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 10:09 PM (jcmjk)
19
I already have a subscription to NR, so I guess I'll just leave it at that...thanks for the heads up on USN&WR, saved me a couple bucks.
20
Blu,
You deluded clown, just wait a goddamned minute, I was in NYC on 9-11 and I saw American plans hit these buildings. In fucking fact, pal, one of them said AmericaÂ’s Airlines on the tall thing in the back. Only the president has the authority to order American planes to hit buildings. No one could imagine any other way to get it done. I know I couldn't.
Seriously, I never really paid attention to the discussion of the box but I did see the photos and I did see the box? Or did I see some apparition or something that somebody retouched. Or was there never any explanation, just the old saw of "nobody would be that nuts to try something like that". Forget for the moment theories of any nature. What was the explanation, I must have been traveling in Central America at the time. Not that it matters really, prompted or not, his answers were shallow, predictable, claptrap laced with a goofy kind of faux machismo edginess. Altogether it was unwatchable as I find all of his performances.
As for plane trips I generally sleep. I am going to Florence in a few weeks and looking fwd to catching up on some sleep and my back issues of the Nation. Did you see that the American CP made a gift of all their archives to NYU library this week? Quite a trove of information. Many history thesis's (or is it thee-sigh) waiting to be written.
Posted by: strawman at March 21, 2007 10:45 AM (9ySL4)
21
To all those who have even considered the possibility that Bush wore some device to give him answers during the debate:
Perhaps Bush was wearing a bullet proof vest to protect himself from the "tolerance" brigade?
Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2007 01:04 PM (2MrBP)
22
'cancel my free subscription' says it all. Soda-spewing monitor-speckling goodness, that.
Posted by: Barry in CO at March 22, 2007 01:47 AM (kKjaJ)
Posted by: Casca at March 19, 2007 08:43 PM (2gORp)
5
Yeah, Anni, so did I. But I made up for that by choosing Duke to beat VCU, Stanford to beat Louisville, Illinois to get to the 16 and completely missing out on UNLV (I had them dropping their first game to Georgia Tech).
My bracket's f****d. How's yours?
Oh, on topic: Nonsense. Oden doesn't look a day over 900. But someone's going to have a blast chiseling a marble bust of him. So many sharp angles...
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 20, 2007 07:07 PM (J+r3D)
6
I've got UCLA winning it all, so I still look pretty good in my bracket.
Re: Greg Oden: I thought that Robert Parrish had come out of retirement to play for OSU. There is no way that that guy is 18-19 years old. I'll bet that he has grandchildren older than me.
Posted by: physics geek at March 21, 2007 11:34 AM (KqeHJ)
The Big Issue For Election 2008...
If anyone is smart enough to capitalize on it, the big issue that may decide the next presidential election is not the war. It's the mortgage crisis. I say this because it's a pocketbook issue that will affect every voter regardless of whether they rent, own, or live with their parents. The combination of balooning payments and falling house values has a wide ranging effect on business as well as ordinary people. It could hurt all of us because the long awaited housing crash just might bring on another recession.
And guess what, we've known it was coming for at least five years but like with the dot coms, nobody wanted to say anything because too many people were making money. Everybody and their brother wanted to get in on the housing boom, and lenders were all too happy to throw cash at them. Realtors weren't going to say anything. They were like, "don't worry man, you're equity is going to skyrocket." And the lenders just said, "hey, when the adjustable hits, you can always refinance."
But as I watched this all unfold from the sidelines, I always predicted that it couldn't go on forever. Didn't the 1929 crash happen because of easy credit? And there's no way people should be spending 50% of their take home pay on a mortgage. I thought the rule of thumb was 25%, one third tops. How is your average Californian supposed to afford $450,000 for a first home? Just because some crooked lender will give you the loan with no money down, doesn't mean you should take it. But people do, because everybody's doing it.
Sacramento is a prime example. I read somewhere that this city was second only to Palm Beach, Florida in overblown housing prices. My boyfriend, God bless him, did everything wrong. When we first started going out, he was in the process of dumping a house that he had bought at the very top of the market, when properties were selling almost the day they got listed. He put it up for sale a year later, just after everything slowed down. There were about six houses with his exact same floor plan for sale within a radius of a couple of blocks. Luckily, after four months of waiting, and hardly any lookers, he sold to an investment buyer who ended up renting the house. Christopher bought at the crest and sold at the trough. Thus ended his foray into the "get rich through home ownership" scheme.
