Lostaglia House

This years' MLB picks: The Efreet has (finally) spoken!

2011-04-10T13:31:00.000-07:00

So, this is pretty late, I know, but I can't help it if the Efreet is on vacation.

AL

East: Ever since the Rays came on strong 3 years ago, the picks in this division have become ridiculously hard. Expect less wins here this year by the winning team, simply due to the fact that every single team in this division has a shot at the title. With that in mind, it's win or go home in this division, since the win totals shouldn't be enough to produce a wild card.

Boston
New York
Tampa Bay
Baltimore
Toronto

Central: Everybody's talking about the Indians. Ok. Fine. But I don't discount the Twins that easily and we all know the Sox are the consummate sleeper team... I expect a runaway here in the latter half of the season, though. Detroit could be great or gross this year, so it comes down to picking them to win or stink it up. I choose stink.

Cleveland
Chicago
Minnesota
Kansas City
Detroit

West: This is a no-brainer. Losing their ace pitcher will only make the Rangers fight harder. The rest of this division is Oakland, and I expect that young staff to produce--but I'm not going berserker-goo-goo over them like most everyone else. These types of staff may win plenty of games in the latter half of the year, maybe enough to win a wild-card--too bad they'll get swept int he ALDS.

Texas (W.S. pick)
Oakland (Wild Card)
Los Angeles
Seattle

NL
East: This is not a given. Both the Braves and the Nationals have great line-ups. Too bad it always comes down to pitching, pitching, pitching in this division. But the Braves and the Nats both have injury problems early. And since the Phils have the best rotation in the universe and a line-up that makes the Yankees drool, they're going to the World Series again this year.

Philadelphia (W.S. Pick)
Atlanta
New York
Washington
Florida

Central: Here's a division that is actually fun to try to figure out. We can automatically eliminate the Cubs, since they're addicted to injuries. We can probably eliminate Cincy, since they broke the bottle that harnessed lightning for them last year. The Cardinals have legacy problems and too much garbage to unload come June and the Astros will be lucky to get 45 wins. So that leaves Milwaukee and (gasp) Pittsburgh. Now, Pitt has an electric, fast offense and a pitcher or two. But what else? I'm not sure they have the power to play with the rest of the league, although their division record may surprise everyone. I'm picking Milwaukee, but watch out for the Bucs.

Milwaukee
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Cincinnati
Chicago
Houston

West: Another fun division that I'll probably end up being totally wrong about. I guess the safe pick would be the Giants, but I don't see it. Looks like the Dodger are serious about not spending money, so forget them--at least until June when we see what they really are willing to do. The Fathers are the Fathers, so I never count them out, but not extending a hand toward guys like Capuano and Young in the off-season seem a little weird to me. That leaves the Rockies and the D-Backs. I really like what I see in Colorado, they have 5 (FIVE!!) number 2 pitchers, which means they have a chance to win 4 out of 5 games just straight outta the box. The D-Backs could be this year's Cincinnati--but let's not get crazy with the cheese-whiz just yet. At any rate, this division is super hard to pick and I don't expect a sucker team here at all.

Colorado
San Fransisco (Wild Card)
Arizona
Los Angeles
San Diego

Liberals Discover Real 9-11-01 Masterminds on 1-09-11

2011-01-10T16:38:00.000-08:00

I think we're FINALLY getting how liberal logic works! Yay us!

Pay attention now or you'll miss it...

If This:

Sarah Palin's Crosshair Strategy Map

Equals This:

The aftermath of the bloody rampage in Arizona.

Then This:


Def Leppard's 1980's tour de force album.

Equals This.


September 11, 2001

See how easy that was to do?

Def Leppard oughta be tried, convicted and slain in the public square. Haters!

As seen on http://www.willworkfortruth.com

The Continuing American Vandalism of Mark Twain

2011-01-06T15:18:00.000-08:00

You know the Vandals, they say, weren't any more destructive than the other invading tribes back in the Roman days. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Maybe they just got blamed, popularized, if you will, for their particular bent of chaos and destruction:

particularly the defacing of artworks that were completed with great effort

Works of Art.

Right.

Is Huckleberry Finn a work of art? I know I think it is. I think right up to and including the point Huck says "I'll go to hell" the book serves as the exemplary masterpiece of American art in general, American literature, specifically.

True art breeds the sincerest form of flattery, does it not? When you see James Dean gazing off into the horizon, his windblown hair harnessed only by an intentionally off-set cowboy hat, a lit cigarette dangling off his pursed lips, isn't that "I'll go to Hell" at it's pop-culture zenith? I think it is.

When Elvis swivels his hips, when Salinger refuses accolades, when Bobby Fischer goes into to hiding, that's All-American rebellion.

Lenny Bruce, rebel. John Stewart, rebel. Clarence Thomas, rebel.

Rebels all. Americanism is Rebellion. Think about that for a minute, Mr. I-love-the-Founders.

So what's not Americanism? If we were to host a sociological HUAC in 2011, who would we hunt?

Conformists?

I don't know, maybe.

You know, when I see graffiti, I see art. Maybe you don't, I allow for subjectivity to some extent--and heck, I don't know what true art really is, but I know what sucks.

Sure, I'm opposed to going around spray-painting whatever you want wherever you want it, but there's something wretchedly American about it. Isn't there? In a way, yes. But there's also a very vandalistic side to tagging. It's not the pictures and murals taggers convey on pedestrian bridges and freeway overpasses that bothers me. It's the language.

That language vandals use, you can't read it. You have no idea what it says, without a translation. They're hiding something. American art is not about hiding things. We have no patience for hidden things and we are "a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings." [1. From JFK's "The President and the Press" speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961.] Salinger didn't get famous for hiding things. Neither did Palahniuk, Roth or Twain. They are revealers. True American art reveals something in a language everyone can understand about something they've previously hidden or ignored within themselves their whole lives--for whole generations--or, in Twain's case for the entire duration of a nation's existence.

That's what separates American art from American vandalism. Revelation.

American art is that grafitti mural on the subway wall. American vandalisms are the incoherent, territorial spray-paint pissings that cover that mural up and conceal it with words you know just don't belong there.

In a way, the First Amendment is so ingrained in our subconscious that we have an almost preternatural resistance to expression that is incoherent, truncated or---and this is the crux of it--censored. That penchant for straight-forwardness and our hatred of secrets, these are the brushes our artists use. Always have. We want to know. If there is magic ink on the back of the Declaration of Independence, we want to know. If Jesus bedded down a prostitute and procreated with her, we want to know. Truthers. Birthers. Bilderbergers. NWOers. Alien-ers. You name it, we're on it.

Why then wouldn't we want to know if Mark Twain used the words "nigger" and "injun" in a book? Will we really sit by, we the people who wrangle against international conspiracies of every order, and allow ourselves to be deceived, lied to and vandalized?

Isn't removing a word, replacing it with an alternative, the very antithesis to what we stand for? Isn't that vandalism? Isn't that simply scribbling illegible graffiti over great art? Isn't that the very vandalism from which our definition of the word derives?

particularly the defacing of artworks that were completed with great effort

Here we are, witnessing not the advent of a Secret Society, but the instigated, elaborated plan to build a society with secrets--the VERY THING TWAIN WAS REELING AGAINST.

New South Books, the publisher of this up and coming edition of Huck Finn, justifies their censorship thus:

At NewSouth, we saw the value in an edition that would help the works find new readers. If the publication sparks good debate about how language impacts learning or about the nature of censorship or the way in which racial slurs exercise their baneful influence, then our mission in publishing this new edition of Twain’s works will be more emphatically fulfilled.

In other words, "yeah, we're lying, but we're doing it for your own good". In some warped, monomaniacal way they've convinced themselves that white-washing "nigger" and "injun" (They plan on replacing the former with "slave"---I'm sorry, that's not the same thing) will get more people to read Twain. But...it's not Twain, now is it?

No. It is vandalism.

Go to New South Books and tell them to stop this madness. Tell professor Gibbens (agribben@aum.edu) we won't be lied to. And tell your friends that censorship is vandalism--Vandalism from within.

©2011 CT Lostaglia

Child's Play

2011-01-05T04:55:00.000-08:00

Her middle name is Aurora, so this little girl's discovery was destined to happen, I reckon. Way to go girl. And way to go press, for "blowing" it way out of proportion. Let's try to cap it to 15 minutes of fame, shall we? /evilgrinchiness

Speaking of Grinches, who still has a tree on their compost heap? These boys can help. Can't tell for sure, but I think those boys'll be around a lot longer than 15 minutes.

Something I'm sure you're glad you didn't buy for your grandchildren this Christmas. I guess that marketing degree really isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Cowbuoy up.

Apparently Britain has 926,000 young people under the age of 25 who can't find work. Go hunt for supernovas, already. Sheesh.

2010's most popular baby names. Aiden? Really?

2011 is still in it's infancy and everyone wants to make some predictions. Whatever. Check out what Dan Harris has to say (Slide 6). Interesting.

Teenaged angst is one thing, but there's a bloodlust Down Under. Who's shocked?

Ugh. Just skip over this one. Australia has issues.

We have issues. A ten-year-old? Come on.

Five fairly nubile questions for an infantile Congress. Notice: NCLB is mentioned near the end.

Speaking of Congress. Like father, like son. So totally cool.

Here's one that's so totally not cool you cannot let me read if I'm within 100 yards of other living beings. More on this later. I promise. This aggression will not stand.

You didn't think we'd get all the way through Child's Play without mentioning this guy, did you?

Aiden? Really? You named me Aiden?

Old News is an Old Guest

2011-01-04T11:42:00.001-08:00

This old guy is "Clearly Inappropriate." And, apparently he's not alone, this duck is 80 years old and still copping a feel.

Another venerable violator.

41 might not be old in the real world but this gridiron grandpa needs whatever the opposite of Viagra is. (The Rosie O'Donell pill?)

Elderly. Elderly. Elderly.

Geriatric Motors is selling more stuff. How patriotic. So what is granny gonna do with that brand new Buick?

The National debt, which was born in 1836 is reaching astronomical proportions. Go us.

These two old dudes are going to get themselves killed on a mountain--which is fine, but what's that about a Russian Silicon Valley and why is Arnie...oh never mind. None of our business. Lathspell.

Apparently, Baby Boomers are a bunch of whiners. Welcome to 40 more years of entitlement hell.

Alright, maybe they're not all sissies.

This guy is a Baby Boomer. That'll be enough trashing that little clique.

10,900,000... and counting, to be sure.

Don't worry Chuck. These days are long behind you.

But seriously, you tell me which is more morbid, this eerie, spookiness or the responses to it?

Even criminals are getting older.

And older.

Didn't Burgess Meredith play the Penguin in the old Batman television show? Maybe criminality is the key to longevity.

Or is it bacon?

The Coming Apocalypse

2011-01-03T13:39:00.000-08:00

A lot is happening, of course.. In some cases, too much. In some cases, way too much.

In case you're lost, look at this. Life is pretty good when you can do that. Maybe too good.

Enter: The Apocalypse.

And hey, the sky is falling--maybe not now and maybe not everywhere, but it is some weird places--places where the sky should be firmly in place at all times. Apparently, the sky falling brings out the best in some of us. That's ok. No matter how trashy things get, everything is going to be just fine.

The sky really isn't falling. But judging from the apocalyptic zeitgeist running through the pulse of America, maybe what we need is a sort of anti-climactic denouement. Maybe.

Never fear. There are things you can do.

Hey, what is it called when you're trying to fix something that was broken and make it worse? It's called an "overhaul". Like injecting sulfur in an atmosphere that really doesn't like having sulfur injected into it.

There are probably no repercussions to that. None whatsoever. Nope, nothing. Not a thing.

Nothing to see here.

I'm just saying.

Really though, when life gives you an apocalypse, just learn to swim.

See ya down in Arizona Bay.

As seen on Will Work For Truth

Fragmentation--A Decade of Cinema

2011-01-02T17:10:00.000-08:00

Well, everyone else is doing their "decades' best movies" lists, so I'm going to do one, too. Mainly because all the other lists are either too long (100 movies!? Jeez, 2/3 of those have to suck simply due to the law of averages) or they are just wrong (Gigli is NOT one of the best movies of anything. ANYTHING.) And hey, maybe you'll find a movie on here you always wanted to catch but never did.

I won't be putting any documentaries on this list, although I suggest two right off hand that could EASILY be on any top ten list for this past decade in film: Man on Wire(James Marsh, 2008) and The Grizzly Man (Werner Herzog, 2005) are must sees.

So what makes a great movie worthy of my list? Well, I have to like it. Duh. A movie, however critically acclaimed or how many box office records it smashed, is not going to get my vote if I yawned while watching it. Other prereqs might include things like direction, acting, and all the technical mumbo jumbo that goes into production. But then there's the impact equation. Did the film do something in the world? Did it make a statement or introduce an avenue of delivery we haven't seen before--or at least for a long time? Hopefully every one of these movies did something-something-besides just being entertaining. But...entertaining is good too, in fact, it may be the number one prerequisite.

So, here ya go. One guy's opinion on the ten--well, twelve, but I'll explain that below--best movies of the years 2001-2010.

1. City of God(2002) Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund

As you'll see, 2002 was a great year for movies, both foreign and domestic. And anything I could say about this instant masterpiece has either already been said, or wouldn't do it justice. I will say, however, that fluidity is key in film-making and this decade (as you'll also see below) challenged the limits of how far a director can go before losing his narrative, plot or storyline and with the loss of any of the above, the audience. City of God drives home a message we could all use a little reminder of. What is it? Go watch it and you tell me. I'm convinced you'll get a knock in the head--or the heart. It's just that damned good.

Best Line: Oh hell, I don't know. The whole movie is rife with quotables. How 'bout this one:

"Fuck! I'm dead!"

2. The Lord of the Rings (Trilogy--although, I'd say The Two Towers was the best made)

We're Tolkien fans. We read all the books. We read all the supplements. Hell, we even took Tolkien classes in college. Dorks. So, needless to say, we were all really concerned when we heard some no-name director was going to make these films. Oh great! Something must be done! We joined the fan club to keep an eye on things. We bitched and moaned when we heard Glorfindel was out and Haldir was in. We even chuckled a little bit at some of the line-switching that got leaked. They were going to screw this up beyond all hope. No question. Then, the day came. We stood in line. We sat in awe. We walked out speechless. Kudos Mr. Jackson. Kudos.

Best Line: John Rhys Davies: "Nineteen! Twenty! Twenty-One!"

Mwahahaha!

3. Lost in Translation(2003) Sofia Coppola

So, when the "find the X" theme is utilized successfully, any writer can spin the yarn, any director knows how to spin the reel and any actor knows how to spin toward toward the X. X marks the spot. Unless, the 'X' happens to be one's place in life. No one quite knows how to do that. Enter Sofia Coppola and her all star cast and crew. Wow. Unbelievably done. I'm not saying anything else about this movie. Watch it. Watch it again. You'll never see Murray better than this, unfortunately. It just can't possibly happen. Can it?

Um, did you know that Sofia Coppala is Nicholas Cage's cousin? Loves me some Wikipedia.

Best line: "My name is Kawasaki. Nice to meet you."
                 "I've heard of you. Thank you."

4. No Country for Old Men(2007) Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

So all the talk is about Javier Bardem, right? Who the HAY is Javier Bardem? Well, now we know. Damn, do we know. I'm not sure what Bardem was in this film, the angel of death, a deranged sociopath, a...whatever. I don't know. But he scares the shit out of me. It's a movie about age and death in an age of death. Sick. Twisted. Coen.

Best lines:
Anton Chigurh (Bardem): Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor : Call it?
Anton Chigurh : Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor : For what?
Anton Chigurh : Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor : Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh : You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor : I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh : Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it.

5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon(2000) Ang Lee

Ok, so I'm kind of cheating here. This movie came out in 2000, but...BUT! It didn't have time to make anyone's best of the last decade list, so it's going here. Critics, when they speak of this film, are always alluding to it's global marketing strategy. I'll note, it was an amazing endeavor that involved everyone from the Wu Tang Clan to college professors, but there had to be a reason why they fell in love with this movie, right? Right. Because it's freaking awesome! I mean...jumping off leaves and flying around like some shen/god/badass? We're there, dude. Beautifully choreographed. Epically spun story of love and betrayal entrapped in that pristine once-was world of virgin magic and grace--wow. Just wow. It's hard to even get to the point where we notice the actors in this film for what they did, but we have to. Yun-Fat Chow, Michelle Yeoh and Ziyi Zhang, are the trifecta of everything that is "mastery" and the coalescence of the universal, silver-screen love-triangle.

Jen Yu (Zhang): You want to know who I am? I am... I am the Invincible Sword Goddess, armed with the Green Destiny that knows no equal! Be you Li or Southern Crane, bow your head and ask for mercy! I am the dragon from the desert! Who comes from nowhere and leaves no trace! Today I fly over Eu-Mei. Tomorrow... I topple Mount Wudan!

I give up!

6. Memento(2000) Christoper Nolan

Ok, I'm cheating again. But this is the last time, I promise! Again, this is a 2k movie that didn't nearly have enough time to garner enough support for wowieness. And it has that. A ton of it.

Every once in a while, a movie comes along and changes the way we view cinema, if not our own world. This movie, for myself at least, did both. I actually run into people all the time who have not yet seen this Nolan work of genius (by that I mean both Christopher and his brother Jonathan who wrote the story), so I'll not give anything away. If you do see it or have seen it, you'll understand how some other movies came to the fore a little later on in the decade. Both Guy Pearce and Joe Pantoliano deserve a lot of credit for their roles in leaving a beautiful scar on movie history's rosy cheek. Suberb.

Best lines:
Leonard Shelby(Pearce): [running] OK, so what am I doing?
[sees Dodd also running]
Leonard Shelby : Oh, I'm chasing this guy.
[Dodd shoots at Leonard]
Leonard Shelby : No... he's chasing me.

