About Me

Name: Arik
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

My Ethics Paper Grade

Sorry I have been so long without writing. I had intended to write a few things while I was on spring break and vacation last week, but things just got a little hectic, with two out-of-town trips and watching the kids.  That's life, eh?
 
Anyway, I got the grade back on my ethics paper, and I didn't get the A++ I was hoping for. In fact, I didn't even get an A+. I guess I'll just have to settle for a plain old A. It is a welcome counterpoint to my other class, Structure of Programming Languages, in which I followed 2 A homeworks with a 23/80 on the test. And yes, that's a big F.  Fortunately, the grading scale is kindly, even if the professor is not, at least as concerns "partial credit," and I still have a 'C.'
 
Back to my ethics class: I misunderstood the instructions for the paper and wrote it on an ethics topic I found interesting, which I thought was the topic.  The actual topic was supposed to be an ethics issue in computing.  Well, I wrote it on a computer, and posted it on a website, so I guess that counts. I think my professor was amused.  I would have rewritten a new paper if he had asked, but apparently he doesn't want to read another 3300 words from me.
 
Anyway, I'll post something new in the next few days.  I've heard so much stupidity coming out of Washington the last two weeks, I don't know where to start...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Donkey Dung 3-19-09

The democRats just won't give a guy a chance to breathe, these days. I think I've got a bad case of schadenfreude going on right now, because I know these guys are tearing the country to shreds, but darn it all, They're pretty hilarious while they're doing it.
 
Take, for example, this howler from the Messi-uh:

 
"For decades we've avoided doing what we must do as a nation to turn -- turn challenge and opportunity.  As a consequence we import more oil than we did on 9/11. The... The 1908 Model T -- think about this! The 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than the typical SUV in 2008.  Think about that, a hundred years later and we're getting worse gas mileage, not better."
 
I think Rush may be right: The Teleprompter  of the United States (TOTUS) has suddenly developed self-awareness and started to realize that Obama will say ANYTHING that comes across it, so it's having a little fun with him. In fact, it has even started it's own blog. You want proof the teleprompter's in charge?  Here's another quote, direct from the teleprompter to Obama's lips:
 
"I want to thank President Obama..."
 
Yep, in the middle of a party with the Irish Prime Minister, Obama started reading the PMs speech, and thanked himself for the lovely reception. 
 
But back to that first quote.  I had the same reaction that probably anyone with an IQ over room temperature did: How do you compare a Model T to an SUV?  You can't, except in the negative.  You might as well compare the mileage of a Sopwith Camel and, say, a Gulfstream 5, maybe, or maybe a 747.  I mean, we're talking a car that didn't even have WINDOWS to a vehicle that, beyond being several thousand pounds heavier, that is practically a biosphere unto itself. And, let's not forget that the Greenies keep reformulating the frickin' gas, so our mileage drops a little bit every couple years, allowing us to create 5% less "emissions" per gallon, while getting 20% less miles for that same gallon.  Has anyone else noticed that every time the greenies try to solve all our problems, it basically just costs a lot of cash, with no actually benefit to the environment?  Buncha schmucks.
 
Meanwhile, there's trouble brewing in the empire of Caesar Barackus the First. ChairCrook of the Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd had this to say, referencing the "scandal" involving AIG paying bonuses that they contractually obligated to pay, albeit with money supplied by the taxpayers, via Congress:
 
“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment, but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG. Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.”
 
Meanwhile, Tax Cheat Timmy follows up with this:
 
"What we did is just express concern about the vulnerability of a specific part of this provision, the legal challenge, as you would expect us to do. That's part of the legislative process,"
 
For those of you who don't speak Donkeycrap, allow me to translate:
 
Dodd: Yeah, I put the amendment there to allow the bonuses, but Timmy made me do it!
 
Geithner: Did not!
 
Dodd: Did Too!
 
Geithner: Nuh-uh!
 
Dodd: Nuh-huh!
 
Geithner: Chrissy the Sissy!
 
Dodd: Timmy the Tax Cheat!
 
The Taxpayers: TO YOUR ROOMS! BOTH OF YOU!
 
In essence, what we have here is this: The democRats, behind the closed doors of the Senate and the House, concocted a huge bill to waste a buttload of taxpayer money, pass the bill with the support, in both houses, of just three turncoat Republicans. They then send this bill to the President, who, in his infinite wisdom, signs the thing, thereby making the proposed waste of a buttload of taxpayer money an enacted waste of a buttload of taxpayer money.  The Secretary of the Treasury, who in October was given an unprecedented amount of authority to waste a buttload of taxpayer money without any sort of oversight at all, proceeds to let a buttload of taxpayer money fly out the door without any idea where it was going, prompting Congress to wonder how they can steal back a small portion of that buttload of taxpayer money, while making it look like the people receiving a buttload of taxpayer money are the ones at fault. 
 
I don't know about you, but the whole thing leaves me sticky, broke and confused.
 
Meanwhile, the Wicked Witch of the West Coast, Princess Piglosi, is making claims her actions can't back up:
 
“There seems to -- some people think there seems to be a market for saying that I am very partisan, and that I don't give the Republicans their opportunity. That simply is not true. They know in this recovery package that we had, we ask them what they wanted. They wanted certain things in there.”
 
and:
 
“If you can't win on policy, then you go to process. If you can't win on process, then you go to personality. And that's how they have decided they would make up stories about me and the rest…but you know what? I'm in the arena. We have big issues. I can't be bothered about what they say about me. All I'm interested in is getting the job done. And I really want to get it done in a bipartisan way.”
 