If my boyfriend hadn't sold when he did, the value of his house was in danger of falling below the amount of his mortgage. He ended up with a tiny profit, but lots of people aren't going to be so lucky. When the adjustable rate goes through the roof, and people aren't able to sell because of falling prices, look out. A lot of folks are going to get hurt.
(I also wondered what was going to happen to all those Gulf Coast homeowners, especially in New Orleans. I imagine there are going to be a lot of foreclosures down there, if there haven't already been. What if you got screwed by the insurance company, the bank still wants their money, and they don't care if you're living out of a trailer (or not) and you still haven't got your job at the liquor store back because that place went out of business too?)
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I think the mortgage crisis is going to be a real problem. Hillary thinks so too, and savvy politician that she is, she's already made it a campaign issue. This is exactly the type of issue that Democrats win elections on because the conservative response is usually to let the free market sort itself out. People don't want to hear that. If things get really bad, Hillary will score points being the first one to call for a homeowner's bail-out. Predictably, she faults Bush for doing nothing while sub-prime lenders dug us into this hole. And you know what, I can't say she's wrong about that.
1
Ooooo, what a deal! You mean no matter who wins, I get to pay for the financial foolishness of others? Fucking communists.
Posted by: Casca at March 16, 2007 09:51 PM (2gORp)
2
Over 90% of Sub-prime loans are residential. So the effect on business will only be on real estate related companies.
HOwever, the effect on these defaulted loans will haunt and affect the individuals holding the note for many years to come, precisely becuase they either got carried away with the housing boom and either bought a bigger place than they could afford or went to an unreputable lender without doing research and reading the fine print first.
Most of the individuals who apply for sub-prime loans have poor financial histories. But should that keep them from their american dream. NO! If they are disciplined and do their homework and go to one of thousands of reputable lenders that engages in fair lending practices, then they'll be okay. But, if they are not disciplined, or have not planned carefully for the future and for all possible events, then it will be difficult for them to meet their obligations.
Remember, these are people who go and apply for these loans voluntarily. Nobody is forcing them to apply for a loan. It's on them to do their due diligence and to look at trends. Flipping has always been a dangerous investment scheme, exactly for the experience your boyfriend went through.
Whenever a person invests they should ask themselves, if the bottom fell out tomorrow, could I and my credit still survive with minimal damage?
Years ago consumers fought stringent banking laws to make lending more liberal. This is the result of those liberal policies so that money could be available to support those individuals, perhaps not as affluent as your boyfriend, to purchase homes. Hundreds of thousands have done so without a problem. The true problem lies with individuals who disregard personal responsibility with credit and those who use shady creditors to support their ill-conceived dreams.
So you see Annika, this is not an easy issue to ttackle.
Posted by: michele at March 16, 2007 11:09 PM (tvM6y)
3
The underreported aspect of this issue is how Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve governors contributed to the inversion of the yield curve started in 2004.
President Bush should not have reappointed Greenspan back in 2004. The Fed correctly lowered the fed funds rate started in early 2001 (and then aggressively in the four month period after 9/11). However, after his re-appointment in May 04, Greenspan led a campaign that saw the funds rate go up by 4% (!) in just two years -- especially when he knew the sensitivity of the housing market to rate changes, he was aware of the housing bubble, and he could see by the yield curve inversion the overall market had a vast difference in future inflation expectations than those driving his changes in monetary policy.
As a result of the mergering of short and long-term rates, companies with mortgage back securities and sub-prime lenders started taking hits. Of course, the reaction is to become even more aggressive (and risky). I agree with Michele that in many cases, consumers bear responsibility (one story on a lawsuit by a homeowner noted the fact the owners had 4 years (!) before the huge rate increases took effect and these people still blame the lender).
