Monday, September 04, 2006

Diversifying the Portfolio

Bobby Timmons – “This Here” – The Best of Bobby Timmons, 2004

This sounds a little like Herbie Hancock on “Watermelon Man” and “Cantaloupe Island”, but not quite as cool and casual. That’s not a knock on Timmons at all, it’s still a great song, just not quite as, “hey woman why don’t you just sit down here on this couch and tell me a little about your fears and I’ll chase them out of you with my agile love weapon” kind of cool and casual. Herbie Hancock’s piano is an agile love weapon, that’s just his thing. Timmons is good, but not like that. It has the same kind of repetitive piano riffs and soft drums as Herbie, but just doesn’t quite coalesce as well. The piano actually ventures at times into what sounds like boogie woogie or ragtime almost. I would rate it an 8 on my “white boy no knowledge jazz scale” (WBNKJS from now on) where I just like the way it sounds and the mood it creates. You’ll probably like it, especially if you like hanging out in a casual, laid back environment and feeling really cool as much as I do.

John Scofield – “Let’s Go Get Stoned” - That's What I Say: John Scofield Plays the Music of Ray Charles

This song is swanky and sultry and cool. And the name has that kind of ultra-hip, forgivably unsavory mystique that appeals to some (listen to it and you’ll see how it plays). Play this song if you’re ever dressed up really nice and sipping liquor after a formal event or something. Or if you’re taking your girl out (not a first/second/third date kind of a thing) to a nice dinner and you all are dressed up and driving (preferably with skyscrapers and city lights somewhere in the background). It’s got that easy swagger that reminds me of people from the 1920’s strolling around and smoking cigarettes and just being all formal and casual at the same time. WBNKJS Rating: 9, because it’s just so cool sounding. If you had this playing inside your head when you went to a party you would easily attract the hottest girl in the room over to talk to you, and then say “I’ve gotta go, but maybe I’ll see you later.”

Eddie Jefferson – “Disappointed” – There I Go Again, 1955

Eddie Jefferson was murdered in Detroit, MI on May 9, 1979. Gruesome, sad, yes…but also intriguing. The song has horn lines that just kind of swoop around in an easy way, very relaxing and, if the situation is right, hip. For some reason I get a mental picture of a big bird gliding around and just kind of bobbing his head around when the chorus riff goes on this song. It has a nice piano trio behind it. Eddie starts singing about a pretty woman who left him after a little while…but it’s more like he’s talking you through it, boppin’ a little bit and almost rapping eventually. It’s really unique and interesting. He actually invented a style of singing called "vocalese". This is a good example of it. The horns are gone in the end, but the background is cool, kind of like a real version of Mike Meyers’ jazz thing in So I Married an Axe Murderer, but not cheesy at all. And Jefferson's vocalese is pretty awesome. WBNKJS Rating: 8.5.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

The Long and Short of Modern Political Thought

I was perusing Amazon this morning for some conservative reading and I happened upon the "Customer Reviews" section for the book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, by George H. Nash. The book is obviously an influential, articulate summary of the elements that served to define conservativism in the past, etc, and so I found the section pasted below rather we have a book about conservatives that is intellectually hard-hitting and still relevant 30 years after it was published. Note the varying levels of discourse as you start at the first review and read on down the list...

Customer Reviews
average customer review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

1 of 6 people found the following review helpful: conservatism is NOT intelligent, it is shear stupidity, July 21, 2006
Thomas "cruzcat" (cruzcat) - See all my reviews

The groundwork for conservatism requires you to suspend all intelligence and common sense and instead think like the Taliban would, with religion.


6 of 6 people found the following review helpful: Understanding today's political environment, October 12, 2005
Jen Hlavacek, Ph.D. "Sociologist" (Edwards, CO USA) - See all my reviews

This is an excellent book that traces the historical development of the intellectual conservative movement in the United States. To understand current events, it is essential to understand the historical context from which today's political environment has sprung. It was interesting to me how the author distanced the "intellectual" movement from the right wing social conservatives of today. All political parties are made up of uncomfortable aliases and the present day Republican party is no exception to this rule. The author makes the necessary distinctions between that which is important to libertarians, traditional conservatives, and neoconservatives. I would especially recommend this book to anyone who is baffled by today's brand of conservative political thought.