One of the greatest scenes ever filmed. Ever.

7. Donnie Darko(2001) Richard Kelly

I have to say, when someone first told me to see this movie, I was like "what, that sounds stupid. Donnie what? Darko? Dumb."

I was wrong.

Being a fan of horror and of good writing both, I can't not like this film. The direction, of course, is what makes it stick, but the story itself demands fragmentation in the same way Memento, Moon and Eternal Sunshine attempt to harness. And while Memento was the linchpin of the decade of fragmented movies, this one is sewn together the best. Are there things I don't like about Darko? Sure. And that's why it's below Memento on the list. But there are plenty of goodies to love about this neo-noir-horror-slash-thriller-slash-what-the-hell-is-going-on-here-flick. Darko is the shroud that blanketed the decade in cinematic muck. It was the muck movie makers ensconced themselves in until about the time Little Miss Sunshine came along and tried to take it all away. Was there a glimmer of light at the end of the Darko tunnel? Go see for yourself, if you dare.

Best Line:
Donnie(Jake Gyllenhaal): I made a new friend today.
Dr. Lilian Thurman : Real or imaginary?
Donnie : Imaginary.

8. Moon(2009) Duncan Jones

I don't care what anyone says about me putting this movie on the list. It is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made. And if I'm a fan of horror, I'm an uber fan of science fiction. Go suck a Gerty if you disagree.

Let me ask you this: If you were going to cast an actor to play a monotonous robot who better could you get than Kevin Spacey?

Answer: No one on God's green Earth.

Let me ask you this: If you wanted to make a soundtrack that was spatial, eternal, and intrinsically isotropic, who better could you get than Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream)?

Answer: No one in the Universe.

Let me ask you this: If you were going to cast a guy that would be the only character in a basically one-man cinematic event of Epic porportions, who better could you cast than Sam Rockwell?

Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE PERSON IN THE ENTIRE MULTIVERSE.

What's this you say? Who is Sam Rockwell?

Answer: I'm not telling. I'll let Moon tell you. You be the judge, but I absolutely fell in love with this guy after this role. Unreal--and that's the trick. Kudos Mr. Rockwell. If I were an academy judge, you would have won, big time.

Being a huge fan of Philip K. Dick, I would recommend this movie to anyone of kindred affinities. You can thank me later.
And you will.

P.S. Don't think Duncan Jones is a PKD fan? Think again. From IMDB: Duncan Jones is planning a follow-up film, which will serve as a semi-sequel to Moon. "Sam has agreed to do a little cameo in the next film," says Jones, who plans to shed some light to the fate of Sam-6 after XXXX---SPOILER---XXXX. At Cannes Film Festival, he mentioned that his next movie would be the spiritual descendant of Blade Runner, set in the same universe and timeline as Moon. It is not clear if he's referring to the same planned movie or not.

Best Line:
Sam Bell (Rockwell): "Listen, why don't you relax. Why don't you take a pill, bake a cake, go read the encyclopedia."

That's actually a curiouser question than you might think.

9. Hero(2002)Yimou Zhang

This was a no-brainer for me. I'm a fan of the big Pan-Asian classics so going into this one I was pleasantly surprised that the spoilers I'd come into contact with were totally off-base. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ran and Yojimbo both, but that had been done. Ya know?

I'll be the first to admit that Jet Li, much like his American bad-dude counterparts (Stallone, Norris, what-have-you) can absolutely not act. I think if you go in with that in mind, you're in for a major surprise. In Hero, Li is up to the task, handles brevity and longevity both very well, and, in my humble opinion left to shame our American heros of decades past.

Hero is as much a film about color as it is about swordsmanship and calligraphy. Pay attention to how Yimou Zhang uses colors in this movie and you'll never look at film, real film, through the same old gray-scale action lens again. Everything is a character in Zhang's world. Depictions, be they swirling leaves or the desert itself are creations--actors even in this film. These are the pictorial glue that indelibly bind this film and all it's fragmented parts as whole. Life, death, wont, sorrow, peace--everything is a bold, gliding stroke of a calligraphers brush, animated and illuminated in living color.

A classic for the ages.

Best lines:
Nameless (Jet Li): Great calligraphy.
Broken Sword (Tony Leung Chiu Wai): Great swordsmanship.
Nameless : You didn't see my swordsmanship.
Broken Sword : Without it, I couldn't have written this calligraphy.

10. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Michel Gondry

When I said Memento was going to set the precedent for this decade, I wasn't fudging even a little bit. Almost every movie on this list incorporates fragmentation to some degree, possibly none more than this one. And, like Memento, Sunshine takes the fragments of memory to an extreme--except this time, the memory loss is on purpose!

One of the things that most impressed me about Gondry's direction in this film was his ability to separate the action in the uh...real world from the action in memory. That kind of trite, fake, concocted dreamworld we step into when we drudge up memories--Gondry's got it.

Both Carey and Winslet are great in the film, sure, that is to be expected, but the pleasant acting surprise for me came from Kirsten Dunst. I was never sure if Dunst could act or was just lucky to have been cast in a major role when she was knee-high to a vampire. She can act.

At any rate, here's a movie you'll not want to forget.

Best Lines:
Joel (Carey): Is there any risk of brain damage?
Howard (Wilkinson): Well, technically speaking, the operation is brain damage, but it's on a par with a night of heavy drinking. Nothing you'll miss.

A night of heavy drinking? He's obviously doing it wrong.

Um.

Nevermind.

11. Batman: The Dark Knight(2008) Christopher Nolan

Think of the worst movie you've ever seen. Go ahead. Give it some thought.

Got it yet?

Well, whatever that movie was (probably not Troll 2, but something close, amiright?), this movie is the complete polar opposite of that. Guaranteed. The movie you hate was boring, silly, asked no questions of humanity, posed no questions to God or the Universe and made no statement on the teleological nature of humanity's shadowed, yet ever-evolving propensity toward abject oppugnancy. This movie, from beginning to end, stretches those questions into philosophic excogitations of the steepest order.

Bah! It's just a super-hero flick!

Right, but with everything that happened on the set and off, on the screen and in our own minds, it got us thinking. We're still thinking about it to this very day.

Best Line:
Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine): Some men just want to watch the world burn.

:(

12. O brother, Where Art Thou?(2000) Joel and Ethan Coen

And no, this is not cheating. The movie premiered just before the stroke of 2001, so it's in there for this decade.

The Odyssey, hillbilly style. Yeehaw! I honestly don't think I've laughed harder and thought longer about a comedy since The Big Lebowski (Also a Coen Bros. flick).

Highlights:

John Turturro. The more you see this guy, the more you find it hard to ignore his capacity to fill a role completely. One of my fav's.

The Soundtrack. Man, whodathunk that old timer music would catch on fire in 21st Century America? Dunno. But it did. I still listen to it from time to time.

Really, if you haven't gotten around to seeing this movie, do yourself a favor...immediately!

Best Lines:
Delmar O'Donnell (Nelson): Care for some gopher?
Ulysses Everett McGill (Clooney): No thank you, Delmar. One third of a gopher would only arouse my appetite without bedding it down.
Delmar O'Donnell: Oh, you can have the whole thing. Me and Pete already had one apiece. We ran across a whole... gopher village.

Honorable mentions:

This is how people who do top 10's and can't manage to get only 10 on the list make up for it. It wouldn't be so bad if my top 10 didn't have 12 in it already, I know...

Finding Nemo(2003) Stanton and Unkrich

There's really no reason why this movie couldn't have made it on my top ten list except that I've been subjected to seeing it about a million times. Kids, amiright? Pixar did an excellent job from pre-production to delivery on this instant classic tale of "find the X". Just so happened the 'x' in Pixar's equation was a lovable little fish we can probably all relate to.

Best line: "He touched the butt!"

Gross.

There Will Be Blood(2007) Paul Thomas Anderson

I don't know anyone who hasn't seen this movie, but if you haven't, welcome to Earth. I wasn't particularly thrilled with the film as a whole (I know the critics loved it, but meh...) But there are parts, scenes and little glimpses of greatness throughout the entirety of the film. You just have to watch and pick them out for yourself. So why is it here? Easy: Daniel Day Lewis is the greatest actor what ever lived. And if you argue with me on that, there WILL be blood. See the film, Lewis makes any film worth watching at least fifteen times. /mancrush

Best Line: Any time D.D. Lewis opens his mouth.

The Pianist(2002) Roman Polanski

I admit I have a love/hate relationship with Polanski. No matter how much I hate his last movie--whatever movie that may have been(*cough* The Ninth Gate *cough*)--the next one is a usually a work of art. The Pianist is that art at its zenith. Adrian Brodie may have won an Academy Award for this, but it's Polanski that composed every nuanced note in this excellent film. There's something about the reconstruction of destruction that serves as the perfect canvas for film art--especially when Beethoven is echoing through shattered walls and across mounds of rubble. Chaos and Beauty. That's what this film is all about.

Best Line: Moonlight Sonata. Hands down, as it were.

28 Days Later(2002) Danny Boyle

Alright, so, leave the effing monkeys alone, will ya? Yes, I am a huge horror film buff from way back in the Killer Tomato days. I am a sad specimen of humanity. All true. But Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) unleashes a titan with this masterpiece. This film could arguably be the greatest horror film ever made ('happy' endings aside) and probably should be on the top ten for the decade--I didn't put it up there because, well, horror is an acquired taste, especially when zombies are involved.

Best Line: Naomie Harris, "I was wrong when I said that staying alive is as good as it gets."

Ain't that the truth!

The Forbidden Kingdom(2008) Rob Minkoff

Now here's a little tale you have to see for yourself. I'd give it some association like "Karate Kid meets Hero" but that wouldn't be too fair. If you want some serious ass-kicking coupled with a superb "Find the X" theme, this movie should be at the top of your list. Jackie Chan and Jet Li. 'Nuff said.

Cold Mountain (2003)--Anthony Minghela

Here's a movie you must see for one reason and one reason only: Renee Zellweger. You know, I'm not a fan of the 'tough chick' representation on the big screen, they never get it right and there always seems to be way too much acting involved. Zellweger doesn't act in this role. She is that bad-ass, roughneck character. What surprises me is how that little glint of femininity never escapes her persona and in effect, highlights her true grit. Amazingly done. Much like D.D. Lewis in just about every role he's portrayed, Zellweger latches onto something here. This certainly is a work of art and genius. Besides Zellweger, the story's a good'n. The cinematography is great. Everything is fine, really. But it's simply not top 10 material-apart from Zellweger.

Best Line (Zellweger): "Aight then."

Priceless.

That's it.

Will Work For Truth

2010-12-20T08:30:00.000-08:00

We're working on our new site and will be closing this one down. If you're a fan of small government and individual liberty, make sure you check back here for the URL, which will go live and have daily content added after January 1, 2011. I'll post it here in the next few days.

Good luck and Godspeed.

Here's one last ditty, before I go...

Dear distinguished editor,

Thank you for recently publishing the article entitled “Oregon loses jobs, and it’s our own fault”. The article was an insightful and refreshing adventure into the no-holds-barred journalism of old. Rare indeed is the celebratory occasion in which your loyal—yet dwindling number of—subscribers have the pleasure of seeing the fourth estate’s investigative prowess on display. The Oregonian’s coverage of the economic melt down in this state has been par excellence and markedly distinguishable from all other papers of local bent in this nation.

No.

No, it has not.

And you can stop the LexisNexis search for the above-mentioned article. You should know it does not exist.

In fact, one might say (and one is, now) that your paper truly, truly sucks. I don’t care who your new hoity-toity yellow-belly-in-chief is or how many Roman numerals he has in his name. No one does. What people—readers of local daily papers—want is news that answers just a few simple questions: “What” and “Why”, for example. Your paper does a pitifully mundane job at the “what”, and has always been shockingly unengaged in the “why”. There is a third question that should be reticently obvious and automatically answered by the papers’ own name: The Oregonian.

Far too often, I see national goings-on on every prominent page of this supposedly local newspaper…save the quaint little stories about bicyclists who can’t ride a bus because there is no room to put their bikes. Usually, all we get are constant and incessant macaronic bloviations on national health-care reform, the wars in Afganistan and (until recently, for some reason) the war in Iraq. Locally we are enlightened by ramblings and musings of our non-existent clean energy industry, bloggishly simplistic entries mentioning, but never detailing the decline of our fledgling “Silicon Forest”, and maybe, if we’re lucky, we get some Pulitzer prize winning journalism—which is code for “Did what an even worse newspaper (i.e. the San Fransisco Obstacle) couldn’t seem to do.’’ One article on your OregonLive.com site suggested that our economy is “veering away from the abyss” by stating federal spikes in certain corners of the economic equation while suggesting that “Even in Oregon, optimism is growing.” Really? So, it is okie dokie for your journalists to spike opinion pieces with national stats and in turn apply those stats—none of which apply to Oregon—to Oregon? Unreal. But not unbelievable.

The “what” question is really quite simple, to be sure. Anyone can say what just happened. A building burned down. An international truck manufacturer picked up and left town. The carpetbagging “creative class” seeking a “green-friendly” home-city scuttles out of Oregon as quick as they come here. Unemployment skyrockets in just a few months’ time. No one shops downtown anymore. Crime is at an all-time high on MAX lines. No one is hiring. No one is creating new business. Nothing is happening and no one at The Oregonian knows the answer to the more important question: Why?

Just one example of The Oregonian’s failure to answer the question “why” occurred in a story regarding the departure of Freightliner and the impending loss of 900 Oregon jobs. The reasons why Freightliner left weren’t particularly obscure: it came down to profitability. The “why” question was in this sentence:

“Oregon officials expressed their disappointment, but said there was little they could have done to change the conditions that led Daimler to shift all its truck-making operations to the Carolinas and to Mexico.”

Ok…why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Now, certainly, 900 jobs lost is not the entirety of Oregon’s economic bloodstream. But it is arterial to the endemic of lost jobs in this state. Furthermore, if government officials are involved, which the article suggests, then they must have been able, at least theoretically, to do something about the loss of these jobs and this industry. So, why didn’t they? Or, granting them the benefit of the doubt (which The Oregonian forces its readers to do): Why couldn’t they? The newspaper, in over twenty articles on the subject (sorry, I don’t have access to LexisNexis’ entire search capacity. I’m only an unemployed college student, with three little girls to try to feed or I would have found more, trust me.) never once asked any “government official” any “why” questions. The reporters, along with the editors and the newspaper as an entity consistently refuse to ask lawmakers and officials the right questions—if they ask any questions at all. And even if they know the answer, this paper lets more pro-active, under-circulated rags break real news. Which leads me to the fourth question all respectable papers should be at least trying to answer: How?

How can this be?

Far be it from me to question the majesty of the mighty Oregonian, entirely. Honestly, only a handful of people are to blame for not allowing stories to accentuate the “why” and “how” of certain stories. I have been in those offices and have seen the hard work those producers of news task away on daily. And I know the clock cannot be stretched. But how can it be that every other medium including radio, radio for Hirsch’s sake, is killing print journalism? I’ll tell you how: they ask “why.” They ask “how.” “Why” and “how” are the reasons Fox news, its publications and conservative radio and its publications consistently lambastes traditional print media. Bloggers, as well, have learned the gift of asking “how”, and their popularity waxes ever upward. This is not to say that Fox or e-magazines or bloggers are correctly answering the pertinent questions, but simply to say that they are asking the questions with numerous panels, talking heads and, most importantly, members of the national government. But even these organizations, for the most part, are asking softball questions design to re-book government officials, not to offend them or stir up any real controversy.

So where has the Oregonian lined up

So, you see, Oregon is losing jobs and it is our own fault. Or rather, it is your fault. That’s right, it’s the Oregonian’s fault. You refuse to answer the pertinent questions of prominently involved public officials regarding our over-inflated housing market, our double-digit unemployment rate, our inability to attract and retain industry, our constant coddling of an overbloated, second-rate tech industry, our refusal to train and educate entrepreneurs of the future, and our over-all disdain for what makes great cities great: namely, an employed, productive and intuitive workforce that excels, nay, dominates any competition from anywhere else. We’re too busy relegating our masses to waiting for the next bus, hoping there’s a rack on which to mount our eco-friendly rosary beads of the 21^st century.

Francesco's Money Speech--Atlas Shrugged

2010-09-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

The above is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. Ripped directly from Capitalism Magazine and will stay here under Fair Use until they ask me to remove it.

Liberal Racism and the Offer You Can't Refuse

2010-09-29T06:46:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you ever get over to Pajama's media to check out some articles or vids, but I suggest you do. Sure, I'm a Bill Whittle fan (yeah, he's leaving PJTV...boo!), like most middle-aged men would be if they were ever to regain what they had lost through the self-extracting, emasculating days of college. If. But one of my favorite dudes over there at PJTV is Joe Hicks, a straight-talking, no-nonsense, man's man. Love it--in an...ah...manly type of way.

You're going to get a lot of "man-isms" (as my post-colonial literature professor called them) from me. Mainly because...well, I'm a man. Gasp!

Anyway, I was watching Hick's recent video interview with Deroy Murdock (contributing editor, National Review) as the two try to parse out an understanding of why the words "black" and "conservative" have been co-joined in the liberal media as "Black Conservative". Murdock himself underscores the "...capital 'B', capital 'C'".

Interesting.

I'd never thought about it before. And why would I? I'm not black. I'm not conservative. Not in the big "C" sense, anyway. But I got to thinking. I got to thinking about the Sopranos and that shrink Dr. whatsherface. About how her family would complain about guys like Tony Soprano and the bad rap they gave Italian Americans. The Godfather, the Mafia, all that. Admit it: Italian + American = "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse." Right? Well, maybe. It does for me, an Italian American. Of course, that's not really fair. I've been an Italian American for thirty-eight years and I've never once met anyone attached to organized crime...except a few (insert your favorite color here) Dragons--the Chinese and/or Korean gangs. Oh, yeah, and the U.S. government...and Planned Parenthood. That's organized crime at it's pinnacle...nadir...whatever.

