If you are living in Florida and are thinking about voting for Mitt Romney tomorrow (or living elsewhere and thinking about voting for him at some future date) you really should see this video. It will go light years towards explaining why so many of us have such grave reservations about him. And by the way, the ending of the video alone is worth the price of admission.
H/T Legal Insurrection
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Mike Huckabee, Former Baptist Preacher, Blazes A Path To Hell Paved With Lies
Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has posted a video recorded during the 2008 primaries in which former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Republican presidential primary candidate Mike Huckabee claims quite blatantly that Mitt Romney is a liar. It was quite a famous ad in its time. Huckabee didn't have the money to run the ad on Iowa television ahead of the Iowa caucuses, so campaign manager Ed Rollins hit on a brilliant strategy. He called a press conference, where he showed the ad. The media televised it as part of their news cycle, at no expense to the Huckabee campaign. In fact, the ad has been credited in no small measure with helping Huckabee win the Iowa caucuses in what was a stunning upset to the Romney campaign. In fact, even though Huckabee did not go on to become that year's GOP nominee, it might well have helped John McCain in the end. Here is the ad, which quite clearly targets Romney as a liar, and a purveyor of liberal ideas, including co-pays for abortion, and gun control. And of course, RomneyCare.
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Apparently though, not now to Mike Huckabee, who insists the ad has been characterized by the Newt Gingrich campaign in a deceptive manner. Huckabee has demanded that Newt stop using the old ad and has denied that he was talking about Romney. Huckabee has issued the same denial and assault on the Gingrich campaign via his HuckPAC. Again, you can watch the ad above and see for yourself.
So, what exactly is the big deal? More to the point, since its so blatantly obvious that Huck is referring to Romney, why would he deny it so strenuously? I suggested to Professor Jacobson that it might have something to do with the fact that Huckabee is currently employed by Fix News, which has him under contract, and that Fix News is itself in the tank for Romney. He responded to me with a link to Roger Aisles Twitter account, specifically a screen cap to a Tweet which, while not exactly a ringing endorsement of Romney, certainly makes plain his dislike for the candidacy of Newt Gingrich. It reads in full-
Can't blame Newt G too much. He was carpet bombed with negatives by Romney. Brilliant, visionary but just too much baggage! And erratic.
It would seem as though Fix News is fair and balanced to all sides, except to true conservatives. But hey, maybe the Republican elites know best after all. Maybe we shouldn't feel so badly that Fix News, like seemingly most of the Republican Establishment, are so thoroughly in the tank for Mitt, who evidently has no baggage worth noting,
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Apparently though, not now to Mike Huckabee, who insists the ad has been characterized by the Newt Gingrich campaign in a deceptive manner. Huckabee has demanded that Newt stop using the old ad and has denied that he was talking about Romney. Huckabee has issued the same denial and assault on the Gingrich campaign via his HuckPAC. Again, you can watch the ad above and see for yourself.
So, what exactly is the big deal? More to the point, since its so blatantly obvious that Huck is referring to Romney, why would he deny it so strenuously? I suggested to Professor Jacobson that it might have something to do with the fact that Huckabee is currently employed by Fix News, which has him under contract, and that Fix News is itself in the tank for Romney. He responded to me with a link to Roger Aisles Twitter account, specifically a screen cap to a Tweet which, while not exactly a ringing endorsement of Romney, certainly makes plain his dislike for the candidacy of Newt Gingrich. It reads in full-
Can't blame Newt G too much. He was carpet bombed with negatives by Romney. Brilliant, visionary but just too much baggage! And erratic.
It would seem as though Fix News is fair and balanced to all sides, except to true conservatives. But hey, maybe the Republican elites know best after all. Maybe we shouldn't feel so badly that Fix News, like seemingly most of the Republican Establishment, are so thoroughly in the tank for Mitt, who evidently has no baggage worth noting,
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Hillary Clinton To Resign From State Department
Although not totally unexpected, this is still big news. Clinton made it clear she will stay on as Secretary of State until Obama appoints a successor, and seemingly made it just as plain that she expects this to not happen until Obama wins a second term. But it does leave open the possibility that Obama could go ahead and make the appointment sooner rather than later, which would free Hillary to replace Biden as Obama's running mate in the 2012 election. This is something I predicted from the very beginning of Obama's presidency, but Clinton has of course denied any such intentions lately.
I find it difficult to believe that its not under serious consideration. Biden adds nothing to Obama. He's probably the most insignificant VP since Dan Quayle, in fact. And its not like Obama needs Biden to shore up his support in Delaware with its measly little three electoral votes, nor does Biden really help Obama that much in Pennsylvania at this stage. Clinton could help Obama in multiple states, and the two might prove an unbeatable combination. It depends, sadly, on the state of the economy by then. I say sadly, because if the economy improves significantly, Obama could start rounding up conservatives and shipping them off to Guantanamo on the grounds of their opposition to him being based on "racism" and thus a violation of his civil rights to be loved and respected as the first black president. He could mandate hands-on sex training in public schools by way of executive order on the grounds of public health concerns. He could mandate a government policy to reach a goal of one same sex marriage out of every one hundred by 2050, and one interracial marriage for every twenty by the same time period. He could do all this and even worse, and he would still be guaranteed at least 46% of the vote.