8 of 8 people found the following review helpful: Required reading, July 25, 2004
chuckdsk "chuckd190" (Bratislava, Slovakia) - See all my reviews

Indispensable as an introduction to the development of conservative thought in roughly the third quarter of the 20th century, Nash's history has no peers. Illustrating clearly the fractiousness (maybe even inherent incompatibility) of the factions gathered by necessity under the umbrella of conservative thought, he charts well the intellectual underpinnings of conservativism in the United States of America. Most importantly, he highlights that a generally uncelebrated cause for both the fusion and the success of the movement is the lack of correspondence between liberal legislation and quantitative results during this period. That being said, there are a few areas one would like to see fleshed out in more detail. Specifically, neo-conservatives as they emerge in the early seventies, the conservative "scene" during the first and second Nixon administrations, the Vietnam War in contemporary conservative intellectual thought, and the impact of conservative intellectuals on politics-particularly with regard to Goldwater and Reagan-are relatively undeveloped. Indeed, those themes are sufficient for book-length treatment themselves, so Nash cannot be faulted; moreover, his is an intellectual history, and to expect him to detail the political aspects of conservative thought and to chart accurately the time period so close to his writing of this book would be unreasonable. In sum, one cannot claim to have any insight into conservative thought without having perused this volume.

So the liberal is satisfied to dismiss all conservative thought as not even thought at all, but simply using religion for thought, "like the Taliban would". This simple-minded assessment, especially juxtaposed against such obviously intelligent reviews by conservatives that follow it, highlights feelings that have been developing in me for some time: that is, that the modern liberal scoffs at the intellectual force behind contemporary conservativism while completely unaware of his or her utter inadequacy before it. Liberals today are heirs to generations of active and successful politicians and thinkers, but, like many who have inherited their fortunes, they take that for granted and do nothing to advance it. They seem satisfied simply to sit back and feel entitled to positions of authority. The conservative ascendance is due to hard work and intellectual prowess, which, for some reason, does not register at all on the liberal radar screen. Today's republican party is the party of political theory, intellectual discourse and action. As long as liberals refuse to recognize this, they will continue to spiral into irrelevancy.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Latest Lieberman/Lamont Lead Looks Like Lady Luck Likes Liebs a Little Less...Lively 'Lection Looms!

Liebs' lead over Lamont dwindles in race riddled with rompingly rampant alliteration.

He's only up 2 now.


I'm trying to reach out more to my female readership...

Albino Pygmy Marmoset monkeys from Sweden.


Monday, August 21, 2006

Manbearpig...myth or reality?

Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? All right, me neither. But have you seen those images of the glaciers hemorrhaging ice into the rising seas from the depressing newscasts that might as well close by saying, "and, in other news, a new scientific study has found that all SUV drivers are NASCAR-crazy-bumpkin-freaks who don't care about killing the ozone..." Yeah, me too. So we all know that liberals are far more nuanced in their understanding of intellectual matters, especially those that relate to the fool hardiness of us not so brainy as they. Why is it, then, that they fall for the "global warming trap" time and time again? If you really are intelligent you'll want as much information as you can get about something in order to form an "intelligent" opinion on it, yes? Why is it, then, that you never hear about things that would call global warming into question on the news or from any of these people? They simply accept that global warming is a fact and that there is no need to even begin to think otherwise. It's kind of like the debate between evolution and creationism, but one in which the other side has a lot more going for it. There is, simply put, a lot of evidence that suggests that global warming may not be caused by humans. You'll never hear about it because the mainstream media likes stories that scare you and have a readily identifiable villian...but it's out there. A case in point:

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.
Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Did you catch that? I believe he said that this study was "the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers." That sounds pretty conclusive to me. And it found that the glaciers have been shrinking for over 100 years! But you won't hear about it on the news. Because then they'd have close with something like, "in related news, a scientific study found that all liberals are close-minded-d-bag-hippy-freaks...." and we all know that wouldn't fly.

Creeper Madness!!!

