Tuesday, March 31, 2009

I'm Speechless on This One

From one of the most hilarious websites I've ever seen, Count Us Out:

"Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his RiseUpForAmerica.com website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama’s eligibility, as well as his performance in office.

“I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury,” he said.

Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.

“If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury,” it says. “The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”

Wonderful. Carl, you go, guy. I love the idea that you can just find 25 lunatics and have them "indict" someone. Let's see how that works out for you. Boy, this gives new dimension to the word 'wingnut.'

I particularly like the part about taking homes and all that. Here's what you've inspired me to do. I'm going to find 25 socialist communist pinkos just like me, and we are going to indict YOU for being a Martian. Then, we are going to seize your children and sell them into slavery in the Sudan, until you make "amends" to me by returning to Mars.

That's democracy in action, you betcha.

By the way, in case you are wondering who that "Taitz" person is, she's Alan Keyes' lawyer. Go figure.....

Get Ready, Scott

"With all 610 precincts counted in New York's 20th Congressional District, Democrat Scott Murphy is ahead by 65 votes. It's not over."

Here's a suggestion. Want to know what the future holds in store for you? Have a talk with Al Franken.

That's All It Took

Senior western officials yesterday heralded a new spring in relations with Iran, after the Islamic regime made an historic offer to help US-led efforts in Afghanistan.

For the first time since Barack Obama came to office, US and Iranian officials met at an international conference in The Hague, with diplomats saying a possible turning point may have been reached between the US and the country it labelled part of the axis of evil seven years ago....

Mark Malloch Brown, Britain's foreign office minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, said Iranian offers of help could mark a new "spring in the relationship" between the west and Iran.

He was responding to Akhundzadeh's public pledge at the conference of Iranian co-operation in counter-narcotics and development efforts in Afghanistan."

Well, Mr. Dick Cheney, there goes that Obama, making us less safe again.

You stupid, worthless, criminal murderer. Everything YOU did made us less safe, and turned the world into a more horrible place; and you have the nerve to criticize this man who, in two months, has done so much to defuse the bomb that you planted in our midst.

I really think the likes of Himmler and Goebbels were no worse in their hearts than you are. I don't care who tars me for comparing you to these people- I believe you are just as evil.

Thank God for Barack Obama, who can begin to undo the carnage you have created.


Boy, they're flyin' at Red State today:

"I don’t know what it will take to show my brothers and sisters in arms here at Red State that our only chance to halt this march to socialism is through Sarah Palin. Trust me on this, I’ve written about her since her 2007 interview with Glen Beck. She is, though the campaign has long since been over, a serious threat to decades of liberalism in America."

Baby, you go with this. Man, I'm quaking in my boots over the prospect of Sarah Palin running against Barack in 2012. I'm sure that she will remember what newspapers she reads by then.

You know, it's too bad that she couldn't see Iran from her house- she might just have won.

P.S.- Glenn Beck? How fitting.


Here's another charming example of wingnut rationality:

"At What Point do People Revolt?

Moe wrote about the Washington State lunacy the other day. To recap:

Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states."

Dishwater detergent.

Forget about the thousands of dead American troops, the trillions of dollars looted from our national wealth, eight years wasted in dealing with the greatest ecological threat of all time, the pollution of the Justice Department, imprisonment without trial..... No, what is going to finally drive the American people over the edge and unleash a righeous wrath unseen since the Revolution, is dishwater detergent.

Dishwater detergent.

Well, nothing else has worked for you guys. You might as well throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.

God, this is pathetic. Give me something to work with here, please.

It's Tough, Guys

From Red State:

"The NRCC Needs Some Help Meeting Their Fundraising Goal"

It's so much harder when you don't have a government to sell.
Seymour Hersh, as reported on Think Progress:

"Hersh: Cheney 'left a stay behind" in Obama's government, can still control policy up to a point."

If this is true, and if Cheney has made the slightest attempt to manipulate Obama administration policy in this manner, this animal should spend the rest of his miserable life in total solitary confinement without any possibility of contacting the outside world. This behavior is not a joke. It is so far beyond the acceptable for a person with no role in the government to plant moles in the Presidency, that it should be treated as a form of sabotage of the country.