But that would be provided, of course, that we have a good economy. If he was to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton-arguably the closest thing to a Stalinist First Lady and Secretary of State the country has ever been burdened with-this would be seen as a "moderating" influence.
We are just plainly fucked.
I find it difficult to believe that its not under serious consideration. Biden adds nothing to Obama. He's probably the most insignificant VP since Dan Quayle, in fact. And its not like Obama needs Biden to shore up his support in Delaware with its measly little three electoral votes, nor does Biden really help Obama that much in Pennsylvania at this stage. Clinton could help Obama in multiple states, and the two might prove an unbeatable combination. It depends, sadly, on the state of the economy by then. I say sadly, because if the economy improves significantly, Obama could start rounding up conservatives and shipping them off to Guantanamo on the grounds of their opposition to him being based on "racism" and thus a violation of his civil rights to be loved and respected as the first black president. He could mandate hands-on sex training in public schools by way of executive order on the grounds of public health concerns. He could mandate a government policy to reach a goal of one same sex marriage out of every one hundred by 2050, and one interracial marriage for every twenty by the same time period. He could do all this and even worse, and he would still be guaranteed at least 46% of the vote.
But that would be provided, of course, that we have a good economy. If he was to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton-arguably the closest thing to a Stalinist First Lady and Secretary of State the country has ever been burdened with-this would be seen as a "moderating" influence.
We are just plainly fucked.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Do We Really Have A Voice?
So far I've looked in vain for any information as to who decided Mitt Romney was the right man to give the "Prebuttal" to last night's SOTU by Obama. I can only assume this was done at the behest of the RNC. Well, somebody had to give the go ahead, right? I suppose Romney could have purchased the air time, but wouldn't that in itself be news? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I doubt that though. The GOP almost had Obama surrounded last night. All that was missing was another candidate, or potential candidate, making faces and obscene gestures during the middle of the presidential address to both houses of Congress.
The Republicans decided, evidently, the Prebuttal should be by their preferred candidate. That of course is Romney. Never mind that, as of now, Gingrich is ahead in delegate counts and the polls in Florida are close enough between Gingrich and Romney as to fall squarely within the margin of error. The Republican Establishment has decided they want Mitt this year.
They are actually pissed, and concerned, that its not all over yet. But Gingrich is still going strong, and Santorum and Paul are also still in the mix. It's not over by a long shot. So what does the GOP do? They try to reassert Romney's aura of inevitability by giving him this prime speaking slot.
But just to be on the safe side, they appoint Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to deliver the traditional rebuttal following Obama's address, the day before this putting out a trial balloon trying to gauge potential support for Daniels among the GOP electorate.
Isn't it strange that the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan always wants to promote its moderates, even its liberals. They want no truck with a Sarah Palin, who I believe they pressured out of this year's race. But they will go back and forth multiple times to encourage somebody like Daniels, or Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie. And they're so dense one resounding no isn't enough for them. They have to hear it over and over again. It wasn't but two or three weeks ago they were floating the Jeb Bush trial balloon for the third or fourth time, and now its back to Daniels, again. I guess in two or three weeks it will be time to float the Chris Christie balloon, yet again.
It's fucking sickening. If the GOP wants to go back to the days when nominees were decided by party bosses and precinct captains, they should just come out and say so and quit wasting our fucking time.
I doubt that though. The GOP almost had Obama surrounded last night. All that was missing was another candidate, or potential candidate, making faces and obscene gestures during the middle of the presidential address to both houses of Congress.
The Republicans decided, evidently, the Prebuttal should be by their preferred candidate. That of course is Romney. Never mind that, as of now, Gingrich is ahead in delegate counts and the polls in Florida are close enough between Gingrich and Romney as to fall squarely within the margin of error. The Republican Establishment has decided they want Mitt this year.
They are actually pissed, and concerned, that its not all over yet. But Gingrich is still going strong, and Santorum and Paul are also still in the mix. It's not over by a long shot. So what does the GOP do? They try to reassert Romney's aura of inevitability by giving him this prime speaking slot.
But just to be on the safe side, they appoint Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to deliver the traditional rebuttal following Obama's address, the day before this putting out a trial balloon trying to gauge potential support for Daniels among the GOP electorate.
Isn't it strange that the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan always wants to promote its moderates, even its liberals. They want no truck with a Sarah Palin, who I believe they pressured out of this year's race. But they will go back and forth multiple times to encourage somebody like Daniels, or Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie. And they're so dense one resounding no isn't enough for them. They have to hear it over and over again. It wasn't but two or three weeks ago they were floating the Jeb Bush trial balloon for the third or fourth time, and now its back to Daniels, again. I guess in two or three weeks it will be time to float the Chris Christie balloon, yet again.