Hmm.

Just hmm...that's all.

Chicagoland: Former Portland mayoral candidate assaults activist at Kitzhaber meet and greet

2010-09-25T16:08:00.000-07:00


James Posey, Political Terrorist

If you are not familiar with the shenanigans and brutality of Chicago politics, fear not, the violent politics of the Windy City have finally blown into Portland. Welcome, Portlanders, to the era of thug politics.

At an open-invitation public meet and greet which included Oregon gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber on Thursday, a local activist with a camera met that violent reality face to face. Or fist to face, as it turned out.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE! AND SUBSCRIBE! (or else!)

David Wu smiles for the camera!

2010-09-20T03:20:00.000-07:00

Vintage Wu. Isn't that just an all-star smile? How lucky we are! Our representatives are HAPPY! Just happy-go-lucky. Ah...Not a care in the world.

So happy the press never asks him any questions about anything.

So happy he thinks no one's wise to his happy little syndicate of beltway criminality.

Just happity-hap-hap-happy.

We got news for Wu.

We see right through Wu.

Wu...ps.

Why you follow your gut when accepting friend requests.

2010-09-17T08:09:00.000-07:00

Mainly, I wanted to reject this pompous rat-faced asshat's friend request because he looked like a freakin' serial killer. I left the request unanswered for two weeks, then, after realizing that a ton of my friends were friends with him, I accepted it. Oh, the gut is always right.

Now, listen...I'm not opposed to having a solid debate on term limits. In fact, It's not like I'm diametrically opposed to the idea. I simply want to see empirical evidence that changing our Constitution--that is, The Constitution of the United States of America--forever is a good idea.

Anyway, on to the entertainment...

___________________________________

Alan Levy THERE'S ONE WAY TO PREVENT OUR LAWMAKERS FROM TAKING US INTO NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY --- CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.
12 hours ago
Molly Nesham Lets send them home to learn what it's like to try to find a job and work for a living.
9 hours ago
Alan Levy To which home? The one in Georgetown, the Hamptons, the Bahamas, in their home district or the one they rent out and conveniently forget to report income on?
5 hours ago
Tim Horton We need to solve the problem with pressure and elections, LONG before that issues gets done. Remember term limits would take a Constituitional change. Fix it NOW, @ the ballot box NOW.... at every level, school boards UP.
3 hours ago
Chris Lostaglia
I'd like to see some real scientific work on how exactly term limits would do anything besides limit choice. Just by saying it would do X doesn't even come close to convincing me that one of my choices for representation should be removed E...NTIRELY. But since we're just blowing smoke...I'd wager the landscape of politics WOULD change for certain with term limits: Instead of waiting for super majorities, an even more harried, even more secretive process for legislating would ensue--faster and darker than what we just saw with HCR and TARP. What are you going to give them, 12 years? Have fun sleeping by your toilet in years 11 and 12... But, I'll bet someone will prove me wrong with a nice empirical calculus. Go to it!See More
about an hour ago ·
Alan Levy No one cares about the dribble. Get off your own lazy butt and read. It's posted on the Wall somewhere, for the truly lazy. But anyone can look up the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation. It's allot better checking the definitive sources than popping off silly.
43 minutes ago
Chris Lostaglia
Whoa. Didn't expect that from you Alan. You're right, I never read and I can't think on my own. I am an idiot, which is probably why you sent me a friend request and I accepted.

Here is just ONE argument I can make against term limits. ...And there are MANY MORE. I'll use CATO, since you mentioned them.

ONE: CATO consistently supports a stronger Congressional presence--I have various recordings of lectures I ATTENDED on the very subject. TWO: The administrative branch is term-limited. THREE: By default, a temporally unlimited Congress SHOULD have power over a limited presidential term. FOUR: Congress' power has been waning even AFTER presidential term limits were imposed. FIVE: limiting the duration of powerful members of Congress will further WEAKEN Congress. SIX: CATO is blatantly hypocritical about Congressional term limits and the wont for more Congressional power. SEVEN: You are an ASSHAT BUFFOON.

Here's a clue, you self important, self-insulating robot, don't ask to friend people you're just going to insult. You don't even know me, you pompous, plastic-faced moonbat.
_________________________

Yeah, I'm Mr. Diplomatic. :D It's just the way it is on FB these days. Everyone has to be a complete asshole when they disagree with you.

War. Wah. Blah. Go Git em boys: The Sock Puppet Parade.

2010-09-10T19:39:00.000-07:00

Time for another round of Facebookland.

But before I start, here's a book, you should read it: Ronald Brownstein: Second Civil war (2007).

I haven't read it. It probably sucks. But YOU should read it.

You should read it because it probably reads like its forebears in the genre. Probably a spittin' image. These books, you know, the books about how the doodoo is about to hit and the whole hell in a handbasket moonbattery. I'm pretty sure the big houses used to limit the gloom and doom Civil War 2 type books to one per decade. Not anymore. They'll be everywhere soon. Just watch, you'll see.

And it's not just books, either, is it? It's been illustrated in movies. It's in the papers. It's in video games. It's cable news media--all of them. And the internet. Oh...the internet! It's ... all ... over ... the ... internet. The "violent" protesters at Tea Party rallies are scoffed at and ridiculed while the "peaceful" WTO protesters tip over cars and throw burning trash cans through windows. There is that side. There is this side. They are both violent. They are going to clash. Civil War 2.

That's what they tell us.

And, like the good little sock puppets we are, we fan the flames ourselves. For the record, I am "me" on facebook. Chris Lostaglia. I'm "me" on this blog. C.T. Lostaglia. And I am me on Newsvine, Examiner, on every political blog I write for and respond to. I'm no sock puppet blogarazzi. I have nothing to hide.

But these people on Facebook,--the ones who hide under the guise of nom de plume sock puppetry--they say whatever they want without personal consequence. Their names are Liberty this and Thinker that. They write blogs under completely different nom de guerre's, further padding their limp wrists with more layers of
argyle anonymity. And no, I'm not talking about good blogs with titles such as Cameron Jordan's blog. I'm not even talking about the people who make their "name" under the see-through fish-net stocking of "fill-in-the-blank Pundit". Those people simply lack imagination, or didn't care to come up with a coy title under which to house (pardon the obvious) their opinions.

I am talking about the people (if they really are people and not some Orwellian government conspiracy of hired propagandists...I'M KIDDING!) who engage in anonymous Facebook rhetoric such as this:

I just wonder when the people will exchange their "Don't tread on me signs" for "Lock and Load" signs.
The blood of tyrants and patriots, people!
Civil War is coming. It's unstoppable at this point.
It's alright we got guns, they've effectively legislated themselves into a corner they can't shoot their way out of!
F*** it. Let's roll on D.C.
Forget the koran, let's burn washington.

And on. And on. And on. From the "left" and the "right". These people want a civil war. They are egging it on. Not like the warning issued by most (see Cameron's re-post I linked above--a valid cry for diligence and change through--wait for it--VOTING. Duh.). These are dangerous times. I get that. I do. American civil liberties are at risk. They are. Our penchant for hegemony is putting us all at risk, as well. Dire risk. But to bait people, to goad people into violent insurrection is 100% asshattery...and when done under the blanket of anonymity, it's cowardice.

Ok, so part of this is my fault for accepting friend requests from people I do not know. Granted. You have to expect that you'll find some cracked nuts via the process of social networking. You are networking, it'll happen. And heck, some of the people I've known since college think I'm the whack job for condoning liberty and peace. Yep. Those vile principles of peace and liberty...surely I must be ignorant or uneducated to believe in such nonsense. If only I'd worn my sock puppet, I could be an ignorant, uneducated pundit with no consequences...

So what are the consequences? Well, there's the obvious, self-policing process on both sides, of course. That's the way I like it. You say something vitriolic and inane, I can move along. If I say something you don't like, you can move along. That's great.

But, there are other consequences as well.

But that's just the way the Chinese control attitudes and opinions online, right?

Maybe. But it is coming to America. It is true that Sunstein has re-thought his initial opinion on U.S. internet regulations, but this is how it always works. The presidents men, be they Wilson's brownshirt banker elitists, or the current Wilsonian-Jacobite Obamaniacs with PHD's, take both sides of the issue, so you never know what you're going to get. If you don't know this happens, the sock puppetry of the establishment iron hand has got you gazing at the cardboard cutout mini-stage of American politics like an amused pre-schooler, doesn't it? Look mommy! A donkey!

If you do know this happens, it seems to me, you can take two roads to a solution. You can spew crap on Facebook, or Myspace or wherever about how you're just drooooling over the idea of Civil War 2, or, you can do what real anonymous patriots did in the past: engage in civil discourse, police yourself, maintain some decency and stop the moonbattery.

If you do not, I guarantee you, some future Mao-loving czar will. I guarantee it.

So shut up out of fear? Is that what I'm saying? No. Shut up out of respect, you asshat. The only thing you're doing is fanning the flames of an already raging idea. A very, very bad idea.

Isn't the reason why we hate big government because we are capable of what my aunt used to call "a little self-control". Hey, keep your socks on, I don't care. Whatever. But if we don't know who you are and you are a stuffed sock flapping your fingers with the words of war and civil disobedience and insurrection and crap like that, I won't protect you. And I won't fight any battles on your side. Because you're a coward. An out of control coward who actually needs someone to come along and knock your socks off.

That's all.

Burning Books and Stuff

2010-09-09T08:23:00.000-07:00

I have degrees in literature and writing so it goes without saying that I write and read more than the average person. I guess you could say I'm well read, and no, I don't want to get into any bookworm pissing contest with anyone. I'm just saying, I've read some stuff. I'm a good reader. I'm a close reader. All that stuff. And yes, I write--might not be the next Cormac McCarthy, but I do write...

You know, I can't imagine what it would be like if someone took it upon themself to hate my work so much that they amassed a heap of my *best* work and lit it ablaze. Jeez, that would hurt my feelings, for sure. I might even think about going into fetal hibernation under my bed. Maybe I'd think about changing my name and moving to...somewhere that was not here. I might think about a lot of stuff. Yeah, I might think about it. I wouldn't do it. Wouldn't do anything except keep writing. That's what I would do. Well, ok, I might jump off a bridge if it were someone like my mother or my daughter doing the burning, that would shut me down, for sure. But anything short of familial disparagement is just going to get chocked up to status-quo-class criticism.

Why is that? Why wouldn't I freak out and throw incendiary bombs (linguistic or otherwise) at the people burning my book? Because I live in a world of diverse opinions, with diverse perspectives and diverse attitudes. That's why. I'm used to criticism. Americans are used to that. If you're not, you're leading one helluva sheltered life, or you live with your mother.

You know what? Check this out. I actually did have a guy crumple up something I wrote once and toss it in the garbage can on the way out of class--a class full of students who were listening to me read my story as they were following along. Boink. In the trash. Deep sixed. I mean this guy was a blatant lefty and he didn't even think about recycling it. Trashed. Actually, when he first tossed it he missed the garbage can so he bent over and picked it up with his index finger and thumb as if it were a hardened dog turd and only dropped it into the wastebasket after dangling it there for a few seconds. He smiled while he dangled it. Right at me. Right at my face. Ugh.

Ok, that sucked. But then again, so did what I wrote. It sucked for him at least. Pissed him off even. Whatever.

See? This is why my writing sucks, I'm too tangential. I've got no rigid structure, no...program, as someone once called it. Maybe my writing style is just "diverse". Nah...

So, I wonder about this Quran burning episode that will take place on 9/11/10. And I wonder about Americans. What is it about Americans that they put up with people burning the flag and the Bible even though they hate that it happens, but Muslims will supposedly kill an extra 10,000 infidels if we burn the Quran? I don't know. I'm just thinking...there aren't a lot of Christians in Mecca or Medina. In fact, there aren't any at all. No diversity.

Diversity. God knows I hate that word so much. It usually precede a lecture about how I suck for being a rich, white heterosexual male who enslaves entire races and eradicates other races from the face of the Earth. Well, it does. For the record, I'm not rich. I'm not Caucasian. I've never owned a slave, nor has anyone in my family. And I've never killed or condoned the killing of any human being. Not even Saddam Hussein. Not even Hitler. Not even Kenny Rogers.

Oh, sorry. Writing got diverse there again, didn't it? It's actually working out good, let's keep it up.

More diversity:

I love chocolate cake with cherry flavored frosting. /diversity

Have you ever read the Acts of the Apostles? Did you know that Christians, 2,000 years ago burned books in protest? Did you know this? Act 19:19. Go check it out.

So, what you're telling me is that it's NOT ok to offend the Muslim religion and their tradition by burning their book, but it is ok to offend the Christian religion and their tradition by telling them they cannot burn a book. Hmm. Maybe I was wrong about our "diversity". Wait a second. We don't get the benefit of our own diversity do we? We're expected to be accepting--and particularly accepting of the idea that we're not expecting to be accepted. That's not diversity, now is it? That's writing yourself out of your own story! That's like...like...martyrdom. That's the cultural equivalent of a self perpetuated fetal hibernation. That's death. Suicide. Jumping off the bridge.

Do yourself a favor and go burn a Quran. At least you'll know you're alive.

Feel free to print this out, just so you can toss it in the trash.

Me? I'm going to burn it.

That's all.

The Sunday morning smackback: Is Glenn Beck a Libertarian? Not so fast.

2010-09-05T04:54:00.000-07:00

Twice last week, on Thursday and Friday's television shows, Fox News' Glenn Beck referred to himself as "libertarian". On Thursday he said "a Libertarian", implying of course that his political affiliation lies with the Libertarian Party. On Friday he used the less associative "libertarian", absent the determinate article "a". So what's the difference? Well, a big "L" Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party, usually these people are fairly highly active in politics on varying levels and degrees. A little "l" libertarian is someone who is either unaffiliated or is registered to vote under any political party including the Libertarian Party and share some common beliefs with the big "L" folks. Usually the little "l" people aren't very politically motivated or activated. Usually...

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE (And please subscribe! I get paid for that, you know!)

Islam is a form of Government?

2010-08-22T18:09:00.000-07:00

Jesus said:

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Thereby effectively separating the Church from the State.

But Jesus doesn't stop there:

“If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:19-20)

Jesus separates his followers from the World! The separation of Church and Planet. That's crazy, amiright?

Islam, on the other hand seems ONLY concerned with the position of itself int he world and among this planet's governments:

“You are the best community evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” (3:110).

Sorry about the annoying digitized voice, just mute it and read the whole thing!

Is Islam a religion? Sure it is, but it is a religion that demands all nations bow before it and that it's people be in charge over all the nations.

Hmm. If Islam's religious duties and political aspirations are entwined, I think we have a serious Constitutional problem here. So much for exercising constitutional rights to build a mosque (and yes, it IS a mosque) at Ground Zero in N.Y. (And yes, it IS at Ground Zero). While Christian clergy are ambassadors for an other-worldly power, the very presence of Muslim clergy on American soil is an apparent violation of the United States Constitution.

Links for reading what "moderate" Muslim scholars say about the separation of Church and State:

An FAQ on Islam

Separation Of Church And State (Secularism)

A ProCon wishy-washy fest.

EDIT: I Just ran across this article today...he says EXACTLY what I'm saying about half way through the interview...ah the collective brain is a hummin! A quote from the interview:

We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a first amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake.

That's all.

Grind Zero or Suspicious Packages?

2010-08-11T09:42:00.000-07:00

Alright, help me out! Which name should we use for it?

What name should Greg call his new Ground Zero gay bar?

The things we say

2010-08-09T07:46:00.000-07:00

So...I made a list over the last week of all the things I say to my 2-year-old daughter, and here are the top ten. I tried to make this as scientific as possible...for whatever that's worth. Unbelievable, how little imagination I have:

10. You need to eat that.
9. O.K. (TIE)
9. Be nice (or some form of this) (TIE)
8. You have your own bed; you should sleep in it.
7. Let's go!
6. Do you need to go?
5. Are you going to go or not?
4. Sometimes...I like to eat people!
3. Goodnight.
2. Booboo bear!
1. No.

Freud was right.

Lawrence becomes first ever Libertarian to champion "fusion-lite"

2010-08-05T21:36:00.000-07:00

As a result of last month's Independent Party primary, Jeff Lawrence (LBT, district 3) became the state's first ever Libertarian to carry a second party's flag into the summer campaign season. Lawrence defeated Michael Meo (PGP) in the runoff. This victory for Lawrence means he will have both the Libertarian and the Independent tags next to his name on this fall's voter pamphlet--an advent made possible by a recent ruling in Oregon sometimes referred to as "fusion-lite".

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Three Little Pigs in America

2010-07-30T15:50:00.000-07:00

One day, three young pig brothers from humble beginnings decided it was time to leave and seek their fortunes in the world. And, thinking they had been educated in the best education system in the world, with the best standard of living and with an unsurpassed level of freedom, they set out in different directions to make their marks.

The first little pig was the nicest little fellow you could ever want to meet. Unfortunately, this little pig had somehow fallen through the cracks of the porcine education system and had no clue how to go about starting a life for himself. For a while he joined up with a troupe of traveling flute-playing pigs, but that didn't work out after they infuriated a crowd of Alaskan Mamma Bears. After his narrow escape from that fiasco, he decided he needed help getting settled into a real life and went to the hogs over at the Bureau for the Welfare of Pigs. They set him up with a house--not a great house, it was made out of straw--and a cushy little stipend in order to tide him over until he could figure things out on his own. Every once in a while he took a part-time or temporary job, but nothing ever lasted. His heart wasn't in it. And besides, when he didn't work, he got paid more by the BWP and he didn't have to do anything except have his friend fill out some paperwork for him (he couldn't read very well, even though he graduated from high school). He wasn't happy, per se, but he was glad enough that he had finally "made it" in the world.