How much more do we need to uncover about Cheney before we understand the damage that he has done to our country, and take appropriate action?

I wish I could find my usual sarcastic way to treat this issue, but this is sickening. It makes me almost believe that there is an enemy of our democracy that belongs in a place like Guantanamo.

Brilliant, Glenn

Glenn Beck, on Fox News today:

"Beck: You can't make wind energy work without nuclear energy as well. Wind stops --

Borelli: You know that, but Congress doesn't know that.

Beck: Use your common sense! Hey America! Use common sense here! Let just try this out!

Wind, when it blows, makes energy. When it stops, you can't store it."

Great news, Glenn! Scientists have just announced a great new invention!

It's called a battery! Search for it on the web, if you know how. You'll be so impressed!

Right on, Sean!

Sean Hannity: "The federal government -- and I don't think I overstate this for our audience -- is destroying our economic system as we currently know it."

God, Sean, I hope so.

Why the Car Companies?

There has been a lot of complaint the last few days about the disparity between the government's treatment of Wall Street and Detroit.

While it is true that the financial industry has its hooks in Washington far more deeply than any other industry, I do not think that is the whole story.

The collapse of the financial sector is a direct result of Republican deregulation under Reagan and the two Bushes, aided and abetted by such Republican luminaries as Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich. These characters let the crooks loose to overwhelm honest businesses, and large segments of the public bought into their snake oil, bought off with promises of some pathetic tax cuts. Like it or not, we are all responsible for what the government did in our name, and unfortunately we now all get to share in paying the price.

The American car companies, on the other hand, have been on a self-imposed road to hell since the 1960's. Faced first with the success of Volkswagen, and then the far greater market penetration of the Japanese companies, they steadfastly refused to emerge from their dream world, where they knew everything better than anyone else. They have marketed unattractive, poorly performing, shoddily made vehicles for decades now, and have been paying the price for years. Yet, they remained unwilling to face their real predicament. We all have heard the H. L. Mecken line that "nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American people." Well, I guess G. M. and Chrysler have pretty well proven that's not true any more.

Unfortunately, I think that we cannot afford to allow our nation's carmakers to fall into oblivion, both because of the job losses that would result, and because a viable auto industry is an essential part of our national economy. However, it does not seem unreasonable to me that the captains of this industry should be treated very harshly in the course of our bailout.
From our somewhat mentally challenged friends at Gateway Pundit:

"Dirty Politics... Dems Blamed For Fake GOP "Impeach Sanford" Signs In South Carolina

Someone wants popular Governor Mark Sanford impeached in South Carolina for not taking Obama's tainted stimulus funds.
But, it's not the GOP.

....So who are behind these signs? The most likely culprits would be state Democrats.....

Democrats are playing dirty politics in South Carolina and posting fake "GOP Impeach Sanford" signs."

Truly an interesting take here. Apparently, Republicans were well within their rights to actually impeach Bill Clinton over absolutely nothing, and to talk about impeaching Obama from the day he was elected, but if Democrats talk about impeaching someone, it's "dirty politics."

Well, repeat after me: "It's okay if you're a Republican." And apparently, it still is.

So What

Ralph Nader has a long article on line today about reducing the deficit.

I am not linking to it, because who gives a flying fuck what this bungling egomaniac has to say.

Monday, March 30, 2009

From the Moonie Times:

"A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

We must not let that go unanswered.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us.....Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names..."

Guys, I know you are a little behind us with teh internets thing, but, you know, when you have a blog, it's okay for people to leave comments. That's what it's all about. Now, let me translate your remarks for the rest of us: what you are really saying is that those dirty hippy liberals DARE to DISAGREE with us. Forget that we've just spent the last eight years proving that everything we believe in is a total load of crap, how DARE they DISAGREE with us! And false names! I'm having the vapors!

Listen, when your idiot trolls post on our blogs, they don't demoralize us- they provide us with a few moments of innocent merriment. I guess the same old lies just don't sting as much as the truth.

Soak the Rich

There is one essential step that must be taken if this nation is to see lasting economic recovery. The rich must never again be allowed to have too much money.