The sub-prime loans are only 20% of the total market and foreclosure rates are high, but just barely above 2002 levels. I believe this issue won't have momentum (especially since Bernanke I think gets the message) except to appeal to the populist bent of the Dems in their primaries. If anything, they need to be careful of being exposed pandering to corporate interests (I believe 85% of Chris Dodd's biggest donors are financial service/lending companies).
Remember, only Jim Bunning and Harry Reid (although his for the record objection focused on Greenspan's political support for Bush's tax cuts not on Greenspan's monetary policy) showed any dissent during Greenspan's confirmation vote in 2004). Hillary and Edwards voted yes. Of course, they and the other members of Congress contributed by passing budgets (and the President is at fault too) without making the tough offset calls or tax increases). The problem is the media doesn't do their homework on these issues in order to even know the tough questions to ask the candidates..
Posted by: Col Steve at March 19, 2007 07:08 AM (pj2h7)
4
Keep in mind that sub-prime loans represent somewhere around 15% of oustanding home equity loans. So even if 15% of those are in default, we're talking about 2.25% of home equity loans in the entire US. Odds are, that won't create the far-reaching economic ouchie that many are predicting.
I hope it does, though. And quick. Looks like I'm gonna have to buy a home in South Florida in the next few months.
Posted by: TaxLawMax at March 19, 2007 11:34 AM (dLe9c)
5
Col. Steve, the problem wasn't created by the rise in short-term interest rates. The problem was already there because of the artificially low rates that have existed since 2001. The Fed flooded the market with cheap money to forstall recession after the Nasdaq bubble popped, and in consequence the dollar deflated more than 30% versus other world currencies. Sure, recent interest rate hikes have exposed weaknesses in the liquidity-driven economy, but those weaknesses existed as a result of low rates, not rate hikes.
Lest we forget, you can still get a 30-year mortgage for under 6%, which is extremely low by historical standards.
I recommend bigpicture.typepad.com for a primer on the issues surrounding our current credit bubble.
Posted by: Christopher at March 20, 2007 12:15 PM (tysG0)
6
Christopher -- I agree the issue is complex with more than just one factor contributing to the problem. I think the Fed was right post 9/11 to follow aggressive monetary accomodation. Note that 30 years mortgage rates in 2003 were also at 6% with short-term rates around 1.5% -- "Home interest rates have moved in a tight range near 6% the last nine weeks after posting record lows during the summer." (Nov, 2003).
One reason you can still get a 30yr mortgage at 6% three years later in spite of the fact short term rates have gone up 4% is the market as a whole does not have the same long term inflation expectations that apparently Greenspan had. His 2005 and 2006 Federal Reserve Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Reports to the Congress are full of waffling statements about core inflation, the impact of oil prices, and the relative power of business and labor on unit labor costs. Greenspan noted in June 05 - "The drop in long-term rates is especially surprising given the increase in the federal funds rate over the same period. Such a pattern is clearly without precedent in our recent experience."
I agree the Fed needed to wean the economy off "cheap money;" however, Greenspan should have taken a more measured approach especially given the "weaknesses" he knew existed and the signal the market was sending with the yield curve inversion.
Posted by: Col Steve at March 20, 2007 10:01 PM (/HhUV)
1
Yet another reason why non-citizens should be "entitled" to vote. If we're taking worldwide action, then shouldn't illegal aliens have a say in it?
Ironically, it would be in their best interest to oppose Edwards, since money spent on foreigners in foreign countries is money that can't be spent on foreigners in the U.S.
Too bad this proposal won't be debated in Nevada.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 15, 2007 04:54 PM (BSx9z)
2
For so many different reasons, Annie, I agree.
Wasn't the Cal win over UCLA wonderful last week?
Posted by: Hugo at March 15, 2007 05:00 PM (MhZlU)
3
Having FU money, tends to reveal the inner nutter.
Posted by: Casca at March 15, 2007 06:45 PM (2gORp)
4
What I really love about the not-so-Golden Bears is they win so few, that when a win does come along they celebrate it as if it is the Second Coming.
They are truly the Chicago Cubs of California.
Posted by: shelly at March 16, 2007 06:34 AM (JQe3J)
5
Shell, are you trying to say that they're... "faggots"?