It's fucking sickening. If the GOP wants to go back to the days when nominees were decided by party bosses and precinct captains, they should just come out and say so and quit wasting our fucking time.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Future Shock
Come to find out, Newt Gingrich and Al Gore have one thing in common-a mentor by the name of Alvin Toffler.
I'm not sure if I should be worried, but I am. Admittedly, not for the same reason others are.
Kelleigh Nelson has a provocative two part history of Gingrich, here and in the second part she details Gingrich's adherence to Toffler's theory of the Third Wave.
And this is not something that has just bobbed up to the surface. Enter Stage Right posted this article way back in 2001 about the implications of Newt Gingrich and the Third Wave philosophy of Toffler. Basically, Toffler states that time and progress is not linear, that it can move forward, backwards, or sideways, but that it moves in waves. According to Toffler, we first had an Agricultural Wave away from the original Hunter-Gather societies of the distant past. The Second Wave was the Industrial Age. The coming Third Wave, which has actually already commenced, will be Post-Industrial. He holds that it will be marked by technological advances, but also by many other aspects, in the fields of business, medicine, and education.
Some people see it as a capitalist tolerant version of communism. I don't know about that, but what I do know is it doesn't seem to have much to do with the ideals of Federalism and limited government.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that anytime anyone anywhere preaches the gospel of greater government power and control, they always couch it in terms of humanity, equality, fairness, and all the other buzzwords which imply you are a hateful bigot, racist, misogynist, etc., if you don't play along. Then they try to feed you the carrot of promised greater potential for prosperity, security, and independence. Later of course they play the patriot card.
If this is the kind of thing Newt Gingrich is selling, I'm not buying. The unfortunate thing is, as of now he might still be the best bet of a bad lot.
I used to think things were as bad as they could possibly get. And then I remembered something-
I'm not exactly sitting on top of the heap.
UPDATE-Thanks to Charles Martel, a commenter at The Other McCain who provided me with a link to an Ann Coulter article which goes into some detail about the Gingrich-Toffler connection. This might go a long way towards explaining the stridency with which she seems to oppose Gingrich, though I still strongly disagree with her support for Mitt Romney, to say nothing of uber-liberal Chris Christie. It makes you wonder why she doesn't point this out in her appearances on television. Is there some unwritten, unspoken rule that mention of the Tofflers is bad form or something?
I'm not sure if I should be worried, but I am. Admittedly, not for the same reason others are.
Kelleigh Nelson has a provocative two part history of Gingrich, here and in the second part she details Gingrich's adherence to Toffler's theory of the Third Wave.
And this is not something that has just bobbed up to the surface. Enter Stage Right posted this article way back in 2001 about the implications of Newt Gingrich and the Third Wave philosophy of Toffler. Basically, Toffler states that time and progress is not linear, that it can move forward, backwards, or sideways, but that it moves in waves. According to Toffler, we first had an Agricultural Wave away from the original Hunter-Gather societies of the distant past. The Second Wave was the Industrial Age. The coming Third Wave, which has actually already commenced, will be Post-Industrial. He holds that it will be marked by technological advances, but also by many other aspects, in the fields of business, medicine, and education.
Some people see it as a capitalist tolerant version of communism. I don't know about that, but what I do know is it doesn't seem to have much to do with the ideals of Federalism and limited government.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that anytime anyone anywhere preaches the gospel of greater government power and control, they always couch it in terms of humanity, equality, fairness, and all the other buzzwords which imply you are a hateful bigot, racist, misogynist, etc., if you don't play along. Then they try to feed you the carrot of promised greater potential for prosperity, security, and independence. Later of course they play the patriot card.
If this is the kind of thing Newt Gingrich is selling, I'm not buying. The unfortunate thing is, as of now he might still be the best bet of a bad lot.
I used to think things were as bad as they could possibly get. And then I remembered something-
I'm not exactly sitting on top of the heap.
UPDATE-Thanks to Charles Martel, a commenter at The Other McCain who provided me with a link to an Ann Coulter article which goes into some detail about the Gingrich-Toffler connection. This might go a long way towards explaining the stridency with which she seems to oppose Gingrich, though I still strongly disagree with her support for Mitt Romney, to say nothing of uber-liberal Chris Christie. It makes you wonder why she doesn't point this out in her appearances on television. Is there some unwritten, unspoken rule that mention of the Tofflers is bad form or something?
Monday, January 23, 2012
PETA Wants A Murder Museum
And since it is currently undergoing foreclosure, PETA has their sites set on the Florida home of OJ Simpson, now currently serving thirty-three years on charges of kidnapping and robbery committed by Simpson in an attempt to retrieve sports memorabilia which had belonged to the Hall-Of-Fame former NFL running back. The items in question were being auctioned off to meet the terms of a court settlement, a substantial sum owed the families of former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, both of whose murder Simpson was guilty of according to the judgment of the civil suit brought against Simpson by those families.
So why exactly would PETA want this home in particular, the former abode of such a notorious figure in American history? Apparently, their aim is to draw a correlation between Simpson and his violent tendencies with the habit of eating meat. As they say in the article at The Post Game-
(Simpson) was outspoken about his consumption of meat, coupled with the fact that he was a spokesman for a chicken restaurant chain, and owned two restaurants and a stake in HoneyBaked Ham stores.