Lest you think that I am not serious in this suggestion, let me explain.

When poor people have extra money, they spend it. When rich people have extra money, they invest it.
Now, let's talk about stocks, commodities, real estate, whatever these people invest in. What are these things worth?

Traditional, simplistic free market economic theory suggests that the price of, say a share of stock, is based on public assessment of its earning potential. Thus, that share would sell for some reasonable multiple of its yearly earnings- its price-earning ratio- adjusted for public perception of its risk.

What happens, however, when there is more money to invest than there are reasonable investment opportunities? Now, the price of these things, stocks, real estate, etc, become detached from their earning potential. The great law of free markets, supply and demand, takes over. Their prices rises due to the competition among investors, and ceases to have any connection to their earning potential. Thus, back in the sixties, people looked for price-earning ratios around maybe 15 or so. We saw stocks during the tech boom selling for price-earning ratios of 100 or 200 or more. No one could believe that taking 100 or 200 years to recoup their investment made sense. In fact, these people speculated based on their confidence that there was always a bigger sucker than themselves who will materialize in a year or two.

When commodity prices are no longer determined by their earning potential, but rather by an imbalance of
supply and demand, you have a bubble. This is what a bubble is, whether in real estate in 1927 or 2007, stocks in 1929 or 2008, or tulips in 1637. It is an unsustainable condition which must end in collapse.

In the 1920's Republican economic policies- tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of markets- resulted in the greatest disparity between rich and poor in our country's history. The result was inevitable. The depression cut this imbalance, and it remained tolerable until Republican policies starting with Ronald Reagan again tilted the playing field in favor of the rich, resulting in the last few years seeing the greatest imbalance between rich and poor since- you guessed it, 1929. And here we are again.

The few New Deal regulations left ungutted by Republican rule have probably protected us from something as all encompassing as the Depression, but we must not be fooled. Allowing the rich to bloat themselves on our national wealth will inevitably create this kind of crisis over and over again.

World War III

"Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts. "

John, in the words of your beloved leader George, "bring it on." I mean, you guys are so good at fighting wars, I think I'll take my chances.

A Marriage Made in.......

Breaking news:

"Chrysler LLC and owner Cerberus Capital Management said Monday they entered into a global alliance with Italian auto maker Fiat"

Oh boy! Now we can look forward to cars with the beauty and performance of Chryslers, and the reliability of Fiats.

Coming Next: The Detroit Lions to merge with the Los Angeles Clippers.

A New Low, Even for Them?

A long article in yesterday's Washington Post discusses the torture of Abu Zubaida, publically alleged by the Bush administration to be a high-ranking Al Quaeda member:

"In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed."

There has been a lot of talk about why the Bush administration continued its loathesome tactics even though everyone knew that torture leads to virtually nothing but forced confessions.

I want to suggest that, despite the immense cynicism with which we look at the Bush administration, that most people haven't even begun to grasp the depths of depravity to be seen here.

Can it be the case that Bush and Cheney employed torture not DESPITE its production of false confessions, but BECAUSE it produces false confessions?

As the lying justifications which led our country into war began unravel, Bush and Cheney had to produce evidence that they had acted appropriately. Bush is quoted as having said to George Tenet about Abu Zubaida: "'I said he was important,' Bush said to Tenet at one of their daily meetings. 'You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?"

Was all of the torture a deliberate attempt to manufacture false information to mask the Bush Administration's colossal failure in the mideast? Given what we know now, it certainly wouldn't have been beneath them. I suspect that they tortured their captives with the intent to produce false confessions, these confessions serving no purpose other than to obscure their own guilt- an abomination without any sort of justification at all.

I can't prove this now. Let's see what happens if all the information becomes public

Sunday, March 29, 2009


On the left: Michelle Bachmann and her long lost brother show their excitement at their reunion.

Doofass- How Classy

Here's an unfortunately all too typical sample of a wingnut comment that I found on some stupid blog or other:

"doofass-the-Clueless: YOU wouldn't

know a FACT if it slapped you right in the head!