Don Imus had Pat Buchanan on this morning to talk about his new book, State of Emergency (Drudge preview here) and Neal Boortz has read it and seems to think its pretty good. It seems like Buchanan pretty much just rips everyone on the immigration deal...and warns that it most likely signals the decline of American civilization along the lines of Rome, etc. This isn't normally the kind of thing I like to read, but I really do enjoy living in America the way it is now, and I sense that its decline will suck to live through, so I guess I feel compelled to read it. Unless Pat Buchanan is just a terrific marketer and there's really no threat at all...ah well, better safe than sorry I suppose.

Some grim stats:

Buchanan warns: “The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West." One in every twelve people breaking into America has a criminal record. By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics concentrated in the U.S. Southwest. Between 10 and 20 percent of all Mexicans, Central Americans and Caribbean people have already moved to the United States. Every month, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends more illegal aliens breaking into our country, 150,000, than the number of troops we have in Iraq.

A breath of fresh air, huh? However, he doesn't just count up our misdeeds and prophetically speak of doom for America...he actually offers a solution. It's pretty rigid, and will take much testicular fortitude on the part of the American people (even more from us on the right who will have to compensate for the lack of two important ingriedients in that scenario from our "brothers" on the left) but it is mildly plausible. Ok, so it's never going to happen as we stand now, but maybe, if people take this seriously, we could start to work our way towards a solution in the future. Well, I admit, read the book if you want to get depressed, but unless Buchanan gets elected Prez, its never going to happen.

Oh well...

Permita el rollo bueno de tiempos!!

'Cause I don't, want my boat, to be rockin'...

John Kerry accused Joe Lieberman of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," during a weekend interview with George Stephanopolous, saying that Joe was "out of step with the people of Connecticut." Obviously, being accused of being anywhere near Dick Cheney on any issue in most liberal circles nowadays is the equivalent of having a swastika tattooed onto your forehead and basically just being by-golly-bat-shit insane, so let's not pretend like poodle-boy intended his words lightly.

I was for Joe Lieberman...before I sold him out for some anti-war the way, do you have any vegan garlic herb spread, I'm on my way to really virulent war protest and I promised I'd bring the dip!

Another thing that bothers me about Kerry's comments is his use of the phrase, "out of step with the people of...." However, I must say, he's not unique in the use of this singularly annoying utterance. Don't all politicians say this crap on a regular basis? How often do you hear these guys (and girls) in interviews or during speeches accusing their opponents of being, "out of step with mainstream America" or "out of touch with you great and patriotic members of skin flautists union" and so on and so on to whomever they happen to be pandering to at the moment? I understand that it's a catchy little phrase that conveys their intended meaning well, but aren't you pretty tired of hearing it all the time?

Second, "out of step with the people of Connecticut?" I don't think so Johnny boy. The last time I checked, Lieberman was up by like 12 points in the general election poll (indeed - 53-41). So, yeah, Joe is "out of touch" with the extreme-left-wing-anti-war-commies that you think are going to propel you to your rightful perch atop the heap in Washington, but that by no means makes him out of touch with the "people" of Connecticut. In fact, Mr. Kerry, Joe's "out of touchness" with your kooky supporters seems to have strengthened his support among the sane voting population of Connecticut. I guess its just his support of the war that's out of touch with you, Johnny-come-lately, because he seems to be pretty "in touch" with you on almost everything else. So go ahead and make this a one-issue deal and come decision time Rove'll blow you and your kind right out of the water...again.

VIDEO UPDATE: from HotAir, Kerry on Lieberman, Lieberman on Kerry.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Lamont in the WSJ

Ned Lamont, winner of the Connecticut Democratic primary last week over Joe Lieberman, has written a piece for the Wall Street Journal Editorial page. What he wants to explain:

how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country.

The short answer:

It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did.

Ok, so Ned is going to try to convince us that it's his business career, and not his anti-Iraq war posturing, that won over the hearts and minds of the Connecticutians. By the way, he keeps referring to the "Connecticut voters" whom he wooed and was able to win over using this strategy. This, right out of the gate, is misleading. It was only "registered democrats" in Connecticut whom he convinced, and only by a very small margin....the tally from the entire state has the independent Lieberman up 46-41, don't be so quick on the draw Ned, you ain't convinced the "Connecticut voters" of nothing just yet.