So because of his avid consumption of and promotion of meat, Simpson became a bloodthirsty, violent double-murderer, and later kidnapper and robber. What better place than the former home of such a person to have a "Murder Museum" which would teach visitors that "Murder begins on our plates"?
And of course the publicity value of such an acquisition would go without saying, and if anybody knows publicity, you can rest assured that PETA knows publicity.
Only time will tell how this proposed purchase unfolds. PETA would like for the bank to donate the premises, but are willing to pay a nominal sum. My worries for the neighborhood are based on some awareness of the groups overall philosophy. They don't even believe in killing vermin, to the extent they at times seem squeamish about the prospect of killing even head or body lice. I hope no one ever clues them in to the fact that microscopic bacteria and viruses are life-forms and thus technically "animals", but I'm sure its only a matter of time before they start picketing hospitals and doctor's offices.
In the meantime, PETA is probably at the forefront of insisting that DC's rat population should be "relocated in family units" as opposed to killing them. Come to think of it, what rat family wouldn't love a new home in sunny Florida?
So why exactly would PETA want this home in particular, the former abode of such a notorious figure in American history? Apparently, their aim is to draw a correlation between Simpson and his violent tendencies with the habit of eating meat. As they say in the article at The Post Game-
(Simpson) was outspoken about his consumption of meat, coupled with the fact that he was a spokesman for a chicken restaurant chain, and owned two restaurants and a stake in HoneyBaked Ham stores.
So because of his avid consumption of and promotion of meat, Simpson became a bloodthirsty, violent double-murderer, and later kidnapper and robber. What better place than the former home of such a person to have a "Murder Museum" which would teach visitors that "Murder begins on our plates"?
And of course the publicity value of such an acquisition would go without saying, and if anybody knows publicity, you can rest assured that PETA knows publicity.
Only time will tell how this proposed purchase unfolds. PETA would like for the bank to donate the premises, but are willing to pay a nominal sum. My worries for the neighborhood are based on some awareness of the groups overall philosophy. They don't even believe in killing vermin, to the extent they at times seem squeamish about the prospect of killing even head or body lice. I hope no one ever clues them in to the fact that microscopic bacteria and viruses are life-forms and thus technically "animals", but I'm sure its only a matter of time before they start picketing hospitals and doctor's offices.
In the meantime, PETA is probably at the forefront of insisting that DC's rat population should be "relocated in family units" as opposed to killing them. Come to think of it, what rat family wouldn't love a new home in sunny Florida?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
If It Seems Like Fox News (And The GOP Establishment) Is In The Tank For Romney, Well
CORRECTION-Apparently I jumped the gun in identifying Fox News as a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, not Clear Channel, although I'm still not sure whether Murdoch might be part owner of Clear Channel as well. I'll look into that. For now, the controversy seems to be the zeal with which several conservative talk radio hosts, notably Rush Limbaugh, jumped to Romney's defense over questions concerning his conduct at Bain Capital.
Clear Channel Communications is owned by Bain Capital.
There is another story, though far murkier, that blames Gingrich, and possibly Dick Armey, for the suicide death of Sandy Hume, the son of Fox News analyst Brit Hume. Apparently, there was a move to oust Gingrich from the Speaker's Chair in the nineties led by Buffalo Representative Bill Paxon. When Armey learned Paxon and not he would be the new House Speaker, he may have leaked the news of a homosexual affair between Paxon and Hume. Or it could have been Gingrich. Or maybe Gingrich and Armey acting together. Whichever was responsible, the result-allegedly-is that Hume killed himself, and Paxon left the House.
Here is the whole nasty story which was slated to be the subject of a conference call hosted by the Romney campaign with two surrogates, former Rep. Susan Molinari and former Sen. Jim Talent. Whether the details will be released publicly is questionable, and doubtful, due to the obviously sensitive nature of the discussion. Incidentally, it so happens that Molinari is the former wife of the aforementioned Bill Paxon.
Sandy Hume, who was at the time a reporter for the Hill, penned the following missive in covering the attempted coup on Gingrich-
"There is a concerted effort to take Bill Paxon out before he becomes a bigger threat to Gingrich than he is," Hill reporter Sandy Hume reported at the time, according to this Arianna Huffington. "Paxon and Armey haven't been on speaking terms since the coup."
It was shortly after this that Hume committed suicide, because of the rumor of the gay relationship with Paxon, according to many. It is also interesting to note that Joe Scarbrorough blamed Dick Armey for the rumor, which was intended to derail Paxon's efforts to overthrow Gingrich.
Like I said, murky and uncertain. But it does go to explain, to some degree, a good deal of the Republican establishment hatred toward Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich was eventually successfully removed and replaced as Speaker by Dennis Hastert, the GOP took on an entirely different persona, one in which big government conservative during the Bush era became the predominant norm, until a disgusted Republican electorate removed them from power in 2006.