The second little pig was a bit more motivated than the first. But luck and time weren't as kind to this little porker as he had hoped. Things weren't bad--far from it--but he knew they could be better. He bought a wooden house, got a job and climbed the ladder, as it were, before hitting the eventual middle-class ceiling. Investment! He thought. That's how I can get ahead. And he did--for a while, anyway. But that's where luck came into play--the bad kind of luck, almost the worst kind. All's not lost, he told himself reassuringly, but he was kidding himself and in his mind fear and uncertainty festered. Eventually, he took out a second mortgage on the stick house. "Don't worry" the banker told him "You'll be fine. And besides, the law requires me to grant you this loan." Well, he wasn't fine. He lost the job he had for almost 10 years and money became as scarce as caviar suet. He tried to keep his chin up. But the bankers were calling and time...well time does what it does: it runs out.

The third little pig was a merry good fellow. And why wouldn't he be? He was a success! He started out slow, yeah, but hard work and resiliency were finally starting to pay off. Sure, he'd had his share of failures...big ones! That's what he learned through life in the world: big risks lead to colossal rewards as well as titanic failures. But nothing stopped him. He tried and tried and tried. After about ten years of trying, he felt as if he'd finally beaten the game. He built himself his dream house in the Hamptons. It was a solid, beautiful, brick structure complete with all the modern amenities...including a hot tub, a Foosball table and yeah, a fireplace. You could say life was good for pig number three, but it wasn't done. Not by a long shot. The third pig was a benevolent character, you know, he offered money and even a job to the second little pig, but was refused. Pride maybe? Thought the third little pig. Well, that can be a good thing, I guess. He offered money and a job to the first little pig as well. The first little pig took the money and said he'd take the job "next week". It was always "next week". At any rate, the third little pig had done well in the world.

Suffice it to say, one day about ten years after the pigs had left to enter the world, a stranger came into town: The Big, Bad Wolf.

He stopped first at the straw house and called out its inhabitant.

"Little pig, little pig, let me come in!"
"No fucking way!" Replied the first little pig.
"Little pig, don't worry! I'm not here to eat you! I see your plight, and the plight of others like you and I'm here to help you foster in an era of fundamental transformation of this society!"
There was a slight pause--long enough for an eye to be batted. And then...
"In that case...OK!"

And the first little pig came out to meet the wolf.

Then the wolf took the first little pig and arm-in-arm they marched down the street to the second little pig's house of sticks (which was kind of falling apart at this point).

"Little pig, little pig let us come in!" They yelled.
"Brother?" Replied the second little pig in a whimper, "What are you doing with that wolf?"
"Fear not my brother! We're working together for the greater good!"
"Well...I don't know..." The second little pig was a bit apprehensive--until the wolf started speaking.
"Little pig! You are oppressed! You are a victim of a society that harms you! Why, look at your brother's house down the street! It is plush and solid and he has Foosball for crying out loud! It's not your fault he got lucky and you struck out! Some of that should be yours!"

And that was all it took. Now all three were marching in the street toward the third pig's house.

When they got there, they had somehow acquired pitchforks and torches (I dunno...it's a fairy tale, these things happen). And they stood in the yard of the third little pig chanting and yelling for him to come out. Well, the third little pig was no dummy. He knew what was happening. Time to pay the piper--and after all he'd done to try to help these little hogs. One thing was for sure: he wasn't going without a fight. So when they yelled:

"Little pig, little pig, let us come in!"

He did nothing.

That's right, he ignored them. They'll go away after they grow tired of trying to blow this house down. Sure, he looked at the gun closet and thought about opening it and pulling out his threaded barreled, semi-automatic AR-15 carbine with flash suppressor and laser sight to make pork chops out of his brothers, but he declined. They'll come to their senses and go away.

But they did not go away. The grew louder and more obnoxious. Finally, at about three o'clock in the morning, the third little pig had to respond. He opened his bedroom window and looked down on the trespassers

"What exactly is it you want?" He asked them

"We want justice!" Blurted out one of his brothers--but the wolf silenced him with a wave.

"Little pig, little pig, let us come in." Said the wolf, calmly.

"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin." Came the melodic reply.

"Then we'll huff and we'll--" The wolf stopped mid-sentence...

"Then we'll huff and we'll--hang on a second." The wolf reached into a sack attached to a stick he'd been carrying around and pulled out two teleprompters on stands (don't ask how they fit in the sack--it's STILL a fairy tale...)

The third little pig rolled his eyes, rested his weary piggy face on his little piggy hand and waited for the wolf to set up his get up.

"Ahem." The wolf cleared his throat before continuing. "Then we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll-"

"Blow my house in?" The third pig interjected sleepily. "I've heard it all before."

Well, this interruption infuriated the wolf who had known all along that they could never get that third little pig out of the house to join their crusade.

"That's it fellas." He said to his portly cohorts. "On the roof! We're goin' in!"

And up they went. The third little pig, fearing for his life, quickly lit a fire in the fireplace and stoked it as hot as it could get, just in case they tried to come down the chimney--which they eventually did. Down they came, all at once. Blam, Blam, Blam! The wolf seized the third little pig before he could reach his gun. The first little pig shook his fist and yelled angry things at his more successful brother. The second little pig made no noise at all. He was dead. Burned up in the boiling hot water in the kettle. "I smell dinner!" Yelled the Big bad wolf. "Yum!"

The first and third little pig sat there, dejected, as the Big Bad Wolf finished his meal. The first little pig knew he had been "snookered". The third little pig was just plain saddened.

"Alright, that's enough of this sulking around." Said the wolf to the third little pig. "Get outta here, go live in your brothers wooden house. And be happy I don't eat you, too." The third little pig moped slowly out of the house he had built and headed for the stick house of his brother.

"What about me?" said the first little pig with a smile. Certainly he expected to get something out of this.

"You?" asked the wolf snarkily while wiping his furry chin with the tablecloth. "You get outta here, you get NOTHING!" The wolf yelled the last word so loudly, the furniture in the house vibrated and slid across the floor.

"Nothing?" The first little pig asked timidly.

"Well..." Thought the wolf momentarily, "alright, take the Foosball table."

And so the first little pig dragged the table down the street, past the dying flames of torches, past the disheveled third brother who stared at him with sad eyes from the stick house and then finally, to the straw house, where he would live out his days, betrayed, victimized and ostracized.

But hey, Foosball's fun, right?

Wayne Allen Root

2010-07-25T13:48:00.000-07:00

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT:

Barach Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care.Â It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?Â Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government.Â Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

We can stop the DISCLOSE Act.

2010-07-21T16:18:00.001-07:00

Dear Friend in Liberty,

We can stop the DISCLOSE Act.

The Establishment Protection Act (a much more fitting name for DISCLOSE) will infringe on our privacy, limit our right to free speech, and silence C4L and like-minded organizations that hold the statists accountable.

Before the bill passed the House, it was changed to include more provisions to benefit the government’s Big Labor pals and to obtain further details on those who would challenge their actions.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Establishment Protection Act isn’t just aimed at large donors. Those who have given as much as $600 could be targeted by federal bureaucrats. And you can be sure they won’t remain content very long with even that much information.

Here are some ways you can help continue the battle and defeat this powergrab:

1.) Contact Senator Jeff Merkley at (202) 224-3753 and Senator Ron Wyden at (202) 224-5244 and demand they defend the First Amendment. Urge them to oppose the Senate bill, S. 3295, as well as the House-approved version and any other attempts to limit our free speech.

2.) Get local. Find your state here and make sure you’re involved with all of your local C4L's efforts to reclaim your state for liberty. You can also stop by your senators' local offices to personally ask them to fight the Establishment Protection Act.

3.) Call the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and tell them to actively oppose the Senate bill. Without their compromise in the House, the bill would have likely died without a vote.

4.) Forward this email to your family, friends, and coworkers. Ask them to join you in fighting the Establishment Protection Act.

The August congressional recess is almost here, and legislators are scrambling to limit as many of our freedoms as they can before heading home.

The First Amendment and C4L’s ability to fight the statists’ plans are under heavy assault. Please contact your senators today and tell them to OPPOSE DISCLOSE.

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

Mark Levin...For you

2010-07-20T01:41:00.000-07:00

Mark Levin is just another one of those blatherers who insists on duct-taping the words "Judeo" and "Christian" together to further his propensity for moral regulation. He's a sickening fraud to liberty. I graciously extend my middle finger to you, Mr. Levin.

How did the term Judeo-Christian come about? It's a WWII term concocted by international socialists in their attempt to propagandize the American citizenry against national socialism. National Socialism (NAZI) was/is pretty freakin' heinous. But International Socialism (USSR) was/is far more disgusting and denigrating to the concept of Natural Law. The only thing worse than propaganda is using freeze-dried propagandistic terms YOUR ENEMY CONCOCTED to promote your own propaganda. And that's what Mark Levin does at every turn.

I'm not going to write a three thousand page thesis on how silly I find Mark Levin to be, but I'll give one example from his little rag of a book called Liberty to Tyranny. This is from the ON FAITH AND THE FOUNDING chapter from that "book":

"In his 1964 speech accepting the Republican nomination for president, Senator Barry Goldwater declared that "those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as author of freedom."
While in his later years Goldwater denounced certain proselytes, in this, his most important speech, his call to God's will and the founding--linking one to the other--could not have been more unequivocal."

Now, ahem. "Goldwater denounced certain proselytes"? Who? Why? Dontcha think that's a little bit important? I'll tell you why:

Because they tried saying the same *#$!(#% things Mark Levin just said before he quoted Goldwater--and they too said these things for profit. Goldwater hated that.

The Great One, huh?

Again, using the propaganda of his betters to promote a tired agenda. Is God the author of freedom, yeah, according to Natural Law--the philosophy this nation really was founded upon--He is.

Does that mean we're a "Judeo-Christian" country? For the love of Barry Goldwater, NO!

That's all.

Words of Wisdom

2010-07-17T02:48:00.000-07:00

"The free market allows people to go into any industry they want, to trade with whomever they want, to buy in the cheapest market around the world, to sell in the dearest market around the world. But, most important of all, if they fail, they bear the cost."

--Milton Friedman, Genius.

Let this be a lesson to you, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama and Mr. Whoeverisnext.

That's all.

Hic Iacet Bonum Membrum Virile

2010-07-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

So I'm pondering--rather loosely--Benedick's character in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. Since I'm now officially "adept in Latin" (which is to say, I have my portable Latin dictionary on me at all times--which is also to say: adeptus in Latinam--didn't really need a dictionary for that), and since I have a notion that Bill (Mr. Shakespeare to you) likes to play with names, I thought instantly about a smart ass uncle I used to have when I read some lines of Benedick in this play.

But before I let humor (pick a humor, any humor) sweep this pile of wordplay into some lapsus linguae (a slip of the tongue) let me just say this about that. Bene, as you probably know, means (gasp!) "good", in Latin. as in "well" or "thorough", we just say "good" in English, because we're lazy:

"How are you?"

"Good."

"How's the food?"

"Good."

"How's work?"

"Good."

"You're a dick."

Good.

I'm just going to mix things up from now on and answer like Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York: a nice, toothsome, Bene. If you haven't seen it, just do your best Italian papa tasting the sauce before dinner impression: Bene!

That's the ticket.

Usually the name Benedick is spelled with a "ct" at the end. Hence: Benedict. I say usually, you may know better what name was what in the bene old days, than I. At any rate, "dict" cometh from dictum, which, in Latin, means: that which is said. Or, perhaps more apt for Much Ado, dictum could mean "witticism". So his name, this Benedick fellow, should mean: Good Wit. Bene=Good. Dictum=Wit. I guess I can buy that...

But that's not his name, now is it? Ok, so, "bene" (D.D. Lewis style, if you please) still means "good", and dick...well, that is D-I-C-K. See? Lapsus linguae.

Applies a whole other level to: "You're a Dick." "Good." Doesn't it?

Off the record, my wife thinks I have a serious Freudian thing going on in my head. My favorite book of all time is Moby Dick and my favorite author is Philip K. Dick. I'm not sure what to do with that...Maybe I'll speak more Latin. Helps me cope. Membrum virile?

We can't possibly argue this Benedick's propensity (Latin: propondere), toward wit. He's one witty dude (No Latin dictum for "dude", sorry). Which leads me back to the uncle I used to have. He used to say things like this Benedick character, except he had no D.D. Lewis qualities about him whatsoever. He was a Nebraska feller, complete with the Midwest way of talk, so maybe you can imagine him belting out: "Well dip me in apple butter and call me a muskret!"

I have no idea what that means, but it was pretty funny when he said it.

I remember some old ninny or other was always telling that uncle of mine to "pipe down!" But he wouldn't. He loved it when they told him to stop. He got worse. Kind of like our pal Benedick. "Strike up the pipers!" That was his response, his, yeah, this is an easy one: modus operandi.

I say whenever someone says something like "Strike up the pipers!", the only response should be "Bene!"

Here is my favorite quote from Benedick:
        "Hang me in a bottle like a cat and shoot me!"

Much Ado, much like this stupid blog post, is just an excuse to exemplify wit. That's what it seems like. There are these people dressing up to trick those people who are tricking someone else...even their language out of guise is a guise. That old uncle of mine said all those funny euphemistic things...I still don't know what any of them meant:
          "Well, paint me in polka dots and call me a curly!"

What the hell does that mean?! Dunno.

But it's bene.

Why does the guy that shoots Benedick get to be called "Adam"? Is that a good thing? No idea.

I know if someone shot my good dick, I'd be calling him something nastier than "Adam".

Here's the point: I can't hyper analyze it all. Who can? I'm certain being called Adam means something--in fact, I looked around and found a few conflicting reports on the whole cat in the jar deal. And now I'm just confused, not entertained. Non bene. Yeah, yeah, I know you never thought shooting the cat in the jar was funny in the first place. I told you, I'm from Nebraska, which gives me license to laugh at the cat in the jar joke and you license to laugh at my hillbillity which gives me license to laugh at your snobbery and pretty soon we're in the middle of Much Ado About Nothing ourselves, realizing we've just accomplished nothing so we add some Latin nomenclatures and go to quarto.

Fine, here we are. In the play. I get to be Benedick. We can get serious about something else. Not this one. Sometimes you just get to laugh! That's what this play is all about: "A college of wit-crackers cannot flout me out of my humour." (V, III,101)

And when the old hags yell: "Pipe down!" I get to say:
           "Think not of him till tomorrow: I'll devise thee brave punishments for him. Strike up pipers!"

Bene.

Multo Bene.

Copland

2010-07-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

Here is another example of the Oregonian missing the mark on a story.

I do believe the 14th amendment and our supreme court have both imposed the 4th amendment on our states. That's the issue here, they took his property, destroyed a portion of it and then returned it in a compromised state. This is illegal, and THIS is why they settled.

See also: Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Keep the gestapo bullshit in the sullied annals of history, please.

As far as recording cops and their supposed "expectation of privacy"...that's all really laughable. Welcome to the 21st century, morons. You've got no expectation of privacy in public. You've got no expectation of privacy as a public official. Yeah. NONE.

Dying for It

2010-07-08T14:33:00.000-07:00

Anyone who spends any amount of time talking to me comes to find out that one of the most intriguing characters of all time to me was Peter the Hermit. If you know nothing about Peter the Hermit, you can easily learn the basics in a quick Google search. But I'll tell you this: Peter led a group of common folk to the Holy Land in what came to be known as a "popular crusade". His goal, for better or for worse, was to appeal to the banditry of the region, to try to get them to stop persecuting Christian pilgrims. Certainly the thuggees of the middle east wouldn't dare to hinder the path of women, children and the elderly, right? One would think. But we know that Peter's gambit failed and the majority of the group he led were slaughtered, captured, raped, robbed or enslaved.

I recently ran across an article about the effects of the DDT ban in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.7 million people dead from a disease--a disease which we have the cure for in our hands, but do not use.

Environmentalism is the Popular Crusade of our time. And we'll all die for it. Don't think for one minute they'll stop with the killing of Africans. They will come for you, Inquisition style.

Did I mention that Peter wasn't among the victims on the Crusade? Nah, he sat back in Constantinople, safe from his own cause.

Where's Al Gore building his new house? Anyone know?

That's all.

Family Friendly Prose from J-Slog Sunday Presents: All Together Now

2010-07-01T12:10:00.000-07:00

Bipartisanship.

Loathe.

Different is better because it is not you.

I don't want to hold your hand.

I hate the Beatles and especially John Lennon.

Imagine.

Imagine me sticking a slab of C4 on your mother's Beatles LP collection and watching little shards of vinyl launch into the sky. What would those records sing as they whirred through the air with the greatest of ease?

All together now.

1-2-3-4.

Duck.

Libertarians represent at America Speaks

2010-06-27T00:03:00.001-07:00

I couldn't believe my eyes Saturday morning. Libertarians came out in solid numbers, across the nation, to participate in what is now being hailed as the largest town hall discussion in the history of our nation: America Speaks. To be able to participate instantly with other concerned citizens of all political banners was quite a feat. I was impressed by the sheer scope of the event and by the utilization of 21st century technology to bring people together in one virtual town hall meeting. I have sent a letter of personal thanks to the groups' organizers for their efforts.

We had a good day today, I think we made contact with a whole bunch of people who will be inclined to look to alternative candidates without the cloudy mist of confusion and general lack of knowledge about our Libertarian values. After years of shouting into the wind, technology has proven to be our benefactor in diffusion. I can't tell you how exciting this is about to get!

At the event, we sat in groups of eight or so people around a table with one goal in mind: generate a 1.2 trillion dollar decrease in the fiscal deficit by the year 2025. Lofty? Yes. Unrealistic? Maybe. Sounds like a job for a Libertarian!

I have to admit, amid all the praise I have for America Speaks, the process did have a somewhat ubiquitous feel to it. 1.2 trillion is totally incomprehensible and got to be cliché near days' end. I didn't see a comprehensive view of the problem we faced and the information about the debt supplied by sponsors was sophomoric--not on every level--but, enough to make me take pause. There was not one mention of debt monetization in the literature or discourse; not one mention of our trade deficit.

