Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Tallywhacker Hacker

OK, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-oh, that's too easy) has dominated Memeorandum all weekend, thanks to a merry prankster.

You've heard the story by now, right? Congressman's all minding his business, watching some hockey and thinking about tweeting about it. Suddenly, he notices a tweet... from him!... to a young woman!... showcasing someone's stiffy! With lightning reflexes, the Congressman deletes the tweet, deletes his entire photo collection, and manages to find the humor in this embarassing situation, sharing a little joke with his followers.

Ahhh... I love happy endings.

Except there's tons more to it. R S McCain has a pretty comprehensive roundup. Ace's Twitter stream from that weekend was hilarious, and has more links & info.

Go read the WeinerGate story there, if you've missed much (and it's still developing). I brought it up because I've found another story that - when looked at alongside the Weiner tweet - makes me want to scream CONSPIRACY! Or something else...

You see, this has happened to others. Yes, although it sounds hard to believe that even one politician would fall prey to hackers twittering his tweeter, it may be the first signs of


a new-style political activist that attempts to... well, I admit, motive makes this a toughie... are they trying to embarrass these guys? Get them dates? I dunno. Anyway, for whatever reason, they're on a mission to show the world the private parts of politicians (or a reasonable facsimile thereof, 'cause of course they cry "that's not my junk")!

Meet George Lepp, Canadian PC candidate. Mr. Lepp had his Blackberry stolen and a "graphic photo" tweeted from his account. (Guess what kind of graphic photo... Yup. That's it.) According to conflicting reports, it either was or was not recording in camera mode while in his pants pocket. (Though I ask you... would footage from your pocket show your bare body? Or just some white cotton and darkness?) Regardless, the tweet was discovered - by his son - and removed.

So, why do I bring this up?  C'mon! Two of them?

This is clearly the work of an evil genius, probably connected somehow to Andrew Breitbart. (I don't know how. I just know that's what they scream. AaaiiirrgarblegarbleBREITBARTsnortmaddowsigh. Right?) Anyway, I suspect the DUfringe is incorrect. It's not a conspiracy. It's a lone wolf.

The Tallywhacker Hacker.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Special Delivery

"Neither snow, or rain, or sleet, or dark of night, will keep us from our appointed rounds..."

Hell, even a good crap will only slow us down a little...  or something.

A Portland mailman was caught with his pants down.  Literally.  Dropping off a package along his route.
Derfler had been waiting for his babysitter when he saw his mailman acting odd at his neighbor's house across the street. The postal worker then pulled down his pants and that's when Derfler began snapping pictures.

"To come on to our property and to defecate - it's just wrong."

No shit.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Big Brother is Tweeting?

Huffington Post is happily announcing a new “job created” in the White House.
The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.
What the hell?!

“Rapid response to unfavorable stories”? I could see something like that geared toward… oh, I dunno… inaccurate stories. Or even fabricated stories.

The President of the United States of America has finally created a damn job, and it’s a media hall-monitor who’ll respond rapidly to unfavorable (read: right-leaning) stories. AND he’ll further toady to, presumably leak to, and likely make journo-police out of the progressive (read: fringe left) online community.


This is creepy stuff.

Oh, sure… they’ll make fun of anyone who says as much. They already are. That’s part of why I find it so… well, creepy.

This administration genuinely sees nothing wrong with paying a federal minion to muck around in the formerly free exchange of ideas and information.

Ahem… Mr. President?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Now, nowhere in there does it say “But the President can just create an agent or agency who does things this article forbids, as long as he’s smart enough to slip it past the rubes!

So. We have arrogance beyond anything we’ve previously guessed at, let alone experienced. We have a “Constitutional scholar” (my ass) who’s confused the writing in the margins of his Cliff’s Notes with imagined progressive amendments to our sacred document. And we have a NEW JOB CREATED!

(Actually, that part’s crap since dude already worked for the administration. So while Obama may have earned a prize for chutzpah, he doesn’t get any credit for job creation. Again.)

And ya know what else about it I don’t like? They think it’s funny. “Oh, Big Brother’s gonna getcha! You betcha! Oh-HAR-HAR-HAR!” That’s right. This violation of one of our most basic rights is hi-freaking-larious. Why, look at the tone they’ve started out with.  As @MINITRU  @BaghdadBob  @jesseclee44, his first tweet was this:

First Tweet

Yeah, I’m amused.

One thing about it… If Obama had created this job, he’d have gotten extra credit for providing unparalleled job security. I mean, what could be more certain than a paycheck that’s guaranteed for as long as folks are unfavorable to Obama? Why, he’s set ’til… what?


(h/t Memeorandum)

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Mitch Daniels out - IN Governor announces he won't run for President

Governor Mitch Daniels has ruled out a run for President.