It is frankly clear to me that a Mitt Romney presidency, though slightly an improvement over Obama in some regards, would in many pertinent ways amount to just more of the same. They know the conservative base doesn't want it, but they are determined to force-feed us the Romney medicine anyway.
Why? Because they think that, now more than ever, we'll put up with it.
Clear Channel Communications is owned by Bain Capital.
There is another story, though far murkier, that blames Gingrich, and possibly Dick Armey, for the suicide death of Sandy Hume, the son of Fox News analyst Brit Hume. Apparently, there was a move to oust Gingrich from the Speaker's Chair in the nineties led by Buffalo Representative Bill Paxon. When Armey learned Paxon and not he would be the new House Speaker, he may have leaked the news of a homosexual affair between Paxon and Hume. Or it could have been Gingrich. Or maybe Gingrich and Armey acting together. Whichever was responsible, the result-allegedly-is that Hume killed himself, and Paxon left the House.
Here is the whole nasty story which was slated to be the subject of a conference call hosted by the Romney campaign with two surrogates, former Rep. Susan Molinari and former Sen. Jim Talent. Whether the details will be released publicly is questionable, and doubtful, due to the obviously sensitive nature of the discussion. Incidentally, it so happens that Molinari is the former wife of the aforementioned Bill Paxon.
Sandy Hume, who was at the time a reporter for the Hill, penned the following missive in covering the attempted coup on Gingrich-
"There is a concerted effort to take Bill Paxon out before he becomes a bigger threat to Gingrich than he is," Hill reporter Sandy Hume reported at the time, according to this Arianna Huffington. "Paxon and Armey haven't been on speaking terms since the coup."
It was shortly after this that Hume committed suicide, because of the rumor of the gay relationship with Paxon, according to many. It is also interesting to note that Joe Scarbrorough blamed Dick Armey for the rumor, which was intended to derail Paxon's efforts to overthrow Gingrich.
Like I said, murky and uncertain. But it does go to explain, to some degree, a good deal of the Republican establishment hatred toward Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich was eventually successfully removed and replaced as Speaker by Dennis Hastert, the GOP took on an entirely different persona, one in which big government conservative during the Bush era became the predominant norm, until a disgusted Republican electorate removed them from power in 2006.
It is frankly clear to me that a Mitt Romney presidency, though slightly an improvement over Obama in some regards, would in many pertinent ways amount to just more of the same. They know the conservative base doesn't want it, but they are determined to force-feed us the Romney medicine anyway.
Why? Because they think that, now more than ever, we'll put up with it.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Post-Season
Let's talk football, something I've generally lost most of my interest in over the last few years. But if this seasons post-season playoff games thus far are any indication, we might be in for a wild and wooly couple of championship games, and hopefully Super Bowl.
Granted, with the exception of Denver's overtime victory over Pittsburgh (a game I unfortunately missed), the wild card games were blow-outs. Most people were shocked, shocked I say at Denver's ultimate victory, but let's face it, the game turned out the way it way supposed to turn out. Conference champions are supposed to beat the wild cards. Still people went nuts. Christian fans of Denver quarterback Tim Tebow started pointing to the recurrence of the number 316 (from the scripture John 3:16 the young Florida State quarterback Tebow wore in greasepaint under his eyes, a signature he was required to drop upon entry to the NFL). So what is the significance anyway?
Well you know, Tebow thew for 316 yards, and GET THIS HE ALSO AVERAGED 31.6 YARDS A PASS, NOW DON'T THAT PROVE SOMETHING? (Answer-yes, it proves he completed ten passes)
The Cinci loss to Houston was a hella heart breaker, but really, what are we to expect after all these years? Let's be thankful there are no tigers native to America. Thanks to the Bengals, if some kids were wandering in the woods and a tiger crossed their paths, they'd just say, "Oh its just a stupid fucking Bengal."
I almost felt just as bad for the Lions in their loss to New York. You start to wonder if it might be bad luck to name your professional sports team after a jungle cat, until you realize that the Lions practically dominated the NFL in the nineteen fifties.
And of course, to no ones surprise, the Falcons were similarly eviscerated by the Saints.
Once the wild card games were over and done with, we moved on to some games that were in my opinion football at its best. In fact, in my opinion the San Francisco-New Orleans game might have been the best game I've seen in several years, and I've seen a few good ones in that span of time. I told people not to underestimate the Niners, but did they listen? Of course not. Never mind they have the best defense in the NFC they are in the weakest conference in the NFC so they cant be that good right? Never mind that they dominated their conference. I found myself rooting for Alex Smith almost as much as Christians rooted for Tebow, and he did not disappoint, proving to be as much of a factor over an impressive Saints team as their lauded defensive squad.
Speaking of Tebow, whom I like and respect, when it came time for the Broncs to go up against the Pats, we got the predictable David versus Goliath schpiel. And of course, the game turned out as I predicted. In fact, if you saw the game (I didn't) I have an idea you saw a pretty good rendition of what the real David would have gotten if the real Goliath had managed to get his hands on him-a spanking.