Exactly WHERE in the Constitution it provides authority for Bozo and his henchmen Congress to do anything they've done since 1-20-09???

YOU'VE RUN OFF scared like a coward with NO ANSWER to my question.. every time I've asked!!!

It's going on almost TWO DOZEN times I've asked YOU this question...


Are you a coward? That is too much of a coward to admit that you can't answer the question?

Are you too stupid??? Too stupid to know that the answer is that NO WHERE in the Constitution does it give Bozo and his henchman Congress the authority to do what they've done???

What is your problem??? Can't man-up because you're an intellectually limited liberal who can't be honest or know any facts???"

Now, that's logic and reasoning.

I know this is futile, but how about this part of the Constitution:

" Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

I am confident that the person who wrote the above comment is insufficiently literate to have read their way as far as article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, but still.....after 220 years or so, it ought to become fairly clear what the government actually does, even when the President is a Democrat.

It Turned Out to be So Easy

From Townhall this morning:

"9/11 Terrorists have Won: Freedom Removed from Name"

Yes, the terrorists have won because the word "freedom" has been removed from the name of the new World Trade Center tower! It turned out to be so easy. And they didn't even have to spend all that time living in caves in Afghanistan, where they can't even get Top Gear on cable! Why, if they had been as smart as, say, Enron executives, or the guys from AIG, they could have saved themselves so much trouble by just having their Saudi backers buy the building and rename it- say, the Al Quaeda World Trade Center.

Now, if we Americans were true patriots, we would scream as loud as we can, until the building's owners agree to call it the I Hate the Ragheads World Headquarters. That would really be a victory for freedom.

Note: I didn't see any reason to link to this stupid article. Believe me, it's a waste of time.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Republican Health Care

Well, believe it or not, here is the Republican health care proposal, from their Budget Report- oops, I meant cheap, lying piece of propaganda- issued yesterday.

Americans concerned about their health care would be well advised to examine this detailed document with care, even though it may take a good deal of study.

To doubters out there, I would like to point out that it is none of your business how the Republicans propose to "reform" medicare, or how they intend to provide "universal access" to health care. Just trust them. Haven't they earned it?

I think we can make an educated guess, however, on how they intend to limit federal spending, as we have seen their approach the last eight years. The less the government provides, the less it costs; or rather, the more that will be left over for the insurance companies. But, they never promised you a rose garden, right? Right? I guess I made my point there.

And as for that "Republican Road to Recovery", though it is not fully spelled out here, I think we can be pretty confident that it is the road to the rich recovering the last shreds of THEIR wealth that have somehow mistakenly slipped into YOUR pocket.

Aren't they even trying to make their lies believable any more? Or are they so depressed with the prospect of their inevitable decline into permanent irrelevance, that they can't muster up the energy to deceive us with conviction?

Well, in any event, here's a piece of well intentioned advice, guys: There are kindergarten kids that know more about Adobe Illustrator than you do. If you can't be bothered to spread good propaganda any more, could you at least make it look a little better?

Harry, Harry

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation.

"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”

Not helpful to YOU? Listen, Harry, the only help I want to give you is helping you find the door. These people are running totally against the will of the American people, and are doing nothing but enabling the Republicans to continue their ruination of the country. You are the Senate majority leader. If you can't deal with this, then get out.

Update: from a nice blog post from Whiskey Fire:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now "stuck" with him as chief justice.

"Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was," Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. "But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen."

Why are we stuck with them, Harry? If Roberts lied to get on the Supreme Court- the Supreme Court of all places, why aren't you working to remove him? What is the reason why the American People are stuck with him? Could it be that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate is a gutless worm, who's afraid to do the right thing under just about any circumstances?

That's my guess. What's yours?

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Republicans In Action!

There has already been a lot of derision directed toward the new Republican "budget proposal" revealed today, because it has no numbers in it. This is ludicrous enough, but there is so much more comedy gold to be mined in here.

Let's look at some of their major proposals (all of the information below consists of direct quotes from the document):

On the tax issue:

Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a

marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10

percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter….

Our plan would lower the capital gains tax and

loosen restrictions on various savings vehicles….