Posted by: Casca at March 16, 2007 06:40 AM (Y7t14)
Posted by: shelly at March 16, 2007 07:21 AM (JQe3J)
7
I haven't come up with a name yet. It would be a new cabinet member whose responsibly would be America's efforts to fight global poverty," said Edwards.
Hint, John -- The U.S. government already has this person -- The U.S. Director of Foreign Assistance and USAID Administrator in the State Department
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79748.pdf
Shuffling Cabinet seats isn't "transformational" == and wait until your Secretary of State nominee pushes back on taking USAID out of State..
Notes from his speech -
"It is a path in which we argue over fuel standards while global warming gets worse" -- of course, he doesn't mention it's as much the blocking efforts of the Dem delegation from Michigan and Auto Workers Union as it is Republicans on that issue
"Democratic rights allow poor citizens to force their countries to create more progressive laws, fight oppression and demand economic stability. Economic initiatives like microfinance and micro-insurance can spark entrepreneurship, allowing people to transform their own lives." -- Well, those sentiments have been foundational elements of the current administration (read both the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategy). In fact, the backlash from other nations has focused on the current administration's point of equating U.S. national interests with U.S. national values (see President Bush's 2d inaugural address). Secretary Rice has finally started to tone down this sentiment (democracy was noticeably absent in her last discussions on the Middle East).
We've been trying microfinancing for a few years now. Although moderately successful, what seems to be absent from Edwards' discussion is the appreciation that true economic development, especially not single commodity driven, requires stability, good governance, and some basic infrastructure first. Look at the course of economic development versus development of "democracies" in the Western Hemisphere. (No, I'm not saying go back to the era of land-owning elites, but the challenges of balancing economic development with democracy transition is far more complex than suggesting democractic rights will be the cureall for poverty.)
President Bush said yesterday that reducing global poverty will be a priority-- that was in Summer 2001...Every global poverty policy initiative Edwards mentioned (except the Cabinet position) has already been adopted/tried by the current Administration...so much for transformational.
Posted by: Col Steve at March 16, 2007 08:15 AM (pj2h7)
8
Seems like the equivalent counterpart of the Republicans' PNAC, though Steve is right about some overlap with USAID.
Posted by: will at March 16, 2007 08:44 AM (5ZWWc)
9
Edwards is a liberal, just like our President. For such people, national interests are secondary to the creed that they suppose that nation is defined by and that supercedes that nation's particular interest insofar as it conflicts with that creed.
It's become clear that for Bush conservatism is not about conserving anything tangible and historical. It is, instead, about the march of abstractions: Free Markets, Democracy, Color Blindness, Tolerance. America is redefined as a few slogans. When conservatives dare to intervene---noting that people are not all the same, are not equally trustworthy, that generalizations are sometimes called for, and that Arabs and Muslims are the demographic source of most of the terror threat we face---Bush closes his ears and questions their good faith. In immigration and airline security, the color-blind policy might endanger actual Americans whom Bush is charged to protect. But this is all no matter to Bush.
Under Bush's grandiose liberal philosophy, his role is not to advance the parochial and particular good of America, even when their interest is as basic as self-defence. It's instead to suport the triumph of these universal values. Edwards takes this liberal belief to its logical conclusion. We all are being asked to take one for the team. And the team is not our country. The team is the whole human race, which would supposedy recoil in horror if we behaved like a normal, preliberal society. Why else have we not done more to deport illegals after 9/11? Why else hasn't Bush spoken out forcefully about the Muslim overraction to a few cartoons in an obscure Danish paper? Why else do people in other nations (such as Nigerian Christians) react so differently and more predictably compared to westeners when they're harassed by Muslim minorities?
For Bush, America is the creedal nation. And the creed supercedes the objective interests of that nation in things like national security, job security, stable ethnic relations, and the dominance of the English langage and our historical Christian culture. Like so much else in liberalism, our objective decline and endangerment is justified as the supposed march of universal justice. Our meek defenses are recast as offensive "attacks." This is why James Burnham called liberalism an "ideology of western suicide." Making the interests of the world's poor--which should be a secondary consideration--a cabinet level responsibility is yet another logical manifestation of this kind of confusion.