But no, if there was any hint of divine intervention in any of these games, you would have needed to look no further than the Baltimore-Houston match-up. That was another great game, though it was apparent to me Baltimore was going to come out on top. Granted, Houston played a great game, but the dominance of Baltimore's defenseive squad, along with quarterback Flacco, reigned supreme, his passing efforts superhuman in scope, yet matched by the dogged determination and skill of not one but two different receivers, one of whom caught an impossible pass way down field, inches from the out-of-bounds line with a defender practically all up in his ass. And he caught the damn ball one-handed. And somehow he managed to make it look easy. Near the end a Baltimore defensive player recovered a fumble whereupon the offensive squad took it to the one-yard line-where they were stopped short on fourth down and had to turn the ball over. But the game was nevertheless to all intents and purposes over by this point.
Now I have to wonder if the game of the season might be not the Super Bowl, but the AFC Championship game between the Ravens and the Pats. The NFC Championship game upcoming between the Giants and the Niners, well that might be a whole nuther ball game. Pity the poor Packers, humiliated at Lambeau Field by a perpetually underestimated Eli Manning after producing the best all around record of the season. I mean let's face it, by the time the Pack achieved a record of 13-0 they had it so sewn up they could afford to take it easy for the rest of the season. How fucking bad-ass is that? Yet the Giants came to town and decimate them by seventeen points in what was probably the worst game of the post-season, based on the prevailing wisdom prior to the first snap. It was definitely the worst post-season game showing in all of Green Bay history. Now New York goes on to Candlestick.
And I have to admit, I am greatly disappointed. How hilarious would it have been to see that Championship advertised over television?
Stay tuned for the NFC Championship Game-
SAN FRANCISCO TAKES ON THE PACKERS.
Then again, San Francisco playing with Packers is an old joke by now, right?
My predictions for the remainder of the post-season? Not going to pretend to have a clue.
Granted, with the exception of Denver's overtime victory over Pittsburgh (a game I unfortunately missed), the wild card games were blow-outs. Most people were shocked, shocked I say at Denver's ultimate victory, but let's face it, the game turned out the way it way supposed to turn out. Conference champions are supposed to beat the wild cards. Still people went nuts. Christian fans of Denver quarterback Tim Tebow started pointing to the recurrence of the number 316 (from the scripture John 3:16 the young Florida State quarterback Tebow wore in greasepaint under his eyes, a signature he was required to drop upon entry to the NFL). So what is the significance anyway?
Well you know, Tebow thew for 316 yards, and GET THIS HE ALSO AVERAGED 31.6 YARDS A PASS, NOW DON'T THAT PROVE SOMETHING? (Answer-yes, it proves he completed ten passes)
The Cinci loss to Houston was a hella heart breaker, but really, what are we to expect after all these years? Let's be thankful there are no tigers native to America. Thanks to the Bengals, if some kids were wandering in the woods and a tiger crossed their paths, they'd just say, "Oh its just a stupid fucking Bengal."
I almost felt just as bad for the Lions in their loss to New York. You start to wonder if it might be bad luck to name your professional sports team after a jungle cat, until you realize that the Lions practically dominated the NFL in the nineteen fifties.
And of course, to no ones surprise, the Falcons were similarly eviscerated by the Saints.
Once the wild card games were over and done with, we moved on to some games that were in my opinion football at its best. In fact, in my opinion the San Francisco-New Orleans game might have been the best game I've seen in several years, and I've seen a few good ones in that span of time. I told people not to underestimate the Niners, but did they listen? Of course not. Never mind they have the best defense in the NFC they are in the weakest conference in the NFC so they cant be that good right? Never mind that they dominated their conference. I found myself rooting for Alex Smith almost as much as Christians rooted for Tebow, and he did not disappoint, proving to be as much of a factor over an impressive Saints team as their lauded defensive squad.
Speaking of Tebow, whom I like and respect, when it came time for the Broncs to go up against the Pats, we got the predictable David versus Goliath schpiel. And of course, the game turned out as I predicted. In fact, if you saw the game (I didn't) I have an idea you saw a pretty good rendition of what the real David would have gotten if the real Goliath had managed to get his hands on him-a spanking.
But no, if there was any hint of divine intervention in any of these games, you would have needed to look no further than the Baltimore-Houston match-up. That was another great game, though it was apparent to me Baltimore was going to come out on top. Granted, Houston played a great game, but the dominance of Baltimore's defenseive squad, along with quarterback Flacco, reigned supreme, his passing efforts superhuman in scope, yet matched by the dogged determination and skill of not one but two different receivers, one of whom caught an impossible pass way down field, inches from the out-of-bounds line with a defender practically all up in his ass. And he caught the damn ball one-handed. And somehow he managed to make it look easy. Near the end a Baltimore defensive player recovered a fumble whereupon the offensive squad took it to the one-yard line-where they were stopped short on fourth down and had to turn the ball over. But the game was nevertheless to all intents and purposes over by this point.