(Stunned Silence)
 
Let's recall:
 
“Seven hundred billion dollars: a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country, policies that were built on budget recklessness.

“When President Bush took office he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years he had turned that around and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

“They claim to be be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.”

“Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.”
 
This one sank the first attempt at the TARP boondoggle. Someone really needs to kick Pelousy in the cojones. Simply remember this handy-dandy rule, and you will never have a problem determining where a democRat stands: If they say the are against something, they are for it. If they say they are for it, they are against it.  If they deny something, it's true. If they swear something is true, it's a lie.  It really is as simple as that.
 
I'll finish up for now with a couple more on the AIG "scandal," one from Blathering Barney Frank:
 
“The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus. You didn’t perform. You didn’t live up to this contract.’”
 
and one from UpChuck Schumer:
 
“If you don’t return it on your own, we will do it for you.”
 
You know, I have to admit, I never thought I would hear one of these slugs actually admit to having nationalized an entire corporation.  Interestingly, if by "We," Blarney means "We, the Taxpayers," I think it's time to fire the people in charge. Let's go right to the top: Barney, pack your things. Security will escort you out of the building.  And Chuckie, are you going to start breaking kneecaps?  No, I suspect you'll do the tried-and-true democRat thing, and tax the crap out of them.  Of course, with typical jackass stubbornness, you will probably insist on a whole buttload of taxpayer money to spent on the Chuckie Schumer something-or-other, and the Kennedy Center for the Morally Impaired or something (Has it ever occurred to anyone that, if they REALLY must name something "The Kennedy Whatever," the perfect one would be "The Kennedy Rehabilitation Hospital for Drug and Alcohol Abuse? Seriously!), and through the democRat Law of Unintended Consequences, some sort of financial disaster will occur.  Frankly, if I had received one of those bonuses, I would say "Go ahead and tax me, you schmuck. Ninety percent of 40 million is still four million, which is not a bad chunk of change. And, I'm sure I'll find some loophole before you ever actually collect, you jerk." 
 
I'm going to leave with one simple question regarding the AIG thing:
 
That money is going to be spent one way or another.  Who do you think will put it to better use stimulating the economy, Congress or the execs?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Uhhh...

Thanks, Rush!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (20) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ex-Communicado

It looks like the Catholic Church is finally growing a pair.  
 
Fresh off the Pope's B*tch-slap of Nancy Pelosi over her pro-choice views, Archbishop Burke, the head of the Vatican's version of the Supreme Court, has opined that Obama's choice for Head of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, should not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. For those of you who aren't Catholic, this is a BIG deal. It's about one step removed from standing in front of Saint Peter at the Gates of Heaven and having him, hand on the lever to the trapdoor beneath your feet, say," You SURE you don't want to rethink this abortion thing?"
 
Sebelius joins a whole mess of democRats (that is the proper term, isn't it? Herd of cows, flock of seagulls, pride of lions, mess of democRats?) including the last two Catholics in the Presidential/Vice presidential races, Joe Biden and John Kerry, that have been told, essentially, that they are Top-Down, Pedal to the Metal, Hot Breeze Blowing in the Hair on the Highway to Hell.  
 
These people have been touting their religion as part of their qualifications for office, but when the rubber hits the road, they essentially abandon the teachings of the Mother Church. How many warnings do they get?  I believe in second chances. I believe that Christianity is full of second chances. But when do you say enough is enough? 
 
I feel that different religous denominations are sort of like brand names.  If you go to a Catholic Church, you have a pretty good idea what you are going to get, and the type of people you are going to be associating with. If you go to a Southern Baptist Church, you have a pretty good idea what you are going to get, and the type of people you are going to be associating with.  The Catholic Church should, in effect, stop these politicians from using their trademark to sell themselves for their political career. 
 
I was brought up Catholic, and have known people to be excommunicated for much less than enabling the murder of millions of defenseless children.  The Catholic Church should excommunicate these politicians. And if they change their ways, Christianity is all about Forgiveness and Redemption: they should be welcomed back with open arms. But Forgiveness and Redemption are not possible if the Transgressor doesn''t want to be Forgiven or Redeemed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Donkey Dung 3/14/09

All right, Here we go again.
 
Here's a good one straight out of the Oval Office.
Obama said he would like to visit Brazil and thinks he should visit Rio de Janeiro, where he understands the beaches are nice. Then he said he would love a trip to the Amazon. He joked that he suspects the Republican Party would like to see him travel through the Amazon and maybe get lost for while.
 
You know, I'm not typically cruel, so I really don't hope he gets lost in the Amazon.  However, considering how lost he's looked since he's been in the Oval Office, I suspect he should probably take a guided tour.  And a map.
 
Obama on Stem Cells:
 
"The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research..."
 