My God. Lowering the tax rate on the top income brackets and on capital gains! Who would have ever thought that the Republican party would propose that!

Is there any problem on earth, no matter how serious, that won't prompt the Republican party to use it as an excuse to give more money to the rich?

Now, here's their energy proposal:

Republicans recognize the importance of exploring for

American oil and gas…..and support immediately leasing oil and gas

resources in the OCS (that's offshore drilling)….. The Secretary of Interior should

be required to offer new leases in the OCS…..

Republicans also support opening the Arctic Coastal

Plain to energy exploration and development….

The answer to to our energy problems? More drilling!

But, of course, the Republican Party wouldn't ignore alternative sources of energy:

Americans realize that the future of energy is in alternative and

renewable sources. In order to promote the development of

renewable and alternative energy, Republicans support

promoting the leasing of federal lands which contain alternative

energy such as oil shale…...Republicans also support

enabling federal agencies to take the lead in spurring a market by

using fuels derived from oil shale, tar sands, and coal.

Oil shale, tar sands and coal- that's alternative energy to Republicans.

Now, on to the way Republicans plan on treating the financial firms so central to this mess:

For insolvent firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust

Corporation-type entity would restructure these firms in

receivership by selling off their assets and liabilities,

reappointing private management, while protecting


"Selling off" their liabilities, and then "reappointing private management." In other words, forcing the taxpayers to pay their debts and then sending their management on their way to continue their predation.

Our plan phases out the (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s) government charter and privatizes them…..

These firms can and should compete in the

financial service marketplace, without implicit or explicit taxpayer


Privatization- a novel idea.

So, cutting taxes on the rich, cutting capital gains taxes, allowing more profit for oil and coal companies, public paying off of corporate debt without consequences to the management that ran up this debt, further privatization of taxpayers' wealth- that's their response.

Is there any point when the Republican party faces up to the damage that their insane, greed maddened policies have done to the country? Is there any point at which the Republican party stops trying to disguise their theft of our national wealth as some sort of rational response to our needs?

And, God, have enough Americans finally figured out that Republicans are nothing but criminals, with no intent except to enrich themselves at our expense?

As the answer to the first two questions is obviously no, I hope to hell that the answer to the last one is yes.

Yeah, Michael, Right

Michael Steele: "If I do something, there is a reason for it."

Yeah, Michael. The reason is that you're stupid.

Stupidity is not only a Right Wing Thing

What is this? Well, according to a PETA website, it is a "Sea Kitten."

When I first looked at the site, I assumed that it was some kind of joke, but no, looking around, I realized that these guys were serious. They have decided to branch out from furry and feathery animals, to try to make people ashamed of eating fish. And they apparently intend to do this by changing the name of fish to sea kittens.

Sea Kittens. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Now, there are a couple of points to be made here. First of all, this provides further evidence for my theory that members PETA have no real interest in the welfare of animals, but are actually psychologically damaged people who crave public humiliation. Second, the next time you laugh at Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck, take a second to remember that stupidity can be an equal-opportunity affliction.

By the way, what's so bad about eating kittens?
-Just kidding. I think.

Oh, Ann

by Ann Coulter"

Yeah, well, Sauron is a Republican. And that Snakes on a Plane guy, well, he was OBVIOUSLY a Democrat.
And Mr. Potter was a Republican, and Rick with that cafe in Morocco, he must have been a Democrat.

Ann, maybe this slipped your notice, but Gordon Gekko is a movie character. The last time I looked, movie characters, since they are fictional, can't really register to vote, and so they don't really belong to any political party. On the other hand, they can't fight back, so I guess they make pretty good targets for your pathetic assaults.

You aren't really making much headway lately attacking real Democrats, so maybe it's just as well that you stick to attacking fictional ones.
From the ever-reasonable Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

"In a humorous jibe at the AIG bonus tax, Steven D. Lofchie, co-chair of Cadwalader's Financial Services Department, has posted a "Clients & Friends" tax memo on the firm's web site: The Manny Ramirez Lightbulb: Also (2 Ideas in 1 Memo) Putting Pay in Perspective:I am enraged! and outraged! plus morally reprehensibled (did I say I am outraged!), that Manny Ramirez has inked another huge contract -- this time with the Los Angeles Dodgers. For those of you who do not follow baseball, know this: Manny Ramirez was getting paid about $20 million or so a year last season (which is nowhere near a year) by the BoSox.....