Now I have to wonder if the game of the season might be not the Super Bowl, but the AFC Championship game between the Ravens and the Pats. The NFC Championship game upcoming between the Giants and the Niners, well that might be a whole nuther ball game. Pity the poor Packers, humiliated at Lambeau Field by a perpetually underestimated Eli Manning after producing the best all around record of the season. I mean let's face it, by the time the Pack achieved a record of 13-0 they had it so sewn up they could afford to take it easy for the rest of the season. How fucking bad-ass is that? Yet the Giants came to town and decimate them by seventeen points in what was probably the worst game of the post-season, based on the prevailing wisdom prior to the first snap. It was definitely the worst post-season game showing in all of Green Bay history. Now New York goes on to Candlestick.
And I have to admit, I am greatly disappointed. How hilarious would it have been to see that Championship advertised over television?
Stay tuned for the NFC Championship Game-
SAN FRANCISCO TAKES ON THE PACKERS.
Then again, San Francisco playing with Packers is an old joke by now, right?
My predictions for the remainder of the post-season? Not going to pretend to have a clue.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Romney Empire And It's Great Bird Of Prey
Bain Capital-it sounds like Bane. But are they really malefactors, the Vulture Capitalists as described by Rick Perry? Are they really deserving of the recent attack ad by supporters of Newt Gingrich, which has been described as being as vicious as anything ever cooked up by the left? And this is coming from Daily Kos!
Probably not. Private equity firms such as Bain play a vital role in any kind of capitalist system, the healthy ones as well as those which are grievously wounded, such as our own. They recognize there will always be winners and losers. Bain has probably saved more jobs on balance than they have devoured. They have created success stories from the ashes of creative destruction. Some companies, such as Staples, have survived thanks to Bain, and gone on to prosper, expand, and thrive.
And of course, there have been failures. There will always be some of those. That's also the risk of private equity. But on balance, in the case of Bain Capital, there have been more success stories than failures. There have been more jobs saved, and created, than lost. Much, much more.
Thus, when you attack Bain Capital, this great Bird Of Prey of the Romneylan Empire, they simply throw up their deflector shields and ward off your phaser attack. That's because you are engaging in a frontal assault against their strongest, most easily defensible positions.
But in the meantime, they employ their cloaking device when it comes to their truly malefic aspects. No one truly sees where they are coming from, and from where they derive their true strength. Few manage to pierce beyond the veil. But they should, because its power source isn't at all the power of the free-enterprise system, but the largesse of crony capitalism. And that system is itself enabled by the labyrinthine maze of red tape and regulations that make up the most offensive, counter-productive regulatory system in history.
It is a system which requires extensive time in the form of non-productive labor and draining of capital expenditure in order for any business to survive, and under which relatively few will thrive. This has been true since the days of the New Deal, but then, the damage was nowhere near as incalculable. It has since that time grown steadily over the decades, much like a cancer which has only now metastisized with the implementation of such onerous regulatory regimes as Sarbannes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and of course The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. These legislative and bureaucratic monstrosities have already adversely affected job creation and business profitability (and in many cases business survival)-and they have not yet even been implemented.
They need to be repealed, scrapped. But we should not stop with them. There are many more examples of laws and regulatory regimes that should be buried under the ash heap of history. Fannie And Freddie should be broken up and sold off to private interests. The FDA and the EPA should be scrapped, or at least massively scaled back, and made to be reactive agencies as opposed to the proactive monstrosities that actively look for the slightest excuse to levy fines and injunctions. All of these government boondoggles should be either scrapped or reined in sharply, and several cabinet departments should be phased out as well.
The dirty little secret here is, if this were done, and taxes were lowered significantly and the tax code itself simplified, the economy would grow by such leaps and bounds that entitlements could be saved with nothing more than relatively minor reforms.
Unfortunately, a moderate Republican like Romney is highly unlikely to do that, not because he is a moderate, a squish-a "RINO", if you will. No, it is simply because Romney's company, Bain Capital, that great bird of prey, like many other private equity firms, have thrived under the current regulatory system.
True, there will always be business failures, due to bad management or a flawed business model, even under the best of economies, and companies like Bain will always thrive to a point by buying these companies and when possible turning them around.
But does anybody seriously believe for one minute that Bain would be nearly as successful as it has been under a sound economy with a bare minimum of regulatory interference, no more than necessary. Let's get real here. Our regulatory system has created an atmosphere that is conducive to business failure as it contributes in large to the sluggishness of our economy. I won't venture to say what percentage of business failures are directly attributable to our oppressive regulatory regimes, but I do know that it has to be significant. Common sense tells you that.
So why should we trust Mitt Romney to significantly reform our economy? Why should we take him seriously when he says we need smaller government? Lower taxes? Less regulations?
Bain Capital at one point made investments in companies that specializes in green energy technology. Then voila, at some point, Mitt Romney declared himself a believe in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. And of course, green energy. It does not take a rocket scientist-or a solar panel technician-to realize he was looking out for his own financial interests, and that of his company.