Is it just me, or does this guy START every argument with, "Well, now that we're all in agreement...?"  I wish that worked for me.  When my wife would say, "Why don't YOU get up with the kids this morning?" I could just say, "Well, now that we all agree that YOU should get up this morning..." End of argument.  Of course, I know what she'd say to me in return: "That old Jedi Mind Trick won't work on me, boy." She may not LOOK like Jabba the Hutt, but when she gets irritated, she's every bit as incomprehensible.
 
Here's a great quote from Banking Queen Barney Frank:
 
“We had bullets and guns…The bullets which helped destroy the financial system were primarily the irresponsible subprime mortgages… And the guns were the instruments by which these irresponsible loans were distributed throughout the financial system.”
 
And I wonder who was pulling the trigger. Hmmm.
 
Here's more of Barney blaming Bush (And we all know how much Barney hates Bush):
 
“The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy." -March 2, 2009
 
Let's see, the Messi-uh wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, Iran is launching missles into orbit, Kim Jong-Il i scuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, and also for launching missles at his neighbors, Russia is looking eastward with and southward with hungry wolf eyes, half-everybody thinks we ought to do something in Darfur, and Barney wants to cut defense to pay for his Master's plans.  Electing a large purple dinosaur to Congress would be less ludicrous than sending this guy.
 
The next pair are from Nancy the Red, on March 10, 2009:
 
“The word of the day is a word that is very important to our economy every day, and that word is ‘confidence’ — confidence in our markets, confidence in lending, confidence in our financial institutions. We had excellent presentations and piercing questions from our colleagues [several economists]."
And our colleagues are being brought to you by the letter "F," as in "Economists give Obama's first fifty days a letter grade of 'F.'"  Sorry, just couldn't resist.
 
“It’s clear that we have to stabilize our financial institutions. We have to invest in a stimulus plan to grow our economy. We have to regulate our financial institutions and we have to end the housing crisis. And the Obama Administration has already done just that."
 
Wait a second! Didn't we already HAVE a stimulus plan? Haven't we thrown a TARP over our financial institutions? And frankly, I haven't seen any sign that the Obama Administration has actually done ANYTHING that will actually have a POSITIVE effect.  In fact, looking at the markets, I suspect the business world hasn't seen it either. Sometimes, I think Pelousy speaks in a bubble. Other times, I think that she says what she says due to bubbles where her brain should be.
 
Here's Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, during the confirmation hearing of  David Ogden as deputy Attorney General, responding to concerns that most of Ogden's career, thus far, has been, well, let's just say "A little to the left:"
 
 "...special interests on the far right have distorted Mr. Ogden's record by focusing only on a narrow sliver of his diverse practice as a litigator that spans more than three decades."
 
Well, what can you say about a Senator from a state where the judges seem to think that pedophiles are just "misunderstood."  And let's not forget that Vermont's other Senator is an avowed Socialist (though not so far left as Obama, per voting records).  This seems to be the typical democRat response to any concerns a Republican may have: "Silly Republicans, always blowing things way out of proportion."
 
I'm going to smile pretty wide when the democRats' combination of overreaching and smug condescension bites them hard in a few years, but I guess I'll just have to grin and bear it until then.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

War

Looks like the administration is naming a new "Drug Czar."  Besides my confusion as to why would would want to title an American government official after a group of Russian monarchs so bad that communism seemed a desirable alternative, I wonder why we have so many wars nowdays. I'm not talking about Iraq, Afghanistan or any of those actually shoot-em-up type wars.  Those have always been with us, and, human nature being what it is, I suspect we always will. No, the type of war I'm talking about is the politically motivated "War On Something" type things that seem to be so popular in the past forty years or so.
 
Let's start with Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty."  Really, it started in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, with the "New Deal," which has turned out to be such a Raw Deal for the nation. It is really, as Rush Limbaugh puts it, "The longest running war in this nations history." While Robert Siegel of NPR asserts that
 
"The programs initiated under Johnson brought about real results, reducing rates of poverty and improved living standards for America's poor,"
 
he also follows up with:
 
"...the poverty rate has remained steady since the 1970s ..."
 
So, by what one would assume to be the base measure of Johnson's policies, the poverty rate, the policies were not a success at all, but rather a costly failure, reckoned by some to be in the trillions of dollars spent. 
 
Another war currently ongoing is Richard M. Nixon's "War on Drugs."  I don't think it matters which side of the drug issue you stand on, legalization or prohibition, to see that the drug war has been a pretty costly failure.  Not only has it not cut down on drug use, but there is no apparent decrease in the amount of drug-related crime, despite crowded prisons, nor in the number of drug-related deaths.
 
If I were king, my plan would be to legalize, educate, regulate and tax, tax, tax. It wouldn't solve all the problems of drug abuse, but with the money raised through taxes could be used by the Several States to fund education and rehabilitation programs, which they are already doing, except in my case, with money that used to be going to the dealers.  Free Market, not Black Market.  But then, I am not, nor am I likely to be, king.
 
We've had wars, by cities and states, public groups and private groups, on things from "Crime," to "Cancer," to "Tooth Decay." The one that actually seems to actually be accomplishing something is the one started by the most reviled man in recent memory, George W. Bush: the "War on Terror." There are a whole lot of terrorists who have been given a permanent siesta due to the policies enacted during his administration, as well as a fledgling democracy, and potentially strong ally in the Middle East.  I wonder how many women have escaped beheading due simply to his resolve in the face of the liberal superiority complex.  To paraphrase a favorite liberal line, "If we can stop just ONE innocent woman from being beheaded..."
 