My Idea. Lightbulb! Goes off! A lightbulb in my mind shining for all the world see my brain's idea! Why not a tax! Because the BoSox receive State Aid (all MLB sports teams do), Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, whom I would bet is a huge BoSox fan, should drop a big tax like a bombshell on Manny's salary...."

I know this is thinking that is far too deep to register on your brain's Richter scale, but consider this, from a Dodger fan: When those AIG guys learn to hit the long ball we'll give them their bonuses back. Right now, they are batting about, oh, let's see now, .000, and deserve to be paid accordingly. Manny delivers, and those AIG guys didn't. So, I would say they deserve just about the same salary as some guy in single A would get.

And oh, by the way, Manny could strike out every time he's at the plate, and no one but Manny himself would lose their job or their life savings.

The World from the Right-Chapter 9,000,000 or so

The following two quotes from John Hinderaker, one of our leading conservative thinkers. One is about George W. Bush, the other about Barack Obama. See if you can figure out which is which:

"So evidently we have to add astronomy to history and economics as subjects of which (the President) is remarkably ignorant. I'm beginning to fear that our President has below-average knowledge of the world. Not for a President, but for a middle-aged American."

"It must be very strange to be (the President). A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

Is this an example of monstrous delusion, or just unapologetic lying? They've gotten so good at this behavior that it's hard to tell any more.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Bobby Speaks

From the AP:

"La. Gov. Jindal urges GOP to stand up to Obama"

Because up until now, they have been falling all over themselves to support him.

Bobby, a piece of well-meant advice: go home. Didn't you learn your lesson last time?


From one of the sages at Powerline:

"Why I am depressed

March 22, 2009 Posted by Scott at 8:02 AM

I feel utterly powerless to do anything about the fellow in the Oval Office who combines infantile leftism and adolescent grandiosity in roughly equal measures. It seems to me that every day he is responsible for assaults on the freedom and well being of the American people. I can't keep up and I can't stand to pay attention."

Scott, I wonder, how powerless and depressed yout felt over the infantile and adolescent behavior that we had to put up with from 2000 to 2008? By the way, Scott, Bush displayed grandiosity every time he pretended that he was competent to be President.

I wonder how you felt about the President illegally snooping on millions of Americans, and claiming the right to throw any one of them in prison without a trial. Did you see that as an assault on our freedom? No, I guess you missed that one. Did you happen to notice that Bush enabled his rich political backers to steal a large part of our national wealth? And have you noticed the consequences? How about that as an assault on the well being of the American people? I guess you missed that one too.

Here's one more choice excerpt:

"How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?" Obama asks. "It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment."

"Brought to justice"? Good god, man, what the hell are you talking about? I don't know what he is talking about......"

Obama says "brought to justice", and Scott doesn't know what he is talking about.

Well, now you know why I am depressed.

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Response

With the market up 500 points today, it amused me to think about what the Republican response would be if Obama really did succeed in ending the slide at this point and turning the economy around.

Well, here's my answer: See, McCain was right all along- the economy WAS fundamentally sound, and Obama used lies and fear mongering to get into the White House. This makes him an illegitimate President, and we owe him nothing in the way of support. Now, it's time to get back to the Government actions that gave us this great economy- tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation. Oh, and also maybe another trillion dollar war. The proof of all of this is that the markets went down for Obama's first month and a half in office, so it's obvious that nothing he did helped. In fact, he promoted godless socialism that just postponed our economic recovery.

Whenever it turns around, that's what they are going to say. Have any doubts about that?


Paul Krugman says that Obama's economic plan fills him with despair.

Now, I am second to none in my admiration of Krugman. I have often gotten up in the morning, afraid of reading the five most depressing words you can ever see in the New York Times: " Paul Krugman is on vacation."