Mr. Lamont begins by informing us that he got a loan and started a successful cable business which was, as he aptly states, a "quintessentially American experience". I would agree that taking out a loan in order to start your own business is, indeed, quite a bit of genuine Americana....if only Ned could have been a little more specific about his actual, "quintessential American experience". This via "The Waterbury Connecticut Republican American Newspaper", hat tip to Ace:

His great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, was chairman of J.P. Morgan. A wealthy progressive pacifist, he was the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party and other extreme left-wing organizations. His wife, Florence, belonged to such subversive groups as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship and American Committee for Friendship with the Soviet Union.

Their son, Corliss Lamont, was an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist. Congress once declared him "probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to be found anywhere in the United States." As national chairman of The Friends of Soviet Russia, he refused to condemn Josef Stalin's show trials in the 1930s. For 22 years, he was director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been financed by communists and dedicated to advancing Marxism since its inception and to this day seeks to impose socialism and atheism on America. He also chaired the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee for 30 years, during which time he fought efforts to root out Soviet spies and sympathizers in the U.S. government and military. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from New York in 1952 with the American Labor Party and in 1958 with the Independent Socialist Party; both parties fronted communist causes. Near the end of his life, he befriended Cuba's Stalinist tyrant, Fidel Castro.

Doesn't that just make you want to curl up and listen to Paul Harvey with a nice warm piece of "quintessentially American" apple pie? Would it make it any more so if I told you that Mr. Lamont is also worth hundreds of millions of dollars, all of which is, ahem, quintessentially, blue-blood, old-money, inherited? I have no problem with people inheriting money, but I have a problem with people who want to misrepresent who they are.

Next, Mr. Lamont lists four bullet-points about how his views on running a business will apply to his ability to be an effective senator. I have to say, I think that more people in the Senate should treat their performance and results like a business...that's one thing that is wrong with the political cluster-crap that goes on in DC nowadays. Politics is not market-driven, results don't really matter. It seems like all that really matters is what you say and how you say it. Anyway, simply talking the talk, Mr. Lamont, means nothing. Especially when you are so vague about it. He gets into not a single specific point during the course of his list. He pretty much says what I just said in two sentences, except I suppose that the appearance of bullet points within a policial document gives the appearance of "getting to the point" and "giving real examples" and things like that. So Mr. Lamont, again, misrepresents himself, which, I sense, is becoming the theme of this post.

Finally, we come to Mr. Lamont's grand theory on the war in Iraq. According to pretty much everyone, that is why he beat Lieberman. So what does he say about it?

But here's how we'll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Isn't that just about what every single democrat says about national security? Wasn't Lamont supposed to be some fired-up anti-war guy who made the netroots swoon with his scathing critiques of Bush and Lieberman and his staunch "bring 'em home now" stance? What's up?

Well, this piece from the New York Times is informative. Lamont is trying to become a "moderate".

I have to go, but want to publish this now...I still have a little more to say, so stay tuned for chapter 2...and what the NYTimes thinks of as "moderate".

Monday, August 14, 2006


EVERYBODY RUN!!!!!!!!!!! Stock up on non-perishables!!!! This is IT!!!! I think it's probably because of GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh...what was that? risk to humans?

Ok, well just wanted to scare the bejesus out of everyone so they'd listen to me....that way I'm a hero if I'm right....and everone will forget in a couple days if I'm I can just claim moral superiority...I was just trying to help everyone out by the way. All that Bird Flu Pandemic business got $$ rolling into my scientific lab like nobody's business...who cares if we were wrong!? We were just looking out for the public good...and we'll still need that check Uncle know, there's always next bird flu season to worry about.


What about that Katrina-style storm headed for NY? How many scientists ("experts") benefitted monetarily from predicting that there would be 8 million hurricanes this year? Why does anyone listen to these people anymore?

I know it's better to be safe than sorry...but it's really obvious that many scientists are more than willing to make extremely dire predictions about future catastrophes that end up never hanppening...and they get more $$ the worse the predicted catastrophe...where's the accountability?