I actually have a point to all these seemingly pointless mumblings.  I thought it would be fun to think of names for Obama's War, as he seems to be waging one, or many, whether the media have noticed it or not. So I endeavoured to come up with a few. I submit them humbly for you aedification and enjoyment.
 
"The War on Life" - Dear Leader, true to his perfect pro-death voting record, in one of his first official acts, signed the death warrant on millions of children yet unconceived.  And then the other day, he decided that We, the People, should fund the creation of unborn children to be experimented on in numbers that yould make Dr. Mengele envious.
 
"The War on Democracy" - The Crapulus Bill, now the Craptastic Law, spent billions of the dollars from We, the People, to fund groups like ACORN, whose primary goal appears to be making sure that We, the People, are disenfranchised through massive voter fraud.
 
"The War on the Economy" - By appointing Incompetent Tax Cheat Timmy to the Treasury Department, as well as pretty much ecery move he's made since taking office, he appears to be intentionally tanking the economies of not just the U.S., but the entire world.  In fact, it's estimated by JP Morgan Chase that, since the nomination of the ObaMessiah, the world has lost 22 trillion dollars worth of wealth. That's Trillion, with a "T." And it ain't getting any better soon, folks.
 
"The War on Accountability" - Long considered a democRat specialty, Chaiman Maobama has really raised the bar, along with Dingy Harry and Nancy the Red, at Passing the Buck.  Note, please, that the democRats have held Congress for over two years. Dear Leader has been in office for almost two months.  Couple that with the fact that He promised to eliminate earmarks, as "the old way of doing business in Washington."  Now, witness the "Omnibus Bill," 430 Billion Dollars worth of earmarks, being passed by Congress, and soon to be signed by King Barack I.  No big surprise there, democRats throwing campaign promises under the bus, almost as easily as if they were "preachers," or grandmas. What is so amusing and aggravating is that all the ScumocRats involved with this second heist are calling it "Bush's Bill."  And the Mainstream Media will lap it up in ways that would make Monica Lewinsky jealous.
 
"The War on Prosperity" - Every proposal to "Tax the Rich" ignores a simple economic truth: rich people use money to make money.  Through investment and entrepreneurialism, the rich to fund the business that create jobs and provide us with the goods and services that make our lives in this country so much better than so many other countries.  Beyond the taxes to those who invest, his idiotic proposals to straightjacket our energy systems in this country will lead to massive economic problems in the future.  It's hard enough to pay my heating bill as it is; I don't need His Royal Moronicness doubling my expenses to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  If the cost of energy doubles, the cost of EVERYTHING skyrockets, even for those of us who don't heat our houses to tropical temperatures.
 
"The War on Education" - With his policies designed to destroy any opportunity for kids to break out of the horrid inner city schools (including several of his daughters' classmates), His Imperial Barackness hurts the youth of today and the taxpayers of tomorrow by essentially DOOMING POOR BLACK CHILDREN TO A CYCLE OF POVERTY THAT WILL NEVER END. And they call ME racist.
 
In all, I think we can group all of these little wars into one big war, that I will call:
 
"The War on America" - I spent about four years in the Navy. I was a small part of a large organization, along with millions of other people, past and present.  In the big picture, my service is small, and my sacrifice miniscule, especially compared with those who gave so much more than I ever did. I know I wasn't the best sailor ever, but I am proud of my service, such as it was.  What I do know is this: With his past history, and his present course, one day of my service is more than the REAL General Betray-Us will EVER give.  From almost the moment he uttered the words, he has broken his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  He claims to want the most transparent administration in history, well, he has it:
 
His LIES are transparent.
 
His ACTIONS are transparent.
 
His MOTIVES are transparent.
 
His CORRUPTION is transparent.
 
His ASSOCIATION WITH EVILDOERS is transparent
 
His POLITICAL MALFEASANCE is transparent.
 
His INCOMPETENCE is transparent.
 
I believe in the dignity of the Office of the President. However, when confronted with someone who so obviously does not respect that Office, nor the Constitution of the United States, HOLDING that Office, I feel it is not only my Right, but my RESPONSIBILITY to speak up. 
 
When his success means harm to my country, you're DAMN RIGHT I want him to fail.  I want him to fail in a big, bad, ugly way, because every time he fails, there is a little bit of HOPE that someone will be able to come in and CHANGE it in time, before irreparable damage is done.  I want him to fall fast and hard, and I want everyone to see it. I want the world to know that not every one here supports this bumbling buffoon. I want the British to know that there are some of us here that remember how they stood with us in 2001, and so many times in the last century, and that on our side, there is still respect for our common heritage that binds us closer than nationality ever could. Remember, they had to go through a Neville Chamberlain to get to a Winston Churchill.  With the direction this guys going, it might not even TAKE four years to roust him out of there.  Then we can kick him to the curb and let a grown-up have a turn.
 
Note: Sorry, this was supposed to be a light-hearted look at what we could call "Obama's War on Whatever," and it kind of turned into a rant.  Ah well, I had to get it off my chest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Ethics Paper

This is the paper I wrote for my ethics class, a day late but not a dollar short. In fact, it is about twice as long as it should be.  I hope he doesn't want me to edit it down, becayse it was so much fun to write.