In a move that some might call disappointing, but none could call a surprise, Daniels cited his family as the reason he has decided not to join the fray.

In an email to supporters, Daniels wrote:
"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."
The Daniels family has made no secret of the fact that Mitch's wife Cheri does not prefer the glaring spotlight of life as a political wife. Then the story of their divorce and remarriage started trending as news, and many in the media and blogosphere speculated, or flatly stated, that their marital history was the reason for her media-shyness.

At the time, I linked Ben Smith:
And so Daniels, whose waiting game (in this theory) was effective family politics, if puzzling national politics, can now say, "Well, now it's out there. And now it's old news. No reason not to run."
...and gave my own two cents worth:
Uhh… no. If Daniels runs, Cheri will be subjected to everything from fashion critiques to parsing of her every spoken word. This is only the front edge of the storm.
Now today, DrewM at AOSHQ speculates:
There must be even more to the wife leaving-returning story than we see on the surface (and that's quite a bit already).
Uh... yeah. That, or her worst fears were proved correct. Mitch Daniels hadn't even decided whether to run, and we're climbing all over them with microscopes. And I remind you... "front edge of the storm". Had he announced a candidacy, the media - sharks already - would have been on her like sharks on steroids. Anyone running has to survive the press throughout the ugly primaries and the uglier general... before they have to be scrutinized like no others for four or eight years, with coverage of every move they make.

Not a comfortable situation for a private person. Which may describe Mitch Daniels as well. At the state GOP dinner, he said of running for President:
”My friends know it’s never been any intention of mine. I’d like to go to some quiet place where nobody could find me. Like Al Gore’s cable network."
He must be serious if he's considering hiding out with Gore.

Still, I respect and admire his decision... all the more because I suspect it wasn't an easy one, or one he'll ever stop hearing about. And while some might see this as a show of weakness, I disagree. This is a different kind of strength.
"Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more."

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Conservative commenters picking on little girls?

The 16-year-old high school girl who challenged Michelle Bachmann to a debate is claiming she's received threats of violence and rape.

I call bullshit.

Here's the deal: A week or so ago, Cherry Hill student Amy Myers challenged Bachmann to a debate on the Constitution. She threw down the gauntlet in a letter posted on CNN's iReport. The story made the news and blogs, Congresswoman Bachmann didn't respond, and attention wandered to other things as new stories replaced the challenge.

Now Ms. Myers and her father, Wayne, are in the news again... This time, they tell the Courier-Press they're alarmed about comments on conservative websites.
"A lot of them are calling me a whore"
They say commenters have threatened to publish their address, or commit violence or rape.

Here's why I'm not buying it.

First, they haven't shown proof. No screen captures, no links, nothing. These two are social-media-savvy enough to upload to iReport and run a Facebook page dedicated to this publicity stunt debate, but they didn't blog or otherwise document these heinous acts?

Second, the father claimed that the school had received threatening mail... but the school says the calls they've received were questions about whether Myers is a student, who wrote the letter to Bachmann, and similar inquiries.
Bastnagel said the district's security director told Wayne Myers none of the calls contained threats. He also assured Myers the district would investigate any threats.
Also, the father claims to have his mail carrier and a neighbor watching for suspicious activity. He says:
"I personally did not think there would be a reaction like actual stalking and the vitriol that's coming out."
But neither the story or the quoted police officers mention a stalker.

So already, this whole thing strikes me as shady. But it gets stranger.

Amy was set to give the C-P a video interview. The night before, "a somewhat panicked-sounding Wayne Myers phoned to cancel". His reason? The threats sent to the school. You know... the ones the school assured him didn't happen.

But he also mentioned it would be better for Amy if Bachmann couldn't study the videos.
"If she does the video interview, they might find certain weaknesses. We don't want to bring up what her debate strategy is going to be."
Good grief. This guy's a goof. And people are spreading this b.s. around like it's pinkeye - and escalating it. Already at least one message on the Facebook page is calling the mystery comments "death threats".

I repeat...


Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

UPDATE: Linked in an excellent piece at WyBlog. Thank you, sir. Go read the whole thing:
What we have here is an unhinged liberal activist preaching to the choir. They expect Tea Partyers to be misogynistic haters because that is the stereotype they've created. But in reality I would stake my reputation on any actual threats being quickly and vehemently shouted down by folks from the Right. That's how we roll. We debate ideas, not personalities. 
Nailed it in one.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Gary Johnson: Time's up in Libya, Mr. President

Jake Tapper (via Memeorandum) is reminding President Obama that he's out of time where Libya's concerned.
The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there's little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.  
And he's not the only one. I received the following press statement from the Gary Johnson campaign. (Since there's not enough serious coverage of Johnson and his ideas elsewhere