World Update (in quotes)

The Reality of the Situation:

“Al-Qaeda has long believed that the United States is a paper tiger, lacking the will to persist in the face of Islamic terrorism.”

William Rees-Mogg

“There is not one ounce of doubt in my mind that Hezbollah will use this cease fire to re-strengthen and re-arm. Any belief that Hezbollah will actually disarm is absurd. The goal will remain the same; to destroy Israel and to continue to build the base in the Middle East for an Islamic government that will rule the world.

Yeah ---I know. The "rule the world" dream might sound ridiculous to us sitting here at our computer screens in the U.S., but these Islamic radicals see it as a destiny. Bit by bit they're making headway. When they do end up getting pounded, as arguably they are in Lebanon, they will agree to a cease fire, but only as a temporary maneuver to permit them to regain their strength and build for the next battles.”

Neal Boortz

The Gravity of the Situation:

“But these political conflicts seem pale and puny in comparison with the broader civilizational conflict that engages us—a reality we cannot claim we do not see. Our enemies set out their goal with neon clarity. To kill, as intended in the London plot, as many as their technology allows. To seek technologies that will make radical Islam a global power, allowing new killing on an unimagined scale. The response of many Americans to all of this is ... up in the air. And, unfortunately, the demands of history may just be beginning, requiring more engagement, more sacrifice, more promotion of democracy, more foreign assistance to raise failed states where dangers gather. Setting out this case will fall to presidents of both parties, in calm and crisis—and making it will always be difficult in a weary hour. But necessity, in the end, makes a stronger argument than the finest rhetoric. And from London to Lebanon, history is proving that peace is not a natural state; it is achieved by a struggle of uncertain duration. In that struggle, the cynical, the world-weary, the risk-averse will not inherit the earth.”

Michael Gerson

The Method to Emerge Victorious:

“…the understanding of American exceptionalism that would lead to a better understanding of how American democracy works best: the people are the rulers, the politicians are our representatives, and while nobody is asking for the divulgence of classified information, the President must be honest and straightforward about the realities. If a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States, and we will do whatever is necessary to prevent that from occurring, then the President must state clearly that is the case, and why a nuclear Islamist "great power" in the middle east is a danger worthy of Americans waging war to prevent it….

Americans are no less sturdy than Britons. History teaches that we can rise to and - yes - surmount - any threat. If you treat us like infants, then we will wail and pule like infants. If you treat us like Americans, however, we will act like Americans. Whenever it is needed, a new "Greatest Generation" will appear. Our history, in fact, is a history of "Greatest Generations," from that of the Founders and rebels who created the United States through the generations who fought the civil war, freed the slaves, tamed the west, and destroyed three generations of German, Fascist, and Communist tyrants in Europe, and a soul-less tyranny in Japan….

The public will grow tired of any enterprise when it appears that those who purport to represent it have utterly lost their way. This is the "leadership problem" in a nutshell. As I have repeatedly stated, leaders find a way to lead. Losers find excuses. Eventually the public tires of excuses.”

Bill Quick (responding to Gerson)

The Character Required in Order to Prevail:

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

Winston Churchill

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Italiabdication to Islamification

By the power invested in me through Blogger, I will spread the word about what should be a rather large point of contention, a Gorilla-femur-bone-to-pick, if you will, between free speech advocates, civil rights groups, feminists, people who generally support the fundamental tenets of Western democracy...and the Italian court system.

So here's what's goin' down:

Oriana Fallaci, an Italian-born writer who splits time between Florence and New York, is going to trial in Northern Italy for...wait for it..."defaming Islam". An Islamic activist named Adel Smith is charging that some passages in Fallaci's book The Strength of Reason are offensive to Islam. Specifically, Smith's lawyer cited a passage that referred to Islam as a "pool...that never purifies." The law of the land in Italy, apparently, prevents "outrage" to she will stand trial June 26, facing what could amount to a fine of $7,500. (Not the gravest of sentences, but its the principle, right?)