I will say that I thought people worked together quite well despite our differences. There was one little wrinkle in our coming-together-of-the-minds operation though. One guy called me a Nazi because I suggested we not interrupt each other and take turns voicing our opinions as opposed to engaging in less-productive cross-talk and banter. This fellow, a stark-raving Trotskyite, stormed out of the Convention Center after throwing a Nazi/F-word/blah blah blah verbal cocktail my way. I thought he was going to punch me but I think he suddenly remembered the Libertarian stance on the 2nd Amendment, because he just stormed out. After that, the dialogue was encouragingly diplomatic. My table was pretty much filled occupied by left-of-center democrats and a token socialist/eco thug (every other word was either cap and/or tax). By the end of our 6-hour negotiations, I had them agreeing to abolishing the IRS code and 15% spending cuts across the board. I could not overcome a deep-seeded, latent fear of allowing people to manage their own SSI via savings accounts, but who can blame them since they undervalue the government's role in this current fiscal "downturn"? I had to concede an unrealistic 90% taxable income increase that amounted to nothing less than a pipe-dream. They really didn't grasp-or want to grasp-the tax system (which as probably why they finally agreed to put the kybosh on the whole IRS thing!) and failed to comprehend the effect taking 33% of 90% of say, 400,000 would have on their local economies alone. It was 6 hours, I can only do so much.

Here's what I learned, really:

1. People are looking for answers and their general distrust of government is a tool that is driving Libertarian thinking out from the Underground, into the mainstream.

2. Whether it's cliché or p.c. or whatever, people want to come to a consensus solution on this problem. I heard "bipartisan" over and over on Saturday.

3. People think we can get it done. Period. Americans are so cool like that, they believe anything is possible.

My line of the day in response to a complaint that my fiscal policy suggestions were "throwing the baby out with the bathwater":

"Ok. But I have to inform you, that's not a baby, it's a dead possum we only think is a baby because we do nothing but coddle it endlessly".

All in all, I thought it was a good exercise and suggest to anyone who has a chance to participate in the next one to do so.

Feel free to forward this to your own libertarian/fiscally conservative friends...or even your l-o-c democrat friends, who need it the most.

Yours in Liberty,

Chris Lostaglia

Campaign Manager, Jeff Lawrence for Congress

www.votejefflawrence.com

The Munchausen Politic Part Two: Educating Big Bad Wolves

2010-06-22T15:51:00.000-07:00

On June 18th, Kyle-Anne Shiver posted an American Thinker article about what she feels is necessary for conservatives to do: re-educate a liberal near you with "facts" and "truth".

Oh, how noble! To sway the mind of one's enemy and to bring harmony to the land through knowledgeable discourse!

How unrelentingly noble!

And utterly, pathetically, stupid.

I'm fairly conservative as Libertarians go, you know. But some of my stances, my Libertarian foundation, if you will, just pisses Republicans off to no end. For instance, while I'm not going downtown to celebrate "diversity" on Gay Pride day--I'm also not going to tell them they can't do it, and will encourage them to do so. If you got it, no matter what it is, I say flaunt it, because no one else is going to do it for you. Example two: I have never smoked a joint in my life...but I aint gonna tell you that you can't do it. There are plenty of "conservatives" and "liberals" out there who will tell you what to do all ready, you don't need my input.

I'm a Paulist-Dualist, Rothbard-Jeffersonian, Kierkegaardian-Subjectivist, Anti-Fundamentalist/Fundamentalist who believes faith is higher than reason. Ironically--or hypocritically--then, I'll be the first to tell you that I base my position on reasonable, result-based logic, and not blind faith. I understand, to a fault at times, the complexity of creating a self-perpetuated belief system and the process of pulling constructable materials from each of the aforementioned philosophic architects in building my own house. The Lostaglia House, as it is. There is nothing more powerful than that--to develop your own, personal philosophical infrastructure and reside there in confidence. To build your spiritual and political house on the foundations of great thinkers requires a complex blueprint that, when fully constructed, is impervious to fire and tyrants, to earthquakes and big bad wolves.

Ah. Libertarians. Such easy prey. They don't stick together, they never agree on anything, they can't win an election, let alone get a decent percentile vote in any race. Lovable losers? Maybe. But the jury is out on whether it's harder work perfecting the "lovable" part or the "loser" part.

Shiver's article is all about making noise. It's good to see the upsurge of political thought in this country of late (even if I'm sheltered from it by the machine of liberal tyranny here in Oregon, we get a taste of it here and there). But, we've seen this all before. The gated-community of our moral betters is the resting place of Neo-Conservatism. Think this, don't think that. Hell, even the title of Shiver's article is self-inclusive: "So What's a Patriot to do?" Only people who think like Shiver are patriots, apparently. Gated-community, I say.

The gated community teaches that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition. That's interesting since the term "Judeo-Christian" wasn't even coined in 1776...or 1876 for that matter. There is ample evidence to suggest the term Judeo-Christian is a World War II phrase concocted by Imperial Socialists attempting to reinforce solidarity against National Socialists. How apropos then, that the new right has taken the phrase on so hardily. Funny how two things as different as Judaism and Christianity can, through time and a little mass engineering, become hyphenated buddy-buddies. Well, Jews certainly are the pinnacle of moral enforcement throughout the world's history; read Leviticus for crying out loud. And Jesus did travel around with hookers and various and sundry low-lives. There's simpatico there, for sure! I think Leviticus says something about an eye for an eye and Jesus says something about cheek turning. Pretty sure Jesus Christ was arguing against the Levites for pretty much the entire time he was on the planet. And I'm pretty sure it was those very same Levites who wanted him dead. Hmm...anyone else sensing some dichotomy there?

The gated community insists that their newfangled version of Levitical social morality is enforceable. That's not what Goldwater said, now is it? That's not what Burke, the father of conservatism, argued when he separated the beautiful from the sublime. Good God, people, you've destroyed conservatism by slamming your dogmatic roof of "that which is beautiful" on the House of The Almighty, which is the awesome, impervious, impregnable fortress of the Sublime. Only God gets to impose moral authority upon Sodom and Gommorah--whether literally with fireballs or figuratively through Natural Law's restrictions on asexual reproduction in mammalian lifeforms. Pick one. I don't care. Whatever you choose, remember this: Only Nature's God gets to hand down tablets of Law--literally or figuratively. Only Nature's God can make the decision to destroy. You, I'm greatly relieved to report, do not. YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHERS SAID THIS!

Conservatism.

Gated Community of hypocrites. Gonna be kind of hard re-educating a Liberal when you can't even educate yourselves. Half the Neo-Cons out there make fun of Neo-Cons. They don't even see the log in their own eye...

News Flash: You're a Neo-Con if you think we have the right to impose our will by force across this, God's Green Earth. You're an Neo-Con if you think personal decisions should be weighed against the "greater good". You're a Neo-Con if you value safety over independence, to ANY degree greater than spelled out in Madison's unparalleled canon otherwise known as The Constitution of the United States of America--a testament your own Conservative tradition has deemed confluent with Natural Law. I don't care how loud Mark Levin yells or how many dittoheads have been brainwashed. They are not Conservatives. They are muckrakers hell-bent on making a buck. Tyranny, Mr. Levin, is the profiteering of mass delusion via revisionist snake oil sentimentality. Go ahead and yell. Make some noise like Shiver wants you to do. I was here in '94, I know where that noise gets you. Liars. Yes, Mr. Levin. You are a liar. And you too, Mr. Hannity. Not one thing will get done. Not one. It's a 1994 deja vu all over again.

Judeo-Christianity... Talk about putting some sheep's clothing on a wolf.

We Libertarians prefer, emphatically, the unkempt house (that's "rustic" in NeoCon terms) in the country-side to the people-farm gated community of elitist hypocrisy-ville. I can fix that dilapidated farmhouse any way I like...or not. Have fun filling out the necessary triplicated forms at gated community headquarters in order to scratch your ass on your own front lawn.

Have fun with that, Mr. Judeo-Christian. Mr. Little Bad Wolf. Have fun, Mr. Patriot.

Hey look, I respect Israel and their right to exist as a nation. No question about it. But, let's face it, in order to be a Christian, you have to respectfully (or otherwise) disagree with Judaism--a belief system that insists on the illegitimacy of Christ himself. Let's stop this Judeo-Christian nonsense simply because it heightens our sense of continuity against a common foe: the Muslim Terrorist. Certainly I don't want to die to a terrorist bomb. No sir. But I will not sacrifice my independence to spiritual terrorism, either. And that is what belief in Jesus Christ frees me from. I am not a Judeo-Christian.

Hey Mr. Neo-Con Wolf, I won't come over to your side, ever. But I'll tell you what, you come huffing and puffing around my front door, be prepared to have your sheeple cloak defrocked and incinerated in the fires of the Tread Not philosopher.

that's all.

Duverger was WRONG and...

2010-06-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

...and anyone supporting Duverger's claim is a Nationalist. Anyone who deals with an association that relies on Duverger's theory of mandatory two-party systems of government is not worthy your time. In short, Duverger was an elitist scumbag and so is the Independent Caucus.

“Duverger's Law, which essentially says that,

in a system dominated by two parties, third party

candidates almost always are either marginalized,

or serve to help the party which is furthest away

from the third party's niche.”

The Two-Party System Leads to Totalitarianism
In some areas a member from a particular political party CANNOT WIN. For instance, if you live in a major metropolitan area that sends a member to the U.S. Congress, chances are, that person is a Democrat. In some extreme instances, Republicans in these districts receive a pitiful average of 30% of the vote. Why is that? The answer is easy: Education. Or rather, under-education. In some cases, blatant mis-Education. But really, it is a matter of unbalanced education. The amount of education a child receives in the city from his school far outweighs the education he receives from his parent(s). Which national party controls the Teachers Unions? Yeah. They are arming an electorate and insulating them from exterior influence. This has NOTHING at all to do with Duverger's "law". It has everything to do with totalitarianism--in the true sense of the word: "total". Think like us or we'll make you think like us.

In our cities, the role of parents and nuclear families is downplayed (even ridiculed and belittled by leftist academicians--most of whom come from affluent suburban families, ironically) and the role of the child as a social victim is enhanced. Families are mean, they hurt you, fathers abuse you or abandon you...you don't need them, you've got us...then you grow up under the working assumption that fathers are superfluous and what do you do? Well, you knock up whomever you want and abandon the results of that action. If you haven't seen this is action, then you're either one of the affluent white leftists or you live outside the infrastructure of our ever-socializing major cities. If the latter is the case, a word of warning is in order: you are a redneck hillbilly white-trash racist bible-thumpin' gun totin' ~~anti-semite~~, anti-palestinian. In other words, you're representative is probably a Republican and even though your U.S. Senator had traditionally been a Conservative, she's not now.

This means that Duverger's theory is wrong at some level (the local level) and in some cases, instead of three or multiple parties (which is the normal counter-argument to Duverger. i.e. Canada, Great Britain), we get ONLY ONE (i.e. U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba).

Less choice is no choice. That's right. If you support the two party system, you're an agent of totalitarianism because eventually one of the two parties will FAIL. Where are the Whigs? Then something rises up to the champion party only to get knocked down again (Republicans and Democrats have both experienced this phenomenon throughout this nation's history).

Thank you to the Independent Caucus for not realizing any of this and adopting a broad-sweeping, generic, Marxist approach to "independence". Thank you for reinforcing the status quo. Thank you for making the Teachers Union's job all the easier.

You rock.

Assholes.

Liberty is the Answer to your discontent

2010-06-14T18:14:00.000-07:00

SALEM -- If you've been paying attention to politics in the last year or so, you've probably noticed a game-change taking place. Starting with the Tax Day protests in April '09, Americans started re-awakening, started wondering what was going on around them and started speaking out against the status quo politics of derision and discontent.

Discontent. The catchword of our day.

Full Story Here

Voting "R" Part One: Suckers

2010-04-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

Most people in the know realize the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party are similar in a lot of ways. If you're not one of these people, however, you may want to check out the Libertarian platform here and the Republican platform here. And while you're at it, check out the Democrat Party platform here, and for kicks and giggles, the Socialist Party platform here. It's probably not worth the time to take the effort to point out the close association the Democrat Party has with the Socialist Party (or Green Party), you can decide for yourself what the ramifications of those similarities are, if they exist. (Hint: Both parties treat citizens as chattel.)

The one striking difference between the Libertarian and Republican agendas is this: The use of violence. Mainly, by this, I mean, war. There are others, of course, and we're simply talking platform here, not reality. Libertarians are, for the most part, opposed to violence of any sort. This is why the Libertarian party appeals to Christians who see a traditional and dogmatic alliance between the teachings of Christ and non-interventionism. Some Libertarian Christians have argued that even defending oneself is an act of violence, and therefore should be averted. I personally disagree with this sentiment, as do most Libertarians. Libertarian philosophy, as you know, is rooted in the precepts of the U.S. Constitution which explicitly grants the National government the capacity to declare war and to protect the citizens of each of the States via unified military and intelligence operations. To put it crudely: You put one of ours in the hospital, we'll put two of yours in the morgue. That's right. I got your detente right here, pal.

The use of violence on the personal, societal level, too, is approached differently by Republicans and Libertarians. The Second Amendment, right? The Second Amendment itself probably has its roots in Biblical teachings. Maybe it has something to do with Peter taking a sword into the garden or Jesus talking about how he wields a sword as well as peace. But can we get to an ideological basis that encourages self-defense without any influence--be it Biblical or Constitutional--on our own? Sure, here's how: The act of willfully allowing the perpetration of violence is, in itself, an act of willful violence. No Libertarian would pass by an alley from which the word "help!" and "rape!" were being yelled. To abandon the duty of Justice, to convince oneself that this duty does not exist or that it belongs to someone else (the police, say) is a default admission of the power of the State over the individual. No Libertarian would agree with that. Not one.

But Republicans do. Constantly Republicans are supporting tighter security, more police, more video surveillence, etc. Republicans don't want to stand up for themselves. They want Spiderman or the police to do it for them. Republicans are the reason behind The Patriot Act. They are the reason we have to check in six days before our flights. They are the reason why you better learn how to smile while on the corner of Park and Columbia. Democrats may be your mommy or your nanny or whatever term we're sticking on them now, but Republicans are your Big Brother. I got news for you: Your big brother is a bully. And he's convinced you to give him your lunch money to watch your back. Sucker. And crime rates soar. Sucker. And that department of Education the Republicans said they would eliminate in '94? Yeah, it's taught you how to relinquish your power to the State, willfully, happily, selfishly. And you never learned how to do the job you've been trained to let someone else do. Sucker.

Sucker. Sucker. Sucker.

Sure, Republicans talk about the Constitution and personal responsibility. But they don't mean it. As a whole, they simply don't. The people in charge of the Republican Party are all about control. They control you, they control spin, they even control newly elected representatives. Think about that when considering who to vote for this fall. Will this person, even though they sound an awful lot like a Libertarian, actually be beholden to the Republican Machine?

Yes. That person will. And if that person tries to tell you that he or she won't, that somehow they are special, and you believe them. You, my friend, are a sucker.

Jeff Lawrence on Bruce Broussard this Sunday

2010-04-30T05:20:00.000-07:00

All right!

Listen up!

Bruce Broussard of Oregon Voter's Digest will be doing a short interview with Jeff Lawrence this Sunday on Channel 11 (Cable channel may vary if you're in East County or Clackamas, check listings). Also featured on Sunday's show will be Bill Sizemore. Wish Jeff luck as this will be his first on-air opportunity to voice his position and his candidacy for U.S. Congress. Man, if anyone can go to D.C. and do what he says he's going to do, it's Jeff. Make an effort to tune in.

Third district debate, round two—shootout at the Benson High corral

2010-04-21T03:53:00.000-07:00

Oregon’s 3rd district hopefuls met again this last Saturday night for a second debate. Delia Lopez, the only Republican running this year, did not participate, but Jeff Lawrence, the Libertarian candidate, put his candidacy in the spotlight with his participation. Lawrence was matched up against Michael Meo (PGP) and John Sweeney (D) in what proved to be a better debate than the first, even if the attendance in this debate was less than that of the first. More on that later.

The banter between Lopez and Michael Meo (PGP) during the prior debate certainly featured its share of amicable sparring, but this debate was a little more heated. The back and forth between Lawrence and Meo was respectful and professional, but the ideas of the Green party and the Libertarian party are so totally divergent that when they started taking on each other’s statements in riposte, one could feel the tension mount in the audience. To add to that stressor, this debate’s topic was health care reform. What’s that you say? A Libertarian and a progressive arguing welfare? Load the rifle, Mabel! We finally got ourselves a good ol’ fashioned political shoot out!

CONTINUE READING

Inactive!

2010-04-15T23:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not writing a lot now because I'm helping Jeff Lawrence with his campaign in Oregon's 3rd Congressional district. Jeff is a lifelong Libertarian who has never held public office, is not a career politician but who is willing to sacrifice his very awesome career in order to take a principled, freedom-oriented approach to Washington.

I'll write more as we progress in the campaign building process. Right now I'm building his campaign site. You can go check it out at www.votejefflawrence.com but I'll warn you right now, it's not done! I hope to have it up and running by Saturday night in time for the 2nd debate.

Wish us luck and stop by to check up on us. Don't forget you can join Jeff on facebook as well and root for him there!

Thanks so much!

The master/slave dialectic, Part 1: The Münchausen Politic

2010-04-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

Since when did the line: "This is for your own good" ever win anyone over?
"Hey kid, you've just been drafted to go to battle in a far away jungle in an undeclared war! Don't worry, it's for your own good."

Yeah. That worked.