 
The endnotes are essentially the links that are provided through the text, so I'm not going to reprint them here.
 
Hope you like it!
 
Arik

 

How to Be a Democrat

            1 Timothy 6:10 states: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” I don’t necessarily disagree with Paul of Tarsus, but I don’t think the statement goes far enough. I think that the love of money is merely an aspect of the root of all evil. Money is in essence nothing more than an expression of power. Money gives one the power to do what one wants, to purchase one’s desires, and to influence people, if desired. Therefore, I think the phrase should be more accurately: “The love of power is the root of all evil.” I think this pretty well sums up today’s Democrat Party.

            Today’s Democrats believe that the rights of the people are given by the government, not by some Creator, or through some mystical ancient text, like the Constitution. They believe, therefore, that those in power determine what rights the people should have, and so want to accrue power to themselves and are willing to do just about anything to get it. Democrats have much less trouble than Republicans in living up to their own, self-imposed moral and ethical standards, generally because they set the bar so much lower.

            During the Presidential campaign of 2008, Democrats ridiculed Republican candidate John McCain for having a rich wife, whose wealth allowed them to have several homes. Missing from the debate was the fact that marrying and inheriting wealth is a favorite means for Democrats to enrich themselves. We can look, for instance, at John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, and former Presidential candidate. Kerry has spent his entire life living in the style to which Democrats prefer to become accustomed: Off of Other People’s Money. His elite private school education was funded by a wealthy aunt, and his campaigns have benefitted financially from both his wealthy first wife, and his incredibly wealthy second wife, who, incidentally, also inherited that wealth. Taking into account the Clinton family, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to suspect that marriage, for Democrats, is more of a career move than anything personal. 

            Another perfect example of inheriting wealth would be the Kennedy family. The Kennedy family is a prime example of wealth eclipsing accomplishment. The family patriarch, Joe Kennedy, is believed to have built a large portion of his fortune during Prohibition, by bootlegging liquor, and consorting with organized crime. Money confers legitimacy, and so Joe started his sons running for office. The family fortunes reached a pinnacle with the election to the Presidency of John F. Kennedy.

            Which brings us to the next tactic Democrats like to employ: Stealing Elections. In the election of 1960, there is credible evidence that Kennedy was elected to the Presidency by a number of voters in Chicago who were no longer eligible to vote, i.e. deceased. There were likely shenanigans going on in Texas at the time, as well. Fearing that a request for a recount would tear the country apart, his opponent Republican Richard Nixon declined to contest the election, an example not to be followed in later years by Democrat Al Gore, who preferred the nation be torn asunder, rather than accept the inevitable, in the only close election I can find that Democrats weren’t able to steal. 

            In this fine state of Ohio, we are privileged to have as Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, who is linked to ACORN, the unofficial Election-stealing arm of the Democrat Party. ACORN is the group responsible for such interesting anomalies as registering people who live, apparently, in the middle of the Ohio River, or the Cleveland man registered 72 times. This pretty much makes a mockery of our system of government, which is, of course, why the Democrats are so keen to use billions of taxpayer dollars to fund such groups.

            Speaking of mockery, Minnesota still has a recount going on in their Senate race. Incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, in what is certainly a moral, if not electoral, defeat, won the election by a handful of votes over his challenger, occasionally almost amusing comedian and failed talk-show host, Al Franken. The fact that this election was even close is a sad statement on the sorry state of modern America, but that’s beside the point. Franken has since, after calling for a recount, taken a slim lead over Coleman, primarily by counting ballots twice or thrice, and “finding” stacks of ballots (amazingly all for Franken) in the cars of election officials. The statistical probability of “finding” a few hundred ballots, all for the same candidate, is so unlikely as to be indistinguishable from impossible, outside of Chicago or New Orleans.

            New Orleans is the next stop on the tour: Taking Bribes. New Orleans favorite son, Representative William Jefferson was charged almost two years ago, in June 2007, with accepting bribes and other assorted corrupt activities. In fact, Ninety-Thousand dollars was found wrapped in his freezer and he was videotaped taking bribe money. Despite calls for him to resign his seat, he remained in office until a narrow defeat in November 2008. To date, he still has not been brought to trial.

            In contrast, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was charged about a month after Jefferson, and was tried and convicted before the election ever occurred. He was convicted, essentially, of not paying enough for renovations to his Alaska home. The evidence was much less clear than in the Jefferson case, and the amounts involved much smaller. I feel the difference in delay between the charges and trial of Stevens, and the charges and still pending trial of Jefferson is indicative of the way Democrats use the Justice system to destroy their opponents and give them an electoral advantage. 

            In late 2008, it was almost impossible to avoid hearing about then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was eventually impeached and removed from office for attempting to sell the Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. He and members of his staff were recorded requesting favors from those seeking the seat. The man he eventually appointed, Roland Burris, despite copious prior denials, continues to reveal, little-by-little, how he paid for the seat Blagojevich was selling. And I won’t even go into former Illinois Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. Illinois is kind of a cesspool of Democrat politics.

            Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha was found soliciting bribes in the ABSCAM scandal of the early 1980s. He escaped prosecution by testifying against two of his fellow Democrat Congressmen, and avoided any sort of censure in the House by a partisan vote in the House Ethics Committee. Recognizing the difficulty and sacrifice inherent in military service, I frequently hesitate before criticizing a veteran. In Murtha’s case, the decision is easy, his words and deeds prove a point that is obvious to most casual outside observers: Murtha is Scum. He is still in Congress to this day.

            Murtha provides a perfect segue into the next tactic of Democrats: Promoting Racism. I n the last presidential race, the race of the Democrat candidate was never far from the front page. The campaign did its best to keep it there. It began, as such things often do, In Pennsylvania. Conceding that race was the Code Pink elephant in the room, Then Candidate Barack Obama gave a highly publicized speech on race in America, and telling how Republicans would use his black heritage against him, which, presciently enough, was indeed how it didn’t turn out. The years of shellshock Democrats had inflicted on Republicans came home to roost: Candidate McCain did not say a word about race, to the point of not even mentioning the race-baiting black-supremacist pastor at the church Obama attended for twenty years. He did his level best to keep from injecting race into the conversation. It didn’t keep the Democrats from repeatedly bring it up. Obama himself did it again in San Francisco, letting everyone present, and the nation, by extension, that white Americans are afraid of black Americans, and so get bitter, and cling to guns and religion, speaking of the voters of Western Pennsylvania.

John Murtha did the same, once more biting the hand that feeds, by declaring his own constituents to be racists and rednecks. And yes, this is the ABSCAM Murtha, as well as the Murtha that declared, without investigation or substantiating evidence, U.S. Marines cold blooded killers in Iraq. Though most have been exonerated, there has been no apology issuing forty from Murtha. I hate to insult a fellow military veteran: Knowing what it’s like out there to some extent gives a respect for ones fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that is hard to even explain. That said: Murtha is a scum.

            There are a few out there who are rabble rousers, people who try to trumpet their cause by getting members of their community and family members to protest loud and long, regardless of the merits of the individual case, Chief among these at this time is Al Sharpton, who has founded a long winded career on what is, at its core, a lie. Sharpton takes everyday occurrences that nobody of sound mind would consider racist, and find outrage there. Witness his outrage over a not-even-very-good cartoon. Most of us look at the dead chimp and see a dead chimp, and assume the punch line is aimed squarely at House Democrats. Of course, Al takes a gander at it and sees Obama behind those chimp ears. Democrats are highly skilled at creating dissent where there is no dissent, and advancing their plan to fill the chaos.

            In fact, Sharpton appears to have a larger goal for his protest of the monkey cartoon, which leads right into the Democrats next strategy: Stifle Dissent. If an idea does not fit with Democrat ideals, or what passes for ideals with them, not only the idea needs to be attacked, but the person holding that idea will be crucified as well. Sharpton, not content to merely humble the cartoonist, his editors and the newspaper, but wants to bring down the owner, Rupert Murdoch, as well. Sharpton is attempting to get the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Murdoch, in order to force the conservative owner to change his programming or divest himself of several television stations in the area, using what the liberal Democrats like to refer to as the "Fairness Doctrine," an obsolete regulation from an era when mass communication was much more difficult than it is now, and which conservatives call censorship. 

            The practical result of enforcement of this doctrine would mean the end of talk radio as it is currently configured. The Democrats complain that talk radio is dominated by conservative talk, which it is, and that it should be regulated to include liberal talk, which it shouldn’t. Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins tried an innovative approach with two stations he owns in Washington D.C. He renamed one “Obama 1260,” and staffed it with liberal hosts, and named the other “McCain 570,” staffing it with conservative hosts. Even in this era of Obama-mania, Obama 1260 failed miserably, with the political talk being replaced by financial talk.

            The flagship of the liberal (or “progressive” as they like to refer to themselves) talk establishment is Air America. You may have heard of Air America, but chances are you’ve never actually heard it. That would be because it’s on in approximately two major markets. The grand experiment in liberal radio bombed so badly that it is now little more than the punch line to a not-particularly-funny joke. This is why they are so anxious to impose regulation on on-air content. The fact is that in a free market, nobody really wants to listen to liberal talk radio, unlike conservative talk radio, which is flourishing. The Fairness Doctrine is intended to do nothing more than stifle the conservative voice, since television, magazines and newspapers are fairly dominated by liberal content. It’s instructive to note that Fox News Channel, owned, incidentally by Rupert Murdoch, is the only television network with a conservative lean, and its ratings are equal to all of the others combined.

            Recently, the Obama Administration has been attacking Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host, with a very successful radio show. He said that, in that he wants America to succeed and prosper, he has to hope that Obama fails to implement many of the programs that he has stated his intention of implementing. This sounds like a pretty honest assessment of, basically, politics in general: One party wants the other to fail in implementing programs that the first party disagrees with. This is what happens in a two-party system. If you dare oppose Obama, you are cowardly, a fool, and, most importantly, unpatriotic, because, well, Obama’s the president, and opposing the President is just plain Un-American. This may come as a shocker after the venom and bile aimed at George W. Bush over the last eight years, but, hey, when has contradictory behavior ever been a problem for the Democrats?