Ms. Fallaci

So this is what I've decided to do...anyone who is reading this post (and all your email buddies), needs to follow these links or send email to the following addresses and 1) inquire why they won't publicly defend Ms. Fallaci, 2) Ask them to make a statement about here situation, 3) tell them whatever it is that you feel appropriate in such a context. Remember to consider the stated goals of these organizations, which I will try to provide along with their contact information.

  • ACLU...whose goal is to preserve the protections spelled out in the Bill of Rights in order to ensure individual liberty. (Included in the Bill of Rights is the so-called First Ammendment, which guarantees something called "freedom of speech"). So Ms. Fallaci does live in New York, is an "American", where is the ACLU in at least denouncing the trial? Ask your local affiliate....but they may be too busy to answer your real concerns about a real violation of free speech happening to an inhabitant of New York...they just might be too busy doing things like preserving the right of students not to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance at know, really important and patriotic to hell with an author who will be fined for one freakin' sentence that wasn't all that offensive to Islam anyway.
  • AmnestyInternational USA: Does the list of rights that this organization deems inalienable to the point of "human rights" include the freedom of speech? Feel free to inquire.
  • Human Rights Watch: whose goal is to "defend human rights worldwide"...well, let's do it, shall we?
  • European Court of Human Rights should have something to say about the matter, being as they do promote Article 9: "Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion" as well as Article 10: "Freedom of Expression". Contact Info Here.
  • You could also contact CNN, NPR, FoxNews, NBC, CBS or ABC and ask them why they think Karl Rove's non-indictment is such a big story but that a violation of a woman's right to mildly insult a religion in a free Western country isn't.

I don't care whether you are liberal, conservative, progressive, Christian, or Muslim...this woman's right to say something that's relatively tame about Islam should not be trampeled upon by the Italian court system.

SIDENOTE: If the point of law upon which this case rests really is that Italians are not allowed to promote "outrage" against a religion...then of course there needs to be a proper definition of "ourtage", which I'm sure there is, unfamiliar as I am with the Italian legal system. It would seem to me, however, that by referring to Islam as a "pool...that never purifies," one has committed a much less grievous offense than, say, calling for Muslims to "Behead those who insult Islam". I mean, I'm not an international trial lawyer or anything, but it seems like you could make a pretty convincing case for Ms. Fallaci by way of comparison. Does anyone sense a double standard? Just asking.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Apocalypse Now

Is it a coincidence that I saw this first on 6/6/6? Trump University Elite, check it out. From Ace of Spades....Because your education should be yuuuuuuuuuuge!!

Another one via Ace of Spades: Cindy "the anti-MILF" Sheehan doesn't support the troops....well, she does, just not the ones who support Bush, which, from what I've heard, is the majority. You know, I try not to cuss on this blog...but what a total bitch. Since when did liberalism involve being a complete bitch? Yeah, I know you have your first ammendment rights to say what you want, but have some freakin decency guys.

Speaking of being a total liberal bitch (sorry about the cussing again): can someone tell Jeff Pearlman of Slate to chill out and try to enjoy himself a little. The Cards fans in the room (and pretty much everyone in MLB) don't appreciate your omg-the-sky-is-falling bs about Albert Pujols using the 'roids....he's been repeatedly tested and cleared. Can you quit with the conspiracy theory "nothing good is true" nonsense and try to enjoy a great hitter? Why don't you and the anti-MILF go out on a date or something.

Haditha: If the charges are proven, it's bad and wrong and those involved should be punished. Michelle Malkin points out the vehemence of those on the Left to already try to define the entire war based on those soldiers' guilt...what about due process? Doesn't the Left LOVE due process? Why is Saddam even at trial right now? I guess when it involves American troops we're allowed to throw it out the window. So that's today's last apocalyptic sign: An entire wing of the American political system has positioned itself against our military and its hopes for success in a major war....every American from inception to about early 1960's (when the hippies injected this spirit into the national dialogue) would certainly agree that that is a sign of something gone wrong.

Monday, June 05, 2006

America: Land of Eternal Ingenuity (side effects may include obesity, gluttony and/or sloth)

Ok, so you think that Americans are fat and lazy? may have a point. But do you know why we're fat and lazy? Because we are inventive...and when you are as inventive as Americans, your ingenuity leads to more enjoyment and less work...and unfortunately for us, enjoyment and less work may lead to fatness and laziness. So we're not fat and lazy for the sake of sloth, but merely because we are so smart, hard-working and inventive. But, hey, the proof is in the proverbial puddin', right?