No it did not. It started an entire subterranean movement that grew into an explosive counter-culture. Hippies, right? Of course, not all of the protesters against Vietnam were love, peace and Jesus freaks. A ton of them were embedded in college campuses around the nation. So while your uncle "Star Trip Infinity" was in the park dancing naked for chakra oneness, your soon-to-be-congressman was "sitting in" the Dean's chambers at Penn. Or Harvard. Or Berkeley. Or Wherever.

No one was going to tell these brats what was for their "own good" and what wasn't. These were the days of Kierkegaard and Niechze. Be damned all that Fascist Nixon crap. Right?

Right. And then what happened?

They grew up. These hippies actually grew up. They thought they won the Vietnam war. Ask them, they'll tell you they won it. They will. They finished college or left the nudist colony and got jobs. Gub'ment jobs. They became lawyers, politicians, doctors and teachers. Oh yes. Teachers.

And what did these ex-hippies and zen-love-age-of-aquarius rejects teach you?

"Wear a sealtbelt."
"Wear a helmet"
"Wear another helmet."
"Eat tofu"
"Use plastic bags and save a tree."
"Use paper bags and save a...uh...an entire planet"
"Smile for the CCTV"
"Stop smoking"
"Unless you're the master."
"Or this master."
"Stop drinking"
"Unless you're this master."
"Or any master."
"At least don't drink and drive"
"Unless, yeah, you're the master."
"And don't eat and drive"
"And don't talk and drive"
"Actually don't drive at all, take mass transit"
"Don't watch "X" news channel."
"Don't listen to Rap"
"Don't listen to Rock"
"Don't watch Charlton Heston movies, he's evil."
"Guns are bad. Hence the Charlton Heston thing we said before."
"Knives are pretty bad too."
"In fact, don't defend yourself at all."
"Don't pray. Unless you're a congressman and are forced to do so at the beginning of each day."
"Pay your taxes. All of them."
"Don't make fun of people."
"You may make fun of people that do not like taxes. That is ok."
"Wear yet another helmet."
"Don't go to the circus."
"Don't wear fur."
"Don't wear leather."
"Don't watch Bill O'Reilly. He eats children and uses their skin to make leather."
"Do not have children. The world is overpopulated and Bill O'Reilly can only do so much."
"These are not the dittoheads you're looking for."
"Glenn who? I never watch that show and neither should you and to prove it we're going to reintroduce the media fairness doctrine"
"And while we're at it, we'll pass some Net Neutrality. Gotta cover all the bases, as it were."
"You're a racist. Because we say you are."
"Say: All white people are racists. Three times before going to your multiculturalism class at the local community college."
"Fill out your census and tell us if you're a ~~racist~~ white person."
"Don't use coal power, it has been evil since 1906."
"Don't use wind power or you're a murderer."
"Don't build your own water receptacle."
"Just kidding, go ahead and do your rain dance."
"Don't burn in your backyard...or do...because we refuse to tell you when you can and can't do it so that we can ticket you and gain access to your property."
"Say: Bush lied and people died three times before you lay you down to sleep."
"Don't fart."
"Don't breathe."
"At least don't breathe in marijuana."
"Unless you have a medical marijuana permit. Or unless we decriminalize it. Then you'll see our full force of arms!"
"Say: Obama lied and the people loved it three times before you turn on Keith Olbermann.
"Go to work. And only go to work. We like workers. They unite and stuff."
"We don't, however, like big business, or small businesses either for that matter, so good luck going to work. Get some of that wealth we're spreading around at your Social Services Outlet store."
"Did we already say 'don't own a gun?' Ok."
"Don't go hunting. It requires a gun."
"Don't go fishing either."
"In fact, don't do anything."

Oh, we could go on and on and on. And you love it. You're a democrat. You LOVE these rules, rules are awesome! It's not because you would ever behave irrationally and do something silly like talk on the phone while driving, is it? Nah, you would never do that. You need these laws to protect yourself from other evil people out there. Don't you? That's what your ex-hippie Master told you, isn't it, slave?

Slave.

You're a slave. And you relish your bondage.

If you love all these laws so much you can thank your Democrat mentors for them all. Every one of them. You see, they don't trust YOU. Masters don't trust their slaves. That's how it works. Their main job is to get you to trust them. Their secondary goal is to get you to talk your brothers into loving bondage too! And they've done it, slave. They've convinced you to like most of these laws, they've convinced you to spread the word of Greater Good totalitarianism haven't they?

But what about the few laws up there you think are silly. There are a few aren't there? I mean, you're not really a fascist are you? You don't think you are. I don't think you are. I bet there are a number of silly little things up there you loathe. Net neutrality. It's for your own good. But I know you hate it. Censorship? It's for your own good. You're not a racist, are you? Or has your master convinced you that you are by now? It's for your own good. The Greater Good.

And it won't stop there. The list will grow. And it will grow. And it will grow. And so will their ability, these ex-hippie fascists, to make you love your chains, and to make you help them put chains on your brothers.

You are your brother's keeper. Your brother's slave keeper.

AFL-CIO TOP GOON Lies on camera

2010-04-09T06:32:00.000-07:00

Here is the Examiner article on what transpired at the Kennedy school yesterday. The video is as follows:

Here are 4 videos from the day in question. Tell me, do you see Trumpka in any of them? Anywhere? He said he heard the N word being thrown at John Lewis. I see Lewis, and a ton of protestors...but where is this Trumpka goon?

Here is a video with very clear sound, can you hear the N word?:

Here is MSNBC convicting Tea Partiers of Racism with absolutely no proof whatsoever:

Here, a mindless debate over the spittle incident...still...no...union...thugs...like...anywhere!

Efreet consulted: 2010 MLB Winners Now Known

2010-04-09T01:15:00.000-07:00

No talking, just the facts:

American League

AL EAST:

Sox 104
Rays 90
Yankees 90
Jays 72
Orioles 70

AL CENTRAL

Twins 85
Indians 81
Tigers 71
Royals 70
Sox 70

AL West

A's 98
Mariners 84
Rangers 81
Angels 81

National League

NL EAST

Braves 91
Phillies 90
Marlins 78
Nationals 71
Mets 70

NL CENTRAL

Cards 103
Brewers 90
Cubs 88
Pirates 67
Reds 66
Astros 66

NL WEST

Giants 90
Rockies 85
Padres 80
Dodgers 80
Diamondbacks 75

Ok, now the talk. Since I've been utterly wrong in the last 3 years, I've gone with a more traditional approach: total guessing. Lay em down boys and squirrels, I'm 100% right this year. Heh.

Grown'ps

2010-04-08T10:57:00.000-07:00

So, Tim Burton's Alice is a hit. So what? I'm not going to see it. I'm done with Mr. Burton and his stinky band of merry catastrophers.

I'd rather talk about Lewis Carroll, but that gets all wacky--wocky--whatever.

Whatever...

I could talk about Cobain, then we could all get together for a cry.

Sorry, no. That's what shotguns do, they go boom.

I'm thinking of a certain WWII vet I knew when I was a child; thinking, reasoning and doing childish things. Maybe you knew this guy. Maybe he was the guy down the street, maybe he was your grandfather or someone's parent. Could have been your parent, I don't know. He was the guy that did a weekend's worth of gardening before brunch on Saturday and spent the rest of the weekend in a lawn chair by the garden, watching, waiting, listening. For what, I don't know. He said very little with his mouth. He spoke Biblical proportions with his eyes.

I am thinking about this man today. I don't why. Just am. The immaculate tool shed is what I'm thinking about, really.

The disdainful nonchalance we held in our youths for the traditions of our betters is a sick, sick thing. And that we allowed every exterior influence to reinforce our little tantrummy rebellions is a tragedy.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

There's some Burton in that, some Cobain, and definitely some Carroll. Or maybe there's just the golden haze of memory's pristine tool shed.

That's all.

Jeff Lawrence, Libertarian

2010-04-05T18:02:00.001-07:00

Debating the Economic Meltdown-by Jeff Lawrence

Delia Lopez (R) is sponsoring a debate on Saturday with Democratic candidate John Sweeney and Green candidate Michael Meo. Had I participated, I would have focused on the role that government intervention played in the meltdown. You see, people and companies, including financial institutions, act rationally and consistent with the rules of the game established by law. If the rules are lame, the outcome is lame. With respect to the meltdown that was triggered by the housing bubble, here's my cut with a few edits from my friends.

First and often ignored is the fact that land use regulations in places like California and Oregon have materially impacted real property prices as they make developable land scarce. The Federal Govt. got into the act by trying to social engineer home ownership through banking regulations that lowered lending standards and increased allowable leverage. To accelerate high risk lending, the Feds stepped in with guarantees through Freddie and Fannie and mortgage insurance. Deliberately loose monetary policy created an environment of ‘easy money’ for the banks, made even easier with federal guarantees and new compliance rules designed to lower lending standards and grow leverage. Banks rationally competed for business and for high marks from their federal regulators. Builders rationally capitalized on the ‘amazing’ mortgage products available to their buyers and added cheap illegal labor to build as much and as fast as they could. Consumers and investors bought as much as they could as prices rose as all of these government interventions drove unsustainable supply and demand. Businesses and individuals acted rationally, perfectly consistent with the rules that the government had established; rules that were based on poor risk management and government guarantees.

The bubble and collapse were inevitable. Then, to make matters worse, we elected leaders who believe that more government intervention is the answer. After the bailouts, they further paralyzed the system by taking an additional trillion dollars to share with their friends and grow an already unsustainable government. Add looming tax increases and the hostile takeover of the health care system, and I'm amazed anyone is still in business. But I can tell you how producers keep going because I watched my own team perform under incredible pressure this past year. We rose to new levels of productivity to enable our collective survival. We went to bed hungry and got up early. Unlike the government, our individual livelihoods and compensation are tied to both our own individual production and the survival and performance of our company. We met deliverables and increased performance with shrinking resources through innovation and human expansion. Just like you other producers that keep this economy going, we created real value. This is how we all survive. Enterprise is sustainable. We need to let it live. To my representatives, I say please, stop the social engineering. To my friends in District 3, I ask you to please vote for real sustainability. Join me. Stand up for life, liberty and privacy. The long road back to sustainability starts with us. StandAgainstTheMachine.

District 3 debate showcases contenders, not champ

2010-04-05T15:36:00.000-07:00

Congressional candidate Delia Lopez sponsored a debate for District 3 congressional contenders at Benson High School on Saturday night. And while the parlay between Lopez (R), Michael Meo (PGP) and John Sweeney (D) turned out to be a pretty good spar, the absence of Earl Blumenaur, the current representative for the district, may have kept some concerned citizens away. Certainly the potential title-fighters who did show up and strap on the gloves deserve credit for attending, which puts each of them one point ahead of a lackluster no-show like Blumenaur. Certainly he must have been solving world hunger or ending the impending alien invasion from Mars from his popularly disclosed locale of more comfortable confines: Washington, D.C.

Of course, politics may be the one game you can win even if you don’t play—especially if you’re the incumbent. Blumenaur knows this, in fact, he probably knows that the only way to lose would be to show up—a point made by Meo and Lopez during the course of events on Saturday. Even more to the point, this district, Oregon’s 3^rd is one of—if not the—most Democrat laden districts in the entire Universe. So everyone has to be ready to rumble…except the champ.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!

You wanna fight? Game on.

2010-04-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

They'll just come up with some snarky derogatory terms for you Ilya. They'll call you an imperialist Jew, they'll call you a racist homophobe. They'll call you all the "idiot" names in their arsenal. They won't debate you Ilya. They can't afford to lose this in the court of their own public opinion--let alone pay your travel expenses...

In related news there's that doctor down in Florida who hung this sign outside his office:

Now that is the type of debate I can go for. And btw, the Orlando Sentinel took a poll asking whether or not this doctor is doing the right thing, here are the results as of 2:25 Pacific:

Poll: OK for doctor to protest health-care bill by shunning Obama voters?

Lake County urologist Dr. Jack Cassell has put up a sign on his office door reading, "If you voted for Obama seek urologic care elsewhere." What do you think?

What is your reaction to Dr. Jack Cassell's actions?

Good for him. Obamacare will be a disaster, and we should keep fighting it. (37461 responses)
83%
Get over it, Doc. Health-care reform was badly needed, and this is just more sour grapes from the GOP. (2528 responses)
6%
Prescription for trouble. No matter what you think of the health-care overhaul, doctors should not impose their political views on patients. (5175 responses)
11%

45164 total responses

(Results not scientific)

Looks like both the courts of public opinion and the courts of law are going to have a hey day with this.

Libertarian Twitter Groups

2010-04-02T01:56:00.000-07:00

Here is a website dedicated to Twitter hashtags (#) for Libertarians. Since I'm new to Twitter I was looking around for some popular ones. Check it out. I'll try to figure a place on this site for this kind of stuff. Maybe.

When Anarchists Attack! (Snark Attack Alert!)

2010-04-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.

Tabitha Hale, the almighty righty blogger at RedState, has a hale and tabby response to the hail of tabloidesque posts on FaceCrack regarding all these silly anarchists who are threatening to crash April 15th Tea Parties nationwide.

Ooh, we're so scared. Scared like the U.S. is scared of a British Columbian invasion. Please don't hurt me with your...uh...menacing-ish stare.

I loves me some o' dat Tabitha Hale-you-go-girl-power-to the-tread-not-ish-type-stuff. And I bounce on over to the Yogi-to-Redstate's-BooBoo, HumanEvents almost daily. The Facebook responses are another matter entirely. Right-minded folks are actually seriously thinking these anarchists will show up on April 15th blasting horns, banging drums and spreading their smells-like-teen-halitosis drivel. Maybe. Not.

These would be nabe kabombs, these unwashed-upper-middle-class-denizens-of-Moronland, these spoiled brat-tards with the black fingernails with the happy-napster hair dyed blacker than Nick Gillespie's are just foolish little twats on too much political drug de jour. (Sorry Nick, I'm a fan, but the Just for Vampires look has gtg.)

In short, for those of the wee attention span: These men are nihilists, they believe in nothing.

Tabitha points out what I mentioned on Facebook yesterday: They are ANARCHISTS! They don't have any business fighting against a group of people trying to limit the nanny-state fascism this country's leaders have inundated us with for seventy-plus years.

So Tabitha gets it right. And those people freakin' out on Facebook and Twitter are just another example of the right's need-a-crisis-to-get-me-off-my-ass nitwitliness. Are you seriously concerning yourselves to the point of stress-induced coronary about these fuckwads? They are the hippiecrytes we've been making fun of over here in Libertarian land for decades. They believe in nothing, they know nothing, they are nothing.

Fuck it dude, let's go bowling.

The Tenacity of Love

2010-03-30T23:36:00.001-07:00

I hear you hate Christians and libertarians and balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility and white people and guns and heroes and hyperbole and prejudice and private property and Jesus and Gandhi and little furry kittens and honesty in reporting and actual peer-reviewed research and apple pie and unproven allegations and baseball and yourself.

But this Christian libertarian proponent of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility is white and has heroes who wield firearms when necessary to protect private property from the prejudiced hyperbolic killers of little furry kittens and actively seeks proof of allegations and honesty in both reporting and scientific research even when it comes to Jesus and Gandhi who both would have loved baseball and apple pie and yes, even you. As I love you.

I do.

I love you.

That is all.

Oedipus in China

2010-03-30T06:10:00.000-07:00

Here the sadness that is so, is thus: Bodies of 21 babies found in China. And here my day was going by so swimmingly. I'd been cracking jokes and twittering about the silly comic book adventures of Rick Grimes in zombie land...

I hate the news.

Do you like Freud? Freud, as in, Sigismund Schlomo. You know, the guy with all the penis envy and all that crap?

Well, do you?

I'm indifferent. Except when I'm not. I think half the things I was forced to read about Freud in college were meant to encourage me to disregard him as a some sex-craved lunatic. If there is one thing in life I simply cannot disregard...yeah...sex craved lunatics. And dead babies floating in a river...

Here is Oedipus Rex, if you want to read it. Freud uses the parable to posit a theory on why boys fight with their fathers and fall in love with their mothers. And that is what all the lefty professors emphasize: Daddy killing and Mother...er...loving. And here is why I disregard Freud's analysis regardless of (in spite of, really) what my college Jungian ~~proselytizers~~ professors told me:

Oedipus was a baby! He was an abandoned baby! Enough with killing your father and screwing your mother! He was a little innocent boy left to die. All things that happen after that, happen because of that.

I have no idea how those babies got in those plastic bags, in that river, their mother's names still stamped on their admittance bands. No idea. And right now, I guess I don't want to know.

That's it.

What's wrong with this picture?

2010-03-29T23:58:00.000-07:00

Yeah, o.k., those silly lefties don't like capitalism. And yeah, they used a naughty word. Tsk tsk.

But what else is wrong with this picture?

Janus For Three Guitars

2010-03-27T13:34:00.000-07:00

Haven't had a song in a while, so I did this one up yesterday. Hope you like it. If you don't...it was free :D Try it with your headphones on to get the full effect of all those strings attacking each other.

Thanks to Timsdd for the awesome time-lapse skills.
Thanks to God for the inspiration

I ONLY use Parkwood Guitars! (You should too!)

He just don't get it.

2010-03-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

Here is a little snippet of president Obama's little speech about that little bill that just became a BIG LAW:

Why does he keep doing this? Blaming the insurance companies for the federal government's failures? Quite simply, it is the dynamic, singular regulation of this industry which has stifled and spoiled it. I won't toy with the idea that he's ignorant, I think he knows what's going on--has been going on for quite some time now.

Only private insurance is restricted from doing business across state lines. Only private insurance has to contend with an entity which constantly passes laws in favor of itself and against its competitors. Only private insurance is answerable to the very people who want it destroyed. Only private insurance companies have to battle with a competitor with unlimited resources who can print money, bribe people with that money, and use their coerced henchmen as agents of usurpation in any way they see fit. Only them. And here you thought the democrats were all about "fairness".