Nevertheless, I think someone needs to point out that Krugman is something of a chicken little. I remember, for example, several years ago, Krugman predicting that the U.S. economy would collapse if oil reached $60 a barrel. I mean, just look at him the next time you see him on TV. The guy has a perpetual expression on his face like he is afraid the ceiling is going to fall on him any second now.

The guy can be almost always right about the essentials of the issues (which he is), and yet be overly alarmist (which, I believe, he also is.)

Just sayin'.


I saw that a sign at one of the tea bag rallies said, "You can't blame Bush any more."

Oh yeah? I'm not even done blaming Reagan.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The Second New Deal

Due to the tremendous progressive record that Franklin Roosevelt left behind, most people assume that he was very liberal from the beginning of his Presidential career. This is not, in fact, the case. Roosevelt, of course, came from a patrician background of considerable wealth, and his initial inclinations were far more conservative than his legacy would suggest.

I would like to quote here at some length from The Great Depression- America 1929-1941, by Robert McElvaine, a generally available book that I recommend as a good place to start if you would like to know more about this period. These remarks are in pretty close agreement with all of the other material I have seen.

McElvaine says: “The way he handled the banking crisis was indicative of his basic approach to the economic catastrophe. Given the magnitude of the problem and his unprecedented support, Roosevelt could have done whatever he pleased with the unpopular “money changers” and their institutions. Had he wanted, as later critics so frequently charged, to lead the country toward socialism, he could have taken an important step by nationalizing the banking system. He did nothing of the sort. Instead, he submitted to Congress a distinctly unradical Emergency Banking bill drawn up largely by bankers and Hoover appointees in the Treasury Department.

…..The act provided assistance to private bankers and gave them a government stamp of approval….On the very morning of his inauguration, he agreed to consult with leading “money changers” on how to solve the banking crisis.

….In addition to aiding bankers, cutting budgets and legalizing beer…..the new President called for reorganization of the federal government to bring about greater efficiency, reduce waste, cut bureaucracy, and eliminate duplication.

One of the great ironies of the New Deal was that its principal program for achieving economic recovery amounted to little more than a larger effort in what Hoover had been trying all along….”

Roosevelt was more fortunate than Obama in this regard: the economic collapse had happened entirely on the Republicans’ watch, and the public was clearly aware of the fact. This gave him the kind of deep popular support that translated into years, not months, of maneuvering time. Today, unfortunately, the Republicans managed to time their thieving of our national resources so that their sole responsibility for the problem, while no less clear, is more easily obscured. Even so, as the election of 1936 loomed, and as these economic half-measures failed to achieve their goal, Roosevelt was forced to make a choice.

Again, from McElvaine: “The fundamental reason for Roosevelt’s shift to the left in 1935 is clear….In 1934 and 1935 (the political) wind was building up into a gale that no political leader could long ignore. It forced Roosevelt to tack desperately to the leeward in order to keep afloat. The luxury of consensus government was one of the many privileges that President Roosevelt enjoyed, but he finally had to give it up…..One reason was that businessmen deserted him before he gave up on them….Opponents portrayed (the new-dealers) as power –hungry bureaucrats, carrying the country down a high-speed route to totalitarianism…..Such radical spirits as Lincoln Steffens expressed amusement at the spectacle of businessmen attacking Roosevelt while he was trying desperately to save their system.”

The result of this change of heart came to be known as the "second new deal", which included the Social Security Act, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and so much of what we think of when we remember the New Deal.

Now, I am hardly going to suggest that President Obama is not aware of this history, or that he doesn’t know more about Roosevelt than I ever will. Still, I believe that he is destined, like it or not, to follow in Roosevelt’s footsteps. Businessmen and their political tools are proving, as they did in the thirties, to be the most treacherous of allies, and we can already see, in the AIG affair a thunderstorm of public outrage brewing. Obama has hoped that he could operate for a time, given the danger we face, with support from both ends of the political spectrum; we can already see how vain that hope is.

Soon, like Roosevelt, he is going to be forced to forsake his association with one side, in order to save the other, vastly larger, if less powerful side. Let us hope he has Roosevelt’s success when he makes the choice- all of our futures depend on it.