Check out this inventive/ingenious(?)-tool-that-will-probably-lead-to-fatness-and-or-laziness:

That's right! The Cruizin Cooler is either gas or electric and gets you where you need to go with maximum efficiency.

From the website:

Cruzin Cooler combines two basic necessities of life, the ability to have cold food or a beverage handy along with the means to get somewhere, without walking.

Enough Euro-rail-thinners take your smart cars and shove 'em...I'll take the Cruizin Cooler any day.

I'm The One, Natural One...

Yes, the space age is upon us. This story is making news right now: two cloned mules raced against naturally bred mules in Nevada and finished 3rd and 7th, respectively (who the heck races mules anyway?). Pretty soon, however, it will become more normal until it just becomes a part of the "natural" order of things. The scientists who cloned the mules are trying to show the public that a cloned animal is just like a regular animal...which plays into the debate on using cloned animals for food, etc. This is another example of how our concepts of what is "natural" are continually reworked. Did you know that Niagara Falls was conceived, designed and executed by a human being? It is therefore "unnatural":

It is a very tricky subject, this "natural" could make the argument that 1)everything is inherently natural since the human mind (which has created everything that anyone would deem "unnatural") is, itself, a natural occurence, and therefore its products must be "natural", or 2) nothing since human beings came in and started tinkering around is natural since our actions are out of step with the "natural" flow of the universe and permeate the entire earth....both are pretty effective and both skate the surface of extemely deep philosophical oceans, nothing that can be settled in an afternoon of blogging, at least.

The point is: there are some pretty major things happening in the world of science and technology right now and they are going to force us to confront completely virgin soil in our ideas about what it means to be "human", or ideas about the universe, the world, our place in it, our brains, and what is "natural", and so on. It is a very exciting and very frightening time to be alive. Also, the singularity is near.

Related News:

Baby cloning to prevent serious disease?

The Most Important Speech EVER!!!

President Bush is set to give a speech from the Rose Garden today at 1 pm.

There's a lot of heavy stuff on his plate right now. I suppose that he'll try to wade through these complex issues and talk matter-of-factly about the prospects of war with Iran, the ongoing struggle in Iraq, the situation in our public schools, gas prices, etc....should be a doozy.

Oh, what was that? He's talking about what?

Oh right, I forgot...the biggest issue facing America today marriage. Doh! Screw Iran, we need to start eschewing our own intolerance...maybe this is some Karl Rovian ploy to make Iran like us if we start discriminating against people whose lifestyle choices we disagree with then maybe they'll say, "You know, Americans don't like gays either, let's talk about that nuclear program...." or something like that. I have to say, brilliant.

I fall more towards the Neal Boortz side of the issue:

I think that it is perfectly fitting for us to use the United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain specific group of people what they cannot do, rather than tell the government what it cannot do.

We don't need tax reform. We don't need an end to earmark pork spending in Congress. We don't need smaller government and school choice. We don't need real reform that would put medical care back into the competitive marketplace. We need none of those things. All is fine! What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that will keep two people who love each other, but who we don't consider to be normal -- not by our standards anyway -- to marry.

It kind of brings us back to the ol' "facts vs fear" dynamic of political debate....fear the liberals! First they're going to marry man to man...but what's next? Man to pig! Dog to woman! Man to man to man to platypus! DOG to HORSE!!!! WE MUST PROTECT MARRIAGE!!!!

So I guess that conservatives are sometimes guilty of using the fear tactic as well, although I must admit in a more bizarre way...and that is the Conservative-Christian-Right-Wing-Republican-Straight-White-American-Male wing of the party, but still, it's pretty annoying no matter what.

So now here's the dynamic....

Don't Fear:

Don't Fear:


I'm just glad to know that the President's priorities are in the right place. Remember, 1 might just be the speech that defines a president's legacy (and I really, really hope it doesn't). If this kind of thing irks libertarian.