Let's be clear, this problem of over-regulation and restriction is not the Obama administration's fault. This has been going on for a hundred years. I for one find it funny that the government believes it can replenish the fields IT IRRADIATED by irrigating them with the same poisonous waters it killed them with in the first place. Funny. Funny. Funny.

Not so funny:

It was the government that institutionalized the poorly conceptualized 'cost plus' system with Medicaire.

It was the government that encouraged provider-based health care systems of delivery and pre-enrollment.

It was the IRS itself that allowed the institutionalization of employer-paid insurances-a practice bereft of quality and ripe for the picking and abuse by labor organizations--which the government ~~allowed~~ ~~encouraged~~ mandated through legislation and interventionism.

It is the government's own tax code that encourages 'first-dollar' insurance options as tax avoidance measures--that is to say: if we can save money and get weaker insurance, we will do so almost every time.

It was the government that enacted the so-called "experience rating" which drastically skewed any equatable coverage system across the board.

It was the government that instituted Medicaire A and B, third party payer systems that have proven our humanness: if someone else is paying for it (with imaginary money) LET'S GO SHOPPING!

It was the government who bribed the medical industry into accepting these fruitless, enslaving plans.

It was the government that created the ill-conceived Health Maintenance Organization (in order to fix all the aforementioned problems the government itself created). The HMO failed as a cost-saving measure, as a quality-of-care measure and as a linchpin of fiscal security.

It is the government's own state-mandated insurance policies which have effectively costed people out of the health insurance market, historically (small businesses)and it is the oncoming mandates that will force them beyond that, into bankruptcy and liquidation.

We could go on and on and on. The governmental restrictions and regulations on the health insurance industry are a blight on the economic prowess of this nation and it will continue to be exactly that...and worse.

So yes, Mr. president, we will fight you tooth and nail, while we still have a doctor willing to fix our broken teeth and a manicurist able to stay in business long enough to weather this torrent of idiocy you have just signed into law.

Source.

I'm Just a Bill: Obama Stizzzyle (yo)

2010-03-24T17:23:00.001-07:00

The hand stays and you're gonna pay for it.

That's it.

Theft, Lies and Coercion: A leftist gameplan

2010-03-24T13:20:00.000-07:00

A Facebook response to another Facebooker posting a highly Digged story about the stupidity of tea-partiers:

...I applaud your effort to limit government, but think it's a bit hyperbole. (yes, sometimes that's how you get someone to listen, but it turns my ears off.) I like this quote from a doctor "I am a doctor. Here is my plight: I will have to pay more in Medicare taxes and take a pay cut at the same time. Having said this, I see patients daily ... that have no money for the medicine they need to live. They return to the E.R. numerous times for their "health care." And guess who pays the E.R. bill? You and I. Either we let these people die at the door of the hospital because they cannot pay. Or, we pay for their health care. There is no other option ... I have a conscience. I won't let my fellow American die at the door. I'll pay for her health care. God forgive me, and the rest of you who complain about it. "

Hmm. "...turns my ears off." No wonder these lefties can't learn anything.

I always wondered how people like the person who posted this define "conscience" and how do they justify thievery and coercion?

Now I know. They simply make up a story about a "doctor" who doesn't know enough about the law to practice medicine...in any state.

A doctor? Really? Then he would know that no one is going to "die at the door of the hospital" because they don't have insurance. He would know that federal law has required doctors to care for people-even if they cannot afford the care-for a long time. And before the law enforced it, the hippocratic oath enforced it (too bad doctors did themselves in by doing away with the oath in the 70's, eh?) That quote is a blathering lie and is not from a doctor (unless he's a complete moron).

And it's not just nitwits on FB and Twitter who are saying this. Remember Chuckie Schumer's infamous: They're DYING! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!!

In my state (Oregon) there has been a minimum of charitable care (uncompensated care) hospitals have been required to provide for some time now. Yes, An actual law that says they pretty much have to work for free!

Makes you wonder what the term "conscience" means to people like this, doesn't it? But hey, if they can make up quotes from "doctors" and cherry pick among Tea Party members, I can do the same thing...it's only "fair", right?

Tea: Define "Conscience"

Lefty: Uh, like, to like steal from people is ok if you've really convinced yourself that you deserve or need their stuff more than they do.

Tea: Did you know that hospitals have been required for a long time to service people in need of medical attention whether they have insurance or not.

Lefty: Yeah, but we all have to pay for that care and that's like, not fair or something.

Tea: Did you know that many states have had laws requiring hospitals to meet a minimum of charitable care each year?

Lefty: So! That, like, doesn't count...or something!

Tea: Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service loses 14.4 million pieces of mail each year?

Lefty: What does that have to do with, like, healthcare?

Tea: Hmm...maybe nothing. Maybe everything. I for one don't really want to find out if they have anything to do with each other.

Lefty: You're an idiot, uneducated loser. And you have no conscience!

Tea: Fine. Let's talk about fairness. That's what lefties are really talking about when they say "conscience" isn't it?

Tea: Name one other industry that is so regulated that it is not allowed to do business across state lines?

Lefty: Uh...

Tea: O.K. Maybe an "unfair" question.

Lefty: Yeah!

Tea: Can you name one commercial entity that is restricted against doing business across state lines but has a competitor who is allowed to do so without impunity?

Lefty: ...

Tea: Does that scenario sound fair to you?

Lefty: People are DYING! They are DYING!

Tea: Right. It is so vital and imperative that we do something now. That is why this law will have no effect on the health system in this country for four years.

Lefty: What?

Tea: Yawn. This is getting too easy. You ask me a question now.

Left: Yeah! Ok. Why do you hate people so much?

Tea: Because they steal from me and justify the theft with lies and enforce the lies with coercion. That's why.

That's it.

When in Canada, do as the Bolsheviks do

2010-03-23T23:07:00.000-07:00

I first learned about the Ann Coulter v. Canada issue at Legal Insurrection. That was a while ago (in blog-time), so I was really surprised when I logged in this evening and 4 out of the top 10 sites on my link list were talking about it.

Here's one with some crazy people...FYI: Crazy people precede Ann Coulter...wherever she goes. The hope, I suppose, is these people are a little less crazy having been graced with her presence. Never happens.

The ever shrugging Atlas decided to take this one up. Atlas is a site dedicated more to eradicating islamofascism than anything else these days, so of course this piqued interest o'er there.

And there were others as well.

Lets not mince words: Ann Coulter is sexy. She's the type of 'sexy' liberal men just can't handle. She's the true feminist out there, doing what the women of the left sit around wishing they could do.

I'm not a huge Coulter fan, to be honest. But you pit her against any of the scum sucking-bottom-feeder-hairy-chested-420-filthy-faced-hoes I went to college with...I'm with Ann. Every time.

Gone, not Gone

2010-03-23T21:52:00.000-07:00

It only seems the blogosphere is suffering from post health-care anxiety syndrome...no matter how we feel. They are out there. Still writing. Still fighting.
Monday was a day of mourning across the conservative blog community it seemed. Many people didn't even show up to write one lousy article. The amount of feeds went down. But the amount of hits went up. That's where it's all at. That's why these guys write. Because you never know who's coming to read your thoughts, laid out here in electronic ink. And on Tuesday, the info streaming in is hard to keep up with...Everyone's back.

No matter how drowned in disappointment I am--no matter how heavy my fingertips feel as all the tension and turmoil and vein-bursting blood rushes to their tips--I'll be here, pressing that quill.

Bearing False Witness

2010-03-22T20:21:00.000-07:00

Barrack Hussein Obama.

Is he a far left of center leader? Yep. Is he a socialist? Probably. Does he deserve to be shot? Uh...no.

This isn't the only vitriol being spewed forth. Here are some of the things I've read about the president of the United States over the course of the last few hours, and it's all pretty disgusting:

There's this website: http://obamaisliterallyhitler.tumblr.com/ --Really? C'mon. The site offers this beacon of unbefuddled wisdom as it's call to arms: "PATRIOT INQUIRIES AND ALERTS CAN BE SENT HERE. AS A TRUE PATRIOT I ONLY SPEAK GOD'S LANGUAGE--AMERICAN." I'm pretty sure this HAS to be a gag site run by some lefty...but go find out for yourself...

This status quo rant: "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." --Pat Robertson, same old/same old from this guy. Hey Pat, turn the other cheek, will ya? Please?

And here is a lengthy diatribe that I personally could not finish...so it could have a more reasonable ending then it had a beginning, but I doubt it.

On Facebook: "Hitler and Stalin both had their "meanness". And these wre real "jack-booted" thugs. I think that is what Obama has on his mind." --This poster, ironically, has a picture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments as his profile pic.

I wonder, isn't there a commandment that says something like: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

There's this video which compares Hitler to Obama. Ok, stop right there.

Obama has not murdered 8 million Jews. Has not intentionally starved millions of his people to death. Has not suspended habeas corpus. Has not interned his own citizenry. Has not led millions of his people to starvation in the swampy countryside.

Even this site referred to Nancy Pelosi as "Adolf Pelosi". And that too is no good. (Although, one could argue there is a striking physiological resemblence.)

Has the president done things I disagree with philosophically, ideology etc? Yep. Tons. The list is endless. And, surely, some gray similarities are easily drawn between most of the aforementioned tyrants and our president--just like the left was able to connect the dots between former president Bush and Hitler or Stalin or Mao or whomever. I get that. Obama is a statist elitist and a complete pompous ass, in my opinion. But he does NOT deserve death and he is not Hitler. Not even remotely. He simply needs to lose in 2012 and his policies need to be reexamined by the next congressional body. That's all. By amplifying this torrid, incendiary blather about Hitler and whathaveyou, we are simply assuring sympathy for Obama from those otherwise inclined to think twice about him as a president. That, and it's just wrong.

I think, when people are comparing Obama or Bush to Hitler or Stalin, they are talking about the policies which led up to the destruction of so many lives. I get that, if it is truly the intention. But that's not the image that I or anyone else visualizes when they think the word "Hitler", or the word "Mao". It just isn't. When we think of Adolf Hitler we think of dead corpses piled up in concentration camps and the bloodthirsty screams of indoctrinated youth. We think of gulags when we think of Stalin and pits full of bodies when we think of Pol Pot. Truly gruesome, horrifying stuff. So when Americans evoke the names of these murderous bastards they are themselves attempting to invoke fear--the very tactic they ascribe to the early political campaigns of the Maos and Hitlers and Lennins of the world.

I cannot condone the references to Hitler or Stalin or any other genocide perpetrating megalomaniac. These references demean and degrade the legacy of all those lost souls throughout time. And I won't have it. Any site on my link list that uses such a reference will be banned and not re-linked. And, as this site has practically no influence on any of the sites I link to, it won't matter one bit.. But it would be nice if people would have the decency to honor the memory of those countless millions who have fallen prey to the REAL Hitlers in the bloody annals of world history.

When "abortion on demand" becomes "abortion by command"

2010-03-22T12:47:00.000-07:00

Abortion Funding Debate Rages

Yep. That silly little executive order won't mean anything. Neither will the Hyde amendment, by the time this Congress gets done with it.

I feel a Lee Greenwood song coming on...

Here is Mr. ~~Stupid~~ Stupak admitting the toothless nature of Obama's over-zealous tendency to sign executive orders on a whim:

Yes, I allowed Obama to lie to me and knew he was lying when he did it...

/snarky cynicism

Consummatum est

2010-03-21T16:03:00.000-07:00

It's over.

Adolf Pelosi wins.

You can watch the demise of the Republic HERE.

I certainly hope everyone will remain calm. Have some cookies and milk. Hell, I dunno, go to the batting cage and whack a few dents into some balls or something.

Whatever you do, don't sit and stew.

Ok, wait. Here. I got it: READ THIS.

That might help...

A e-group hug?

Not quite a haiku...but maybe poetry helps:

You're going to live. You're going to die. Between, there will be you and I.

Hmm.

That's all I got.

That's it. That's all.

Sunday Morning Smackback

2010-03-21T07:44:00.000-07:00

Along the lines of my last series of posts regarding Peter (the Rat) DeFazio, and the willingness of democrats to sell out their constituency, this morning on Prof. Jacobson's site he asks the following question:

"What if Barack Obama were not President, and Democrats did not control Congress. Would liberals be so willing to give the federal government this sweeping power?"

My answer to this would be: Well, yeah, duh.

Here is the proof, in part. The voting record for the 2001 NCLB act:

No Child Left Behind.

Clearly the vote was bilateral. Clearly the bill was socialistic. Clearly the Democrat Party is mostly full of progressive spenders...and, CLEARLY SO IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Please keep trying to sell us on the idea that the Democrats are the only anti-American party. Please!

For sure, Prof. Jacobson sees the health care reform bill as more of a "sweeping" power grab, and in terms of dollars, he is right, but in terms of importance, he's a million miles off. Why is it that the democrats hid behind children in their fight to justify this health care reform? Because, we all know the power the child wields in political discourse, as political tools. And we all know why they can constantly get away with it.

Next, we could talk about the "sweeping" superfascistic powers granted to the executive via The Patriot Act. But it's Sunday, and I'll not use the Lord's name in vain today, which inevitably happens when I talk about that Godda--

Ugh.

All that said, I'll also take note of Prof. Jacobson's points made via Randy Barnett and simply say that, yes, I agree: the health care bill is unconstitutional. And that is the real issue here. HOW a thing is unconstitutional is less important to me than the fact that it IS unconstitutional, in the end. And in the end, a vast array of legislation that has come out of Washington--from BOTH sides of the isle--goes against the grain of the Constitution. That, is the problem.

And that is it. That is all.

What it takes for an Oregon democRat to sell out

2010-03-20T23:07:00.000-07:00

Friday, Peter (The Rat) DeFazio mentioned some kind of something about why he was going to vote no on President Obama's health care bill. He said, in some fuzzy, nondescript, roundabout way that the rural areas in Oregon would be treated unfairly in this bill. So, being the man of principle that he is, he held out until he got what he wanted from Obama and the DemocRats.

Sorry to do this to you again...

NOT.

He got nothing of the kind. If fact, he really didn't GET anything at all. He got a promissory note from Obama--a man that has failed to keep his word in just about everything. Yeah, real smart guy, this DeFreakio.

I love Oregon. I love my city, Portland.

But...

You know what our most popular bumper sticker is? "KEEP PORTLAND WIERD". It should say "KEEP PORTLAND STUPID" But then, Defazio is doing a damned good job of both.

DeFazio's 2nd Fifteen...

2010-03-19T19:01:00.000-07:00

...minutes of fame. This makes it 30 minutes and yes, you can demand that extra allotted time returned to you in kicker form forthwith. Godspeed to you.

Actually, I was thinking...maybe DeFazio is the smartest guy on the planet. (Shh...I did NOT just say that).

Smart, because by stating his displeasure with the would-be rural dispensation (or "lack" thereof) under this bill, he makes his liberal friends look bad for accepting a bill that doesn't do what it is supposed to in the leftist way of thinking. I mean, what are they gonna say when he lambastes them for betraying their ideology point-blank?

Doubly smart, because by voting NO, Republicans and the rest of us will breathe our little, insignificant, individual sighs of relief and maybe stay off his case for fifteen (AND ONLY FIFTEEN) minutes.

TRIPLY smart, (I know, this is getting to the point of outlandish fiction), because he just might be able to finnagle a little sump'in sump'in for his little paltry district. I'm sure he'll demand more cucumbers with which grade schoolers can practice fitting prophylactics on...

And that makes Peter DeFazio at least THREE TIMES SMARTER THAN THIS GUY:

Oh, I dunno. Maybe not.

That's all.

DeFazio Shoots for Fifteen

2010-03-19T14:39:00.000-07:00

...minutes of fame.

Ooh! Look at me! I'm in major news outlets and shit! I'm Peter Defazio and I KICK ASS!

So, why did Peter DeFazio (Oregon, Socialist) elect to change his vote on the health-care reform to "no"?

It's simply not socialist enough for him.

Oh, c'mon, that's gotta make you laugh somethin' wicked.

That's all.

We won what? How many times? And now we're...wait a second!

2010-03-19T12:11:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of all Nobel Laureates for Medicine from 1901 to date. I have no idea what major legislation could possibly prompt a person to seek out such a list and translate (for your ease) the country of each winner. Certainly there must be a lesson to be learned from this list. Certainly.

Thanks to my wife, Karey for her assistance in this.

2009 - USA USA USA
2008 - DE FR FR
2007 - USA USA UK
2006 - USA USA
2005 - AU AU
2004 - USA USA
2003 - USA UK
2002 - UK UK USA
2001 - USA UK UK
2000 - SE USA USA
1999 - USA
1998 - USA USA USA
1997 - USA
1996 - AU CH
1995 - USA USA GER
1994 - USA USA
1993 - UK USA
1992 - USA CH/USA
1991 - DE DE
1990 - USA USA
1989 - USA USA
1988 - UK USA USA
1987 - JAP
1986 - USA ITA/USA
1985 - USA USA
1984 - DK DE ARG/UK
1983 - USA
1982 - CH CH UK
1981 - USA USA SE
1980 - USA FR USA
1979 - USA UK
1978 - CH USA USA
1977 - USA USA USA
1976 - USA USA
1975 - USA USA USA
1974 - BE BE USA
1973 - DE AT UK
1972 - USA UK
1971 - USA
1970 - UK SE USA
1969 - USA USA USA
1968 - USA USA USA
1967 - SE USA USA
1966 - USA USA
1965 - FR FR FR
1964 - US DE
1963 - AU UK UK
1962 - UK USA UK/NZ
1961 - USA
1960 - AU UK
1959 - USA USA
1958 - USA USA USA
1957 - IT
1956 - USA DE USA
1955 - SE
1954 - USA USA USA
1953 - UK USA
1952 - USA
1951 - ZA
1950 - USA SE USA
1949 - SE PT
1948 - CH
1947 - USA USA AR
1946 - USA
1945 - UK UK AU
1944 - USA USA
1943 - DK USA
1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1939 - DE
1938 - BE
1937 - HU
1936 - UK AT
1935 - DE
1934 - USA USA USA
1933 - USA
1932 - UK UK
1931 - DE
1930 - AT
1929 - NE UK
1928 - FR
1927 - AT
1926 - DK
1925 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1924 - NE
1923 - CA CA
1922 - UK DE
1921 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1920 - DK
1919 - BE
1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1917 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1914 - AT
1913 - FR
1912 - FR
1911 - SE
1910 - DE
1909 - CH
1908 - RU DE
1907 - FR
1906 - IT SP
1905 - DE
1904 - RU
1903 - DK
1902 - UK
1901 - DE

DE=Germany
CH= Switzerland
AU=Australia
SE= Sweden
DK=Denmark
ZA=South Africa (Union of-funded by USA)
PT=Portugal
BE= Belgium
HU= Hungary
AT= Austria
CA= Canada
RU=Russia

Here are the totals of some notable countries with the distinguished award on their national mantles. Of course, nothing striking sticks out on this list at all.