Why should we then trust him to reform a regulatory system that has enabled him and his company to grow, and to thrive, to a much greater extent than it ordinarily would have?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
One Of The Best Animal Videos Ever
I know this is probably going to be one of the most watched videos ever by the end of the week, but there's a reason for that. It's just too damn cool for me not to post it.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Some Friendly Advice From The Empress Livia
Last nights sad spectacle of a debate in New Hampshire was a disappointment, to say the least. Mitt won, only by virtue of no one laying a hand on him. Santorum was restrained. Gingrich was cautious. Paul was still nutty, but he seemed-well, medicated, perhaps? Huntsman, feeling it was perhaps his last chance to shine, exhibited his depth of knowledge by-speaking Mandarin. I guess he figured he would prove he was a man of accomplishment, a man who knew whereof he spoke. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody has yet figured out what the hell he was saying. As for Perry, he horrified us all with the news that the Iranians have apparently not only developed nuclear capabilities, but have somehow managed to acquire 22nd century Warp Drive technology as well.
Are these guys really auditioning for Republican presidential nominee? I started to think at first they might actually be trying for a position on next year's Cincinnati Bengals squad.
Granted, this mornings debate on NBC was much better. Santorum was more assertive, Gingrich was his old feisty self, and everybody went after Mitt, who nevertheless held up somewhat well. Paul was slightly less medicated. Huntsman gave all his responses in English-his second language. And Perry still evidently hasn't figured out that Congress actually gets a vote on their pay and their work schedule.
But, as much as an improvement as it was over last nights, and many other preceding debates, they have a ways to go. I think they need somebody to give them a pep talk. Because let's face it, what with what is ahead for the winner in the general election, its time to hone the old killer instinct.
Are these guys really auditioning for Republican presidential nominee? I started to think at first they might actually be trying for a position on next year's Cincinnati Bengals squad.
Granted, this mornings debate on NBC was much better. Santorum was more assertive, Gingrich was his old feisty self, and everybody went after Mitt, who nevertheless held up somewhat well. Paul was slightly less medicated. Huntsman gave all his responses in English-his second language. And Perry still evidently hasn't figured out that Congress actually gets a vote on their pay and their work schedule.
But, as much as an improvement as it was over last nights, and many other preceding debates, they have a ways to go. I think they need somebody to give them a pep talk. Because let's face it, what with what is ahead for the winner in the general election, its time to hone the old killer instinct.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Rage Of The Paultards
Since Ron Paul came in third in the Iowa caucuses, the Paultards are livid with rage, and now claim the process was subverted, by-Jews. That's right, Jews, acting in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and Establishment Republicans who are determined Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee. What's more, they knew it all along.
According to them, well see for yourself-
The short version goes something like this, in part. Paul's old newsletters were written years ago by "disgruntled former employees" who were probably acting as "agent provocateurs" (and they did this for at least ten years, unhindered), CNN had Paul at over 50% in the Iowa polls (which is damn sure news to me), and oh yeah, to paraphrase, "we're going to have to shoot the bastards".
And this is all contained in just the roughly two or three minutes of the 9:05 video I could stand to watch.
Of course, this is par for the course. Anything that doesn't go the way the Paultards think it should is due to the machinations of some arcane, devious plot by people determined to keep us in bondage to the war machine profiteers, the internationalist bankers, and the career politicians who are in thrall to them all.
And the Paul supporters wonder why people make fun of them.
H/T Anti-Craptastic
In closing, I have to point out here that those who are raging conspiracy theorists are the most likely to become involved in conspiracies themselves. The actions of the Paultard Cult proves this maxim. But just how wide-ranging is the Paultard cult? How devoted are they to their cause? What is the source of their funding? How influential are they in reality? Do they hide in the shadows, ready to strike? In the following video, we see evidence that no less a personage than former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi might have been, in fact, a secret member of the Paultard cult. Ah, but as you will see, even the most fanatical, devoted, and powerful of Paultards can not long conceal his true nature.
According to them, well see for yourself-
The short version goes something like this, in part. Paul's old newsletters were written years ago by "disgruntled former employees" who were probably acting as "agent provocateurs" (and they did this for at least ten years, unhindered), CNN had Paul at over 50% in the Iowa polls (which is damn sure news to me), and oh yeah, to paraphrase, "we're going to have to shoot the bastards".
And this is all contained in just the roughly two or three minutes of the 9:05 video I could stand to watch.
Of course, this is par for the course. Anything that doesn't go the way the Paultards think it should is due to the machinations of some arcane, devious plot by people determined to keep us in bondage to the war machine profiteers, the internationalist bankers, and the career politicians who are in thrall to them all.
And the Paul supporters wonder why people make fun of them.
H/T Anti-Craptastic
In closing, I have to point out here that those who are raging conspiracy theorists are the most likely to become involved in conspiracies themselves. The actions of the Paultard Cult proves this maxim. But just how wide-ranging is the Paultard cult? How devoted are they to their cause? What is the source of their funding? How influential are they in reality? Do they hide in the shadows, ready to strike? In the following video, we see evidence that no less a personage than former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi might have been, in fact, a secret member of the Paultard cult. Ah, but as you will see, even the most fanatical, devoted, and powerful of Paultards can not long conceal his true nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)