            The Democrats, who trumpeted all the supposed abuses and crimes those in the Bush Administration were apparently guilty of, didn’t hesitate to trample all over the privacy rights of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known to America as “Joe the Plumber.” Joe had the temerity to ask then-candidate Obama about his plans for increasing taxes, leading to what, in a sane world, would have been a rather embarrassing answer from the contender. This lead to illegal searches of his state records, and a massive smear campaign by a complicit press to try to destroy any credibility Wurzelbacher may have had. Some of the searches were done in the upper echelons of the state government of Ohio. It was found that, gasp, Joe owed some back taxes. The media pretty well crucified him for that. A few months later, Obama appointed tax cheat Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, with little to no opposition or even real coverage from the media. For those who aren’t aware, the Treasury Department is the one that administers the Internal Revenue Service, which is responsible for inflicting the Tax Code on the average taxpayer. Geithner aggressively avoided paying taxes he owed for several years, until it came time to morph into Obama’s “Indispensable Man.” Again, no big deal to a Democrat, just ask Charley Rangel, who as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is responsible for actually writing the tax code that he then either ignores or claims ignorance of. It seems that almost every third member of the Obama Administration has tax problems. But since Joe happened to question the Messiah, he must be brought down, humbled and humiliated.

            Joe actually got off fairly lightly. The Democrats just tried to destroy him and his credibility. It could have been much worse: they could have tried to “help” him. It seems that the people the Democrats try to help always end up worse for the effort. That is the last tactic I’d like to touch on here: Creating Victims. In today’s society, everyone is required to be a member of at least one victim group that the Democrats can minister to, usually to the detriment of those being helped. It is instructive to note that of the ten poorest big cities in the United States in 2008, the number run by Republicans was zero. In fact, most of the City Governments, from mayors to city council members to the school boards, the majority of government in our biggest cities is Democrat. 

            In fact, the schools in Washington D.C., which are administered by Democrats, are considered among the worst in the country, both educationally and in terms of violence, despite one of the highest per-pupil expenditure rates in the nation. To Democrats, the obvious solution to the problem is to spend more. They are so beholden to the teachers’ unions that they would rather force students to attend these failing school programs than allow them vouchers to choose schools that might actually teach the children. But education is really secondary, in any case. An ill-educated electorate is necessary for them to work their political magic. 

            The poorly–educated tend to end up on some sort of Democrat-inspired entitlement program, which are sort of like crack or heroin, but more insidious. Everyone knows that drugs are bad for you, but helping the poor is a good, Christian Value, isn’t it? Who could oppose a plan to help the poor? The problem is that the programs tend to the symptoms of poverty, rather than attack the causes of the problem. There is an old proverb that says “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” Liberals not only want to be praised for doling out the fish, they want to be praised for doling out someone else’s fish. They like to dole out just enough to make sure the poor have to come back for more, becoming dependent on them for their very survival. Then they promise just a little more, for the low, low price ofone single vote. Being generally uneducated, the poor think that that little bit extra will put them over the top, onto easy street, but, of course, it just makes them need just a little more. At least drug dealers don’t tout the health benefits of their products.

            The worst example of hurting people by pretending to help them finally bit back last year: The Mortgage Crisis. Precipitated by the Democrat sponsored Community Reinvestment Act, passed during the Carter Administration and strengthened by the Clinton Administration, banks were forced to give loans that they knew were excessive to people they knew wouldn’t pay them back, all in the name of “Affordable Housing.” “Affordable Housing” is Democrat code for “Houses that the people buying them could no way, never in-a-million-years buy without government intervention.” The thug wing of the Democrats, ACORN has started with “civil disobedience” to stop foreclosures on some of these homes, despite the fact that their poster child would be better of in a criminal proceeding for “Predatory Lending.” The mortgage crisis led to the collapse of several financial corporations, with the Democrats riding to the rescue of people they put in danger in the first place. The financial crisis led to uncertainty on the part of investors, causing the market to lose half of its value in just about one year, leading to the current recession. The current recession is causing the Democrats to once again ride to the rescue, with large bills that pretty much no one thinks will do what they are supposed to, leading, possibly, and frighteningly likely, into a prolonged depression.

            The reason for the whole mortgage crisis? Racism, according to Congressman Barney Frank, the architect of the disaster. Of course. It’s really like the punch line to a bad joke. Regardless of the incompetence and malfeasance of the Democrats, there is always a way to blame someone else, and it is the safe bet that they will do it, because that’s what they do. A two-party system will work only as long as both parties are in agreement about one thing: That they work for the betterment of the people they represent, not the aggrandizement of the politicians in the party. The Democrats seem to have lost sight of this seemingly simple axiom, and the entire nation suffers for it. 
 
 
Note: I use the term Democrat both as a noun and an adjective here, rather than employing Democratic in an adjectival usage, as I believe the party has divorced itself from pretty much every ideal that would or could be worthy of the word Democratic.
 
 
Also, I don’t use the term Reverend as a title, as a general rule, as I think it implies the person holding the title is worthy of Reverence, and, though there are many good people out their ministering to their congregations, I don’t believe people are legitimate objects for Reverence.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (18) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quote of the Week

Jonah Goldberg's column today is one of the best I've read this year, from him or anyone else.  It's full of great quotes, but this one has to be the best:
 
"It's tempting to say [Obama} is two-faced, but that seems like a woeful undercount."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Recovery Story, Part IV

Listen, simpletons: Cap-and-trade is a crappy idea.  You are going to charge the energy companies more to generate energy. Do you think the cost stops there? No, morons, it goes to the people who use it, like stores, and industries, and people like me who can't afford your stupid-a$$ plans.  Further, those stores and industries pass those cost along to who? That's right, me again. I'm screwed coming and going in this thing.  You democRats are truly proving you really are the party of Jackasses.