USA: 92
United Kingdom: 18
Germany: 15
France: 9
Switzerland: 5
Australia: 5
Canada: 2
China: 0

Let it be known that my eyes kind of hurt after all this sorting and looking up the stupid abbreviations for these stupid countries, so I may have made a mistake or two. I, for certain, will never be awarded a Nobel Prize for anything--especially not math. This list was compiled by cross-referencing the list of winners by name at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/ with the year-by-year bios on each winner(s).

That's it. That's all.

Home Improvement

2010-03-19T07:42:00.000-07:00

I've added some pages up at the top of the bloggy thing there. . Never fear, this is not to confuse you, it's more for my benefit than anything (I are cornfuzed and befuddlimificated often).

You'll still be able to see the latest stuff on the main page, for the most part. But...you may wanna check those tabs every now and again. (It's where I'll be putting articles I post on other websites and other junk that is totally random).

Nothing there now, don't bother looking. :D

Oh, and thanks for reading and helping this blog reach milestone after milestone. To follow the blog (something I just instigated last month when I got serious about this whole blogging thing) just scroll down and select FOLLOW).

All you need is...

2010-03-18T21:00:00.000-07:00

This, from craiglist.org. Ommp is Oregon Medical Marijuana Program.

Date: 2010-03-17, 3:21PM PDT
Reply to: comm-c5qx6-1648881318@craigslist.org ^{[Errors when replying to ads?]}

Are you looking for a place to medicate with other patients?
Do you need medicine?
There are patients who would like to donate medicine to you!

Patient resource day is every sun/wed/fri from 4-8. Ommp card holders only.
$20/non member $10/member

voterpower.org

Location: 6701 se foster in Annex
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 1648881318

So, if you just wanna go smoke dope with your friends, now you know the place to go. I'm here to help.

That's all.

A Lesson in Individual Freedom

2010-03-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Lee sent me this, I thought I'd pass it along. Enjoy! Think!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A...
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

Meanies on the Left of me Meanies on the Right

2010-03-18T06:37:00.000-07:00

We already know the Democrats of my generation are big meanies. They're rude, lascivious, condescending and blatant screamers-in-the-face of even the most minor opposition. We're used to that. We've seen their handbook. In fact, I'd have to say that the pro single-payer or government option or abortion-on-demand lefties have been fairly (I said FAIRLY) low-key during this whole process. Perhaps they woke up one day and saw all the angry tea-partiers and town hall participants and said "whoa! we woke the beast!" Maybe. But now...now they've seen the ripples of the center-right majority and staunch conservatives combine with the libertarian-minded into as big a wave as it can probably get and they're ready to shore up the defense.

Poor Bart Stupak. Well, actually, he is a congressman, he should be prepared for a little strife when making an unpopular stand--a stand opposite that of nearly every democrat I've ever met: abortion is a right. I've seen first-hand the physiological transfiguration that happens to lefties when they even have to glance at pro-life literature. They get all red in the face and their muscles tense up, it's like looking at a gyrating Daffy Duck right before he's about to blow up into a thousand pieces. And now, the very health care bill they so desperately want passed could quite possibly be exactly that which they fear the most: two thousand pages of pro-life literature. Poor Bart. I feel for you, bro. I feel even more for your wife:

"The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.
“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” --The Hill

Obscene phone calls and threats. Sounds about right...for the left.

But if you think the left has the meanness market cornered, think again. Actually, no, you wouldn't think that, because that's all you ever hear about the tea parties. They are ignorant, idiotic, racist, etc, etc, etc. The "racist" one I find especially annoying. Is it not common knowledge that the VAST majority of black voters are democrats? In case you didn't know, NINETY FIVE PERCENT OF BLACK VOTERS VOTED FOR OBAMA IN 2008...hopefully that is clear enough for you. So then, of course you won't find a lot of black voters at a tea party. But the fact that you find any black Americans at anti-healthcare rallies really, really, really makes the left utterly, insanely irate.)

But the right can get irate too. Yes. They can. Usually it takes someone trying to cram some neo-socialist crap down there throat. But sometimes, when they are already stewing, all it takes is for some random guy to cross the street and goad them into acting out:

Yeah, throwing money at a guy with a sign that says he has Parkinson's disease isn't very nice. I suggest not doing this. In fact I strongly urge against it. Even if the street was acting as a barrier between the pro health care advocates and the protesters and this guy decided he was entitled to be the only one to cross the street and park his dog and pony show right in the face of the opposition. So he got a little back in his face. And what, forty bucks to boot? Kind of ironic isn't it, that the protester had to pay cold hard cash in order to be mean. Heck, I might go pose as a guy with chronic restless leg syndrome and park my wriggly self on the street if it's a paying position.

Meh. In the end we all see only what we want to see. And I suppose the self proclaimed Parkinson's victim was the equivalent to democrat maddening pro-life literature for that angry, WHITE guy.

That's it. That's all.

The United States Constitution

2010-03-17T23:14:00.000-07:00

Just a handy link for anyone to click at their leisure...like, say, a congressman from my state that is about to commit treason by allowing Nancy Pelosi to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

That's All.

Your Own Private Idaho

2010-03-17T16:31:00.000-07:00

When it comes down to it, health care reform on the federal level is unconstitutional as it stands. And any bill that requires American citizens to buy anything is not only unconstitutional, it goes against the liberty engendered by the founding documents as a whole. I've said it all along, the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the states rights that are not afforded to the U.S. government. If your state wants health care reform, good luck, you're state is well within its rights to do so.

Your state is also well within their rights to tell the Feds to go to H E double toothpick. And they will.

This from FOXNEWS via the Associated Press:

Idaho Becomes First State to Sign Law Against Health Care Reform

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if Congress passes health care reform.

"Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if Congress passes health care reform.
Legal experts say the measure, signed Wednesday, will likely be struck down. But Idaho's new law reflects growing frustration with President Obama's health-care proposal.
Legislation similar to Idaho's is pending in as many as 37 other states nationwide.
Democrats in the nation's capital are hoping to pass health care reform by this weekend.
The American Legislative Exchange Council created the model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based, nonprofit says Idaho is the first to sign a version into law"

Yep. That's it.

Plays Nice With Others

2010-03-17T13:37:00.000-07:00

Dennis Kucinich: American Socialist. Plays Nice With Others.

Say what you want about Dennis Kucinich, former Mayor and overseer of the decline of the once great city of Cleveland, Ohio. But, so far at least, he's a man of principles. Strange, anti-American, unconstitutional principles in my opinion, but principles nonetheless.

Not.

Dennis Kucinich is nothing more than Washington's weight-loss mascot.

The Before and After:

Today, Mr. Kucinich did what we said he would do all along: He "folded" to Pelosi and Obama and said he would vote for the health care bill (in whatever form it ends up being in). For the longest time, Kucinich insisted, adamantly, that he would not favor a bill that did not include a public option. Heck, initially he wanted a single-payer system and ONLY a single-payer system. The so-called public option was a concession, Kucinich says. So, obviously we already knew he was a knee-bender and a lazy daisy blowing in the wind. And, needless to say I suppose, Kucinich isn't the only Democrat to stray from their principles of late. Bart Stupak, the pro-life Democrat Representative, has recently stated that he is closer to agreeing on some language with Pelosi regarding the bill.

But...I have to wonder...

Maybe they knew all along that they would never see their beloved single-payer agenda attain legal status. Maybe this, where we are now, with Pelosi and Obama actively attempting to avert the Constitution, is what they wanted all along.
Maybe Dennis Kucinich is a willing pawn, a character actor, if you will, in this Shakespearian drama that has become the health care debate.

Nah. That's all way too conspiratorial for my tastes. I just don't believe that these people would intentionally harm the Constitution...they do so by accident and with a sort of irreverential nonchalance toward it. "Who cares? The Constitution? Who cares!? It's 2010!" This is the attitude wafting around the heads of state in this country. Who cares?

I care. Libertarians care. That's why we don't play the game. We can't. We cannot and will not sacrifice our values in order to get some bill passed we only partly agree with. That's what politicians do, they willfully sacrifice their values for the sake of "getting along" and "bipartisanship" and "the greater good".

Possibly the greatest example of the Libertarian mindset at work in Washington is Congressman Ron Paul. Paul's main aim for the past few years has been to get SOMEONE to audit the Federal Reserve to see what kind of hinky business is going on there. He had a chance to pass HIS OWN legislation last year but refused to do so. Why? Because the House Democrats attached his bill to the regulatory reform bill, a bill Paul would never support--no matter who visited his districts in Texas.

Ron Paul: American hero. Doesn't play nice with others.

That's it. That's all.

It's Official: Britain's MSM Destroys Ours

2010-03-17T05:03:00.000-07:00

"And this I know, full many a time,

When she was on the mountain high,

By day, and in the silent night,

When all the stars shone clear and bright,

That I have heard her cry,

“Oh misery! oh misery!

Oh woe is me! oh misery!”’

What, Don't like Wordsworth? Loser.

Ok, fine. Try this then:

Barack Obama tries to find a scapegoat for his own hubris

Misery, says I. Misery. Misery. Misery.

That's it.

Lindsey Graham Gets one Right...But he's still a rat

2010-03-16T12:14:00.000-07:00

So what if Mr. Graham understands a little bit of why We the People are totally opposed to Them the Lawyers doing jack smack with health care? He's still a gurly-gurl-neo-con-elitist-glorified-National-Mall-rat.

I didn't see the interview, but apparently Senator Rat said the American people are "tired of this crap" on ABC's "This Week", referring to the latest maneuvering by house democrats regarding the health care bill.

Here is the article I read at the Hill.

That's nice that Senator Rat has crept away from his little cubby-hole in the dark confines of NIMH long enough to smell where the cheese is really coming from. But it don't change the fact that this rodent is nothing more than a scavenging squatter on the refuse pile that has become Washington, D. C.

Who wants to go through the trouble of photoshopping Lindsey Graham as a red-eyed villainous rat? I started to do it, but I couldn't stop laughing when it came time to apply the whiskers...he started looking way too much like Maeve Binchy to me...

But I did find this one courtesy of Lucas Gardner:

I have no clue how that isn't freakin' spot on. Still...I'd like to see his little rat feet and disgusting little rat tail portrayed a little more vehemently.

Until Senator Rat apologizes for dissing Ron Paul, I'll joyfully detest his little ratlike snickering...cuz, that's all it is.

Senator Graham: Let me tell you something you little rat fuck. Ron Paul is trying to fix what you neo-cons SHIT UPON. You say one more nasty thing about Ron Paul, you-you-little rat bastard, and I swear to God I'll conjure Barry Goldwater's ghost to kick your ass so bad you will look like Maeve Binchy.

That's all.

Peanut Butter and Jelly!

2010-03-16T07:09:00.000-07:00

You know what's great about this country? This is what's great about this little slice of God's green one.

That's right boys and squirrels. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches rock. I don't care if you don't like peanut butter. You know what? At least half the most important people in my life absolutely loathe the PB&J.

Sadness, I am become.

Well, that's ok. I more than make up for this strikingly flawed character trait in my significant others. Trust me. :D

In fact, I consider myself a THE world's premiere authority on how to make a PB&J. And no, I'm not going to tell you what the secret is. And yes, the link above is TOTALLY wrong. So is this one. And this one. And even this one here, while it certainly gets points for going above and beyond the pale, is hopelessly wrong.

I'm so good at making the delectable goodness that is the PB&J (Or PB&Honey, or PBBanana&H or just plain ol' P) sandwich, I entrust the most hallowed exercise of producing this nation's greatest contribution to the global lunch menu to no one. No one makes me a sandwich.

Which is a little bit odd, actually. Since I rarely cook anything or make myself anything to eat around here that doesn't come out of a box and require the simple addition of milk. Although, I think I broke a record this weekend by cooking not just one night but *gasp* two nights...IN A ROW! Friday I instigated what the girls have mockingly--I think--dubbed "Daddy's Pizzeria" when I made my homemade pizza. On Saturday I made spaghetti and meatballs...mmm...mmm! Hey, I likes me some Italian food m'kay?

So why is it so painfully important that I make my own PB&J and not simply follow the directions on the box that is the internet or Betty Crocker's cookbook? (And yes, there is a recipe for PB&J's in that book. And yes, it too is a miserable failure) I dunno. But, I know I'm not alone since there are forty thousand freakin' websites devoted to the sandwich itself, and countless others which errantly attempt to explain to you, the PB&J layman, how to consummate the union of peanutty goodness with fluffy white bread and lumps of sticky, sugary, fruitish-type stuff.

I know there is a moral in here somewhere...but I can't concentrate long enough to pick it out for you. Because, right now, I'm hungry. So, I'll just do a rapid fire before I consult the pantry:

Go make your own sandwich! And no, you may not use my peanut butter. And no, you STILL may not have my recipe.

That's it. That's all.

L.A. Times Joins Lostaglia's "NITSS" List

2010-03-15T06:48:00.000-07:00

You know why the lefty blogs and newsbots aren't complaining about the lack of women in the tea party? Because there isn't a lack of women in the tea party.

Sure, they'll harp all day about the lack of "black faces" and whatnot. Certainly we've proven that it is simply the leftist worldview that disallows them from seeing the black people involved in the tea party. But women? The tea party's got 'em and the left know it. Boy, do they know it.

So. You're a smart, eager American woman with concerns for the direction the country you love and have served is heading? What do you do? You join a group of like-minded individuals to advocate for your way of thinking, of course! And then, if you've the clout to do so, you start your own non-profit organization and try to rustle up as much sponsorship for your cause as possible. THAT! My friends, that, is what America is all about. You have the right to assemble, to speak and to petition the government for redress of your grievances! YES! This is sweet!

So what's the problem?

You're husband just might happen to be a Supreme Court Justice.

(Insert deflated sighs here).

Yes, your name is Virginia Thomas and you're husband's name is Clarence. Roll credits.

That's it. That's--

Wait-wait-wait right there a minute. Where's the rule that says you, the smart and eager American woman, has to stay out of the fight for what you think is right? Hmm? Where is it exactly? This shadowy law that bans spouses of judges--even the most influential judges on the planet--from participating in the political process.

Right here.

Sad, but left-coastishly true. The almighty (a.k.a. dwindling, fainting, gasping for air) L.A. Times has passed a law that states something like: You're a tea-partier, so you're evil. And you're husband is evil. And your dog is evil. And if you grow flowers in your lawn it's only to mask your evil.

Evil. Evil. Evil.

Well, two can play that game. I hereby add the aforementioned Los Angeles newspaper to the "Not in the same sentence" list along with the paper from New York with the same catchy post-locale titular nomenclature.

Actually, to be fair, the article was meh-o.k.(read: boring and uninformative) until the very end when its originator pretty much came out and accused Justice Clarence Thomas of corruption.

Read it HERE. Or don't. Heck, I wouldn't if I hadn't already.

That's it. That's all.

Food Cops Strike Again!

2010-03-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

Is ~~Sugar~~ Salt legal?

Do you remember THIS?

You probably don't, because only 31 people on the planet read that :D

Woohoo! I'm famous!

Well, maybe you should read THIS.

The government governs, my friends.

Told you so. Told you so. Told you so.

That's it, that's all.

Renaming the N.Y. Times!

2010-03-12T08:04:00.000-08:00

Ten pages.

No, I mean...TEN PAGES!

That's how many pages it took the ever-captious NY Times magazine to mount a full frontal assault on Texas's board of education...I mean edumacation (Oh my God I've been brainwashed by the Times already! I only read the one article, I swear it!) Texas, it seems, is going to turn THE ENTIRE COUNTRY into stark raving Christian Coalition members. Run!

Apparently, Texas is w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y more influential than you or I ever dreamed. All other states BOW at the dictatorial behest of a handful of, get this, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS FROM TEXAS. Mwah. Mwah. Mwahahahahahaha!

Man, all we need is a chainsaw and some ketchup and we got ourselves a horror film dynasty just waiting to grace the screens of theaters everywhere. Can't you taste how good this could be? Diamonds, baby. Diamonds.

You know what I like about the New York Times? Nothing. They are such lying shitbags it makes me sick to even look at the name in print. I'm never typing the words: New, York and Times in the same sentence ever again on this blog. You have my word on that. Maybe someone could help me think up a demeaning nom de guerre for the Times. I believe "The Fishwrap" is already spoken for--heck I think the Wrinkly Old Gray Lady (a.k.a. Decrepit Hoary Tired Ass Times of that city which shall not be named in this sentence) was the first official "fishwrap". Meh. I'll figure out a good name for it.

You're damned right I will.

I guess I could go through the trouble of spelling out what the hell is wrong with Mr. Russell Shorto's lopsided piece in that filthrag...but I'm not gonna. Read it for yourself, HERE. I'd rather sit here and make fun of Mr. Shorto's last name. I mean who wouldn't, right?

Nah. He's a liberal, he's got lawyers and isn't afraid to use them.