Posted by: Roach at March 16, 2007 09:37 AM (s5LOP)
10
The biggest single factor lifting the developing world out of poverty has been trade. There is nothing that an Edwards "secretary of poverty fixing" could begin to do for poverty in India (for example) that would remotely compensate for the damage done by the draconian trade restrictions likely under a Democratic administration.
Posted by: david foster at March 16, 2007 11:27 AM (9NeW5)
11
I have to disagree with Roach on one thing. Jyllands-Posten may be obscure to Americans, but in Denmark it is their number one newspaper.
Posted by: annika at March 16, 2007 01:33 PM (lMqjc)
12
Annie, that just makes it the sparliest leash at the chihuahua show.
Says the guy named "Leif."
Posted by: Leif at March 16, 2007 01:44 PM (9Ug4z)
Look, I like Newt. Don't get me wrong. But you know what I like more? A Republican in the White House.
In the latest Gallup poll, which of the top candidates from both parties is the only one whose unfavorable rating is higher than their favorable rating. I'll give you a hint. It's not Hillary.
Okay, well maybe Newt hasn't been out in public enough. He should write some books. Check. He should go on Fox News. Check. He should call Hannity's show. Oh, check.
Okay, well at least there's twenty months between now and election day. That's plenty of time for Newt to change people's minds, right?
Oh, well, except that he's decided to save money by waiting until September before he gets in the race. And with a bunch of big states moving their primaries up to February 5th, that gives Newt only five months to change his image.
Okay, well maybe Newt can use the time between now and September to ramp up his public image. Do a full court press on the public. Show everybody what a great guy he is. He should start today. Give an interview with Dobson or somebody.
Oh, he did? Ouch. That's not exactly moving in the right direction, but it's a start, I guess.
Sorry Newt lovers. Stick a fork in the salamander, he's done.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 09, 2007 11:02 PM (I0gpu)
2
The Newt campaign is over before it started, even if he did claim he wasn't a hypocrite for castigating Clinton for his moral turpitude. He's about as electable as Kucinich and just as extreme.
Posted by: will at March 10, 2007 06:10 AM (h7Ciu)
3
Newt's electoral prospects are non-existent, but to compare him to Kucinich is inaccurate. For all his missteps, Gingrich is a serious person with substantive policy positions that are well-considered in their aims and effects. You may disagree with his views, but he isn't frivolous in his political commentary. Anyone who would say that about Dennis Kucinich is either willfully unaware or deluded. I think Gingrich has assumed a role of Deliberative Party Policy Comptemplater because he thinks about the future, policies and their effects, and political direction--and he sometimes seems like the only person doing those things outside the framework of tomorrow's headlines. It seems obvious he hasn't totally given up on the idea of being President someday, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who is going to waste his time, or others, in a pointless campaign with no chance of success.
Posted by: DBrooks at March 10, 2007 08:12 AM (tQ2Sh)
4
> Gingrich is a serious person with substantive policy positions that are well-considered in their aims and effects.
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections."
“A mere forty years ago, beach volleyball was just beginning. No bureaucrat would have invented it, and that's what freedom is all about.”
“I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.”
“You can't trust anybody with power”
“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.”
“This is not one person doing one bad thing. You can't have a corrupt lobbyist unless you have a corrupt member (of Congress) or a corrupt staff. ... This was a team effort.”
“It's going to be a bummer if Mars turns out to be like us.”
“I'm not a natural leader. I'm too intellectual; I'm too abstract; I think too much.”
“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”
“Kill jobs and lead to a recession, force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” (1993)
“In Washington DC 800 babies are left in dumpsters a year.” (number was actually 4)
“Most People don’t realize it’s illegal to pray in school, most people somehow think that’s not true.”
“The problem isn’t too little money in political campaigns, but not enough.”
Posted by: will at March 10, 2007 02:46 PM (h7Ciu)
5
C'mon, Will. That's just silly.
Newt is extremely intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. How many stupid statements have you or any of us made in the past 15 years? Even his worst enemies acknowldedge and respect his intellect. (Kinda the Rep version of Slick Willie.)
You and I agree that he can't win, but suggesting he's not a serious thinker and doing so by tossing in some random, out-of-context quotes you found on the internet is not very persuasive.
Posted by: blu at March 10, 2007 03:57 PM (FQ15n)
6
So, I confess, I am a Newt guy.
He is the smartest, most knowledgable, most articuate person on either side of the aisle.
He is a student and a teacher of history.
I sincerely doubt he can ever get the nomination, let alone win the general election.
But he has serious thoughts and serious ideas and he adds a quantum of quality to the equation when he is in the room.
America benefits from his candidacy.
Posted by: shelly at March 10, 2007 05:39 PM (JQe3J)
7
You have a very firm grasp on the conventional wisdom, however we live in unconventional times.
Posted by: Casca at March 10, 2007 10:55 PM (2gORp)
8
While the conservatives look for an easier path than Newt, it looks like Fred Thompson will suck up some of the available oxygen that could have helped him.
I'm sitting this one out for a while to watch the play unfold. The grassroots organizers are stepping it up for Rudy and Mitt, at least around here. John seems to be falling off a little more every day.
Posted by: shelly at March 11, 2007 03:51 PM (JQe3J)
9
“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”
I don't know if ANYONE got that right, even Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush as much as admits in the Bush/Scowcroft book that he was surprised at the rapid changes.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 11, 2007 09:37 PM (P8ktI)
10
Giuliani is far from Republican. With regard to social issues, putting him in the White House would not be an accomplishment.
Posted by: Mark at March 11, 2007 09:46 PM (kNnFn)
11
It would keep Hillary out and protect the furniture, silverware and dishes.
Posted by: shelly at March 11, 2007 10:04 PM (JQe3J)
12
“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”
Shit OE, you think they're gone? The only thing that changes in Russia/Soviet Union is the names.
Posted by: Casca at March 11, 2007 11:11 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 12, 2007 07:37 PM (Y9Chl)
14
Fred Thompson!! Fred Thompson!!
Awesome facts:
* Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.
* The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.
* Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.
* When terrorists get to the afterlife, they'll find that none of their seventy-two women are still virgins. Why? Because of Fred Thompson.
* If Fred Thompson was at Thermopylae the movie would have been called "1", and we'd all be wondering if Persia really ever existed.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 13, 2007 12:19 PM (xHyDY)
15
Apparently Chuck Norris morphed into Fred Thompson.
After a night of partying, Fred Thompson doesn't throw up; he throws down.
Posted by: blu at March 13, 2007 12:40 PM (FQ15n)
16
Please remember how instrumental Newt was with the Contract for America. It may seem silly now but this had real resonance with the voters. And that Congressional class kept almost all of it's pledges. He was also key in making Georgia the mostly Republican state it now is. (Even if people here do cut their hands off occasionally)
I can remember back when Newt would be down in the well late at night before the Republicans took over. Watching him on C-Span after everyone else had gone home was inspirational to a geek like me. I never dreamed my party would eventually run the place, and I certainly never thought they would fritter it all away as they did recently.
There's so much disdain for Newt on the left that he's not viable with the Reagan type crossovers. But Shelly's right, he's invaluable as a canidate to keep the debate fresh.
Posted by: Mike C. at March 13, 2007 03:14 PM (86QII)
17
>>> Giuliani is far from Republican. With regard to social issues, putting him in the White House would not be an accomplishment
Rudy as NYC mayor — "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets," he (Guilani) said, "not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity," he argued; "government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way."
We have just had 6 years of both Republican majorities in Congress and control of the Executive branch. Would you say the result over the last 6 years has been a trend to or away from Rudy's view? As for social issues, again - what has 6+ years of Republican control achieved? If the 109th Congress represents "Republican" views in action, I'm ready for another version of Republicanism.
Except for nominating judges, how much real influence on "social" positions do you expect from the next President regardless of party?
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by a Democratic President. Hillary may say one thing to homosexual activist groups in private, but do you think she'll get that law legislatively changed? Notice how she deftly avoids that issue when speaking at Black churches (since African-American Christians largely support state initiatives similar to DOMA).
Take "gays" in the military. Changing the policy isn't the elephant in the room. That issue is when gay servicemembers want to get the benefits for their "married" partners -- and federal law prohibits those benefits. Think Congress (even if democratic controlled) is going to override DOMA? Push for Federal civil-unions? I'm sure Hillary would spin the issue (like Bill Clinton signing Kyoto knowing he would never submit the treaty for Senate ratification), but liberals expecting major social issue change from her will probably be as disappointed as some conservatives are with President Bush.
Of course, this discussion is highly contextual on what you mean by "social issues;" however, except for judicial appointment philosophy, I don't see great relevance in the nuances of "social issue" positions among the Republican candidates. The 10 Feb NYT stated Guilani would appoint "strict constructionist" judges (perhaps this statement is what one might expect in both parties during the primaries). That position, along with following his philosophy with regard to the role of government, gives more hope for accomplishment than other "Republicans."
But he has serious thoughts and serious ideas and he adds a quantum of quality to the equation when he is in the room.
Serious doesn't always mean good (take Newt's 20 page primer on national security changes he was paid big bucks to do).. However, I agree if he would moderate all the debates, he would add to the quality of the process..
Posted by: Col Steve at March 14, 2007 02:08 PM (pj2h7)
18
Col Steve stole my thunder, look the last two republican presidents we had said all the right things to the social conservatives, pandered to them you might say, and got elected. But they did very little that was actually conservative. Maybe its time the fiscal conservatives get someone in there for a change.
Posted by: kyle N at March 15, 2007 03:02 AM (shDIF)
19
The winning ticket will be Rudy and Newt.
And, you'll vote for them because you won't want Hillary and Barack.
'Nuff said?
Posted by: shelly at March 15, 2007 06:42 AM (JQe3J)
The language of the decision is so out of step with the type of wishy-washy "living document" bullshit theory of Constitutional interpretation I've become resigned to, I want someone to pinch me to make sure I'm not dreaming.
We start by considering the competing claims about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Appellants contend that “the right of the people” clearly contemplates an individual right and that “keep and bear Arms” necessarily implies private use and ownership. The District’s primary argument is that “keep and bear Arms” is best read in a military sense, and, as a consequence, the entire operative clause should be understood as granting only a collective right. The District also argues that “the right of the people” is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or private ownership and use of weapons.
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all — e.g., “the states.” . . . These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the people” across the Bill of Rights. . . .
. . .
It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. The Court’s discussion certainly indicates — if it does not definitively determine — that we should not regard “the people” in the Second Amendment as somehow restricted to a small subset of “the people” meriting protection under the other Amendments’ use of that same term.
In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.
Parker v. District of Columbia at 18-19.
But here's the best part:
The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. . . . Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government . . . the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.”
Id at 20-21.
That's just beautiful. Our rights "pre-existed the formation of the new government," because they came from God, not from the government. It's so easy to forget that in this age when the mere mention of the word "God" can label you as some sort of fanatic. But you don't have to believe in God to marvel at the reasoning of the Court. All you need to know is that there's a difference between the government and your rights, and in a free society, government must bow to those rights, which preceded government itself.
"People" means people, people. That's what originalism is all about. First you determine what the Constitution says (not what you wish it said), then you determine if the law in question departs from the Constitution. If it does, then there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, specified within the Constitution. You don't simply disregard the Founding Document and make up a lie about what it really means.
This decision will make its way to the Supreme Court, and thank George W. Bush, we'll have Roberts and Alito on our side hopefully.
1
Also, there can be no such thing as a "collective right" because that implies that governments have rights. Governments have "powers", individuals have rights. And governments have only those powers specifically granted to them by the people. That's the American way.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at March 10, 2007 09:46 PM (4dlKn)
Posted by: Casca at March 10, 2007 11:02 PM (2gORp)
3
If it goes to the S.Ct., I count two solid votes on our side: Scalia and Thomas. The rest are wild cards. Republican appointee does not equal pro-individual right, e.g., the dissenting judge in Parker, Judge Henderson, is a Bush I appointee.
There is reason to celebrate here, but also reason to worry a little. Alan Gura and Bob Levy still may very well end up with titanic helpings of egg on their faces, and if they do we'll all pay the price for it.
Posted by: Matt at March 11, 2007 10:51 AM (wZJrO)
4
Did the decision address the "well-regulated militia" issue? I'll grant that militias also pre-existed the government, and perhaps "well-regulated" meant something different in the 18th century, but I'm just curious.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 11, 2007 05:55 PM (P8ktI)
5
Ontario,
I don't know the in's-and-out's of the previous court findings, but someone pointed this out to me:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
(Link goes to a Cornell Law School website that lists US laws. The mu.nu spam filter rejected the address, so I had to Tinyurl it)
I think Anni and Law Fairy are better equipped to interpret that than I am, but doesn't that section read as if it's saying that every male citizen between 17 and 45 is technically a member of the militia?
I'm inviting comment on that. I don't know if that's a legit reading of that section or not, but as a layman, that's what it looks like to me. If anyone in the know knows better, though, please feel free to tell me.
Posted by: elmondohummus at March 12, 2007 05:55 AM (xHyDY)
6
the opinion does address the militia question, very persuasively, i think
Posted by: annika at March 12, 2007 08:02 AM (lMqjc)
7
Ontario,
The term "well regulated" did indeed mean something else at the time the 2nd amendment was written. Popular usage of that term at that time would now be likely written as "well trained" or "well drilled".
Posted by: ghostcat at March 12, 2007 02:39 PM (E4dN1)
8
Annika,
I have a question regarding the Code Pinko protest in front of Pelosi's home. It doesn't exactly strike me as legal. Do you know of any USSC case on this issue? The closest I've found is Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 470 (1980), and it doesn't deal directly with the legality of protest in front of the home, simply that the state can place regulations on time, place, etc.
Posted by: Mark at March 13, 2007 08:22 AM (2MrBP)
9
I also found Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, which appears to be quite "on point."
Posted by: Mark at March 13, 2007 08:47 AM (2MrBP)
10
Erudite discussion of this issue, if not specifically about the case itself can be found here:
http://www.postwatchblog.com/2007/03/in_which_the_po.html
Quote from Volokh post linked in the article:
"Incidentally, if the question is whether "militia" in the Second Amendment means just something like the National Guard, that's one thing that the Supreme Court has resolved... (the writings, debates, and laws of the Founding Fathers) show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."Volokh link
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 13, 2007 01:42 PM (xHyDY)
Democrats Are Wimps
Why are the Democrats so afraid of Fox News? It's a live debate, what do they think will happen? It's not like Fox News might superimpose an X over John Edwards' face while she's talking. Nobody would do that.
1
I don't think they're afraid of what Fox News might do in this particular debate...they're afraid of the *existence* of media outlets that don't fit their model, hence they want to delegitimize FN and any other such networks. If a network can be denied coverage of events such as debates, that will eventually hurt it in the pocketbook.
Posted by: david fosterp at March 10, 2007 09:35 AM (/Z304)
2
Annie, baby, heres the deal. Dems don't go on Fox, then they can do a study and say Fox is not fair and balanced. It's all quite simple.
And very, very, sad.
Over and out,
X
Posted by: Major X at March 10, 2007 11:29 AM (N155d)
3
The Dems have been putting the fix in for so long, that they know no other way. This will backfire though, since instead of the candidates being the story, their blackballing Fox will be the story.
Posted by: Casca at March 10, 2007 11:07 PM (2gORp)
4
If I were FOX, I'd hold the debate anyway. Empty podium for the Democrats, not that they are long on solutions anyway.
Posted by: MarkD at March 12, 2007 04:58 AM (5vbH6)
5
Am I the only one that caught your joke? Be careful, you may get b****slapped like chairperson Ann.
Posted by: Joints at March 13, 2007 12:18 PM (Dh/a/)
6
I just like the fact that Major X is Major "X."
Frankly, we need to superimpose letters over other people. Former President Clinton could get an A, with a reddish hue. Quayle, of course, would get the letter E that he has promoted.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 15, 2007 08:43 AM (BSx9z)
7
I'd like to see FOX air the debate with the word "FAGGOT" superimposed ob John Edwards' image every time Edwards spoke. Not that I think he's Gay, and not that I would care if he were, but it would just be a hoot.
Posted by: Bilwick at March 15, 2007 09:21 AM (AktpP)
Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President. 
- The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Over and over again as the main thrust of the video, they completely ignore the 