Oh, and Global Warming, aka Climate Change: DOESN'T EXIST! It's just a liberal excuse to do what liberals do: pi$$ on the poor.
 
Remark: I actually had to edit this slightly so Townhall would accept it, just a few dollar signs, gere and there, but otherwise, it's the exact story I sent to Dear Leader at Recovery.gov.
 
Also, I am writing a paper for my ethics class. It's supposed to be about 1500 words, give or take ten percent, but I suspect I will giving a little more than an extra 150 words.  I'm already at about 800, and not anywhere near halfway.  I call it: "How to Be a democRat."   My last paper, which was on customer service, got an "A," and I am quite pleased.  My professor is quite cool, and I hope he enjoys this one.  I think it will be the longest thing I've ever written, and it will have links and endnotes and everything.   I will post it here when I am done, for those who are interested.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The democRats and the Price of Gas

I thought that you might find this chart interesting:
 
U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices - 2 1/2 years
 
It may be a logical fallacy, and I may take my conclusions a bit farther than I should (or not), but I think there's something to be learned from this chart. 
 
If you look at the dates, you will see the spike, about two-and-a-half years ago where the gas prices spiked during the summer, and went to around three dollars a gallon. I don't know about you, but we were hurting pretty bad at that point.  Fortunately, after labor day, the prices started coming down.  The democRats ran that year on a platform of "Lowering gas costs."  That statement is laughable now, but, trust me, to anyone paying attention, it was laughable then, too.
 
Well, in a sweeping victory in November, 2006, the democRats took control of Congress, thus saddling us with speaker Piglosi.  It is instructive to note here that, shortly after that Congress took over, thus beginning the reign of the worst Congress ever (excepting, likely, the current one), the price of gas shot up far beyond its previous record high, before falling almost to the previous record high, after which, it shot up to over four dollars a gallon.  All this on the democRats plan to "Lower gas costs."
 
Then, after a summer in which the economy slowly ground to a near halt, which was unsurprising to anyone with an ounce of common sense, the price suddenly took a nose dive, falling below two dollars a gallon for the first time in over two years.  What caused this plunge?  Hmm.  It may be a coincidence (yeah, right), but the democRats were running their False Messiah for president, and wanted to win gains in Congress.  They used the high gas prices to weaken the economy, while undermining the financial sector via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their toxic mortgages.  Then they let Obama tell everyone he will fix everything and make everyone happy.  Note - the gas prices began their drop right around the time of the democRat convention in Denver.
 
It doesn't take much of a stretch, or even require one to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect the democRats in Congress engineered the high gas prices to bring about a financial collapse that they could blame on Bush, thereby sweeping them into office.  Need more proof?  The price of gas has been climbing slowly since the Congress started its session in January.  Is it true?  I think so.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Want a New Duck

I've got a little theme here.  All the quotes in this one lead up to a grand finale, proving what some of us have known for a long time: Obama is a Socialist.

John McCain
 said the following about Dear Leader, during the campaign:
 
"Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, 'spreading the wealth around' is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a 'new kind of politics,' "
In fact, McCain said it a lot, using it as one of his applause lines throughout the entire election season.  There's a pretty good reason why, too: Because it's true.
 
Pit Bull with Lipstick Sarah Palin had the following to add, and added it frequently on her campaign stops as well:
 
“Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism. To me our opponent’s plan sounds more like big government, which is the problem.”
 
After the election, but before the final quote, Rush Limbaugh had this to say:
 
"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
 
Ohio Everyman Joe the Plumber didn't think much more of Obama's plans:
 
"...he wants to distribute wealth. I'm not trying to make statements here. That's kind of a socialist viewpoint."
Obama himself had this to say, when he first met Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody"
 
In fact, like a real trooper, Barack Obama continued to deny anything and everything said about his socialist views:
 
"We don't need another president who fights for Washington lobbyists and Wall Street. We need a president who stands up for hard-working Americans on Main Street. John McCain calls this socialism, apparently. I call it opportunity, and there's nothing more American than that."

So, imagine my surprise when I came across this quote, from Congressthing Barney Frank:
 
"I think it's what people voted for.  There was no secret that this was going to happen.  John McCain kept predicting that if Obama won, this would happen, and I think Obama felt an obligation to make an honest man out of John McCain -- or to keep him honest. One John's always been pretty honest.  Of course the private sector is the engine to create wealth.  But we also know, as Franklin Roosevelt knew and as others have known, that the private sector works best when it's got a set of rules and a cooperative set of arrangements with the public sector."
 
So, there you have it: John McCain was right, Obama IS a socialist.  He said we'd get bigger government and a spending spree unlike any seen before, and we sure got it.  "John's always been pretty honest."  That's not what they said during the campaign.
 
This just goes to prove what I was told as a kid: If it looks lik a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
 
Well, I want a new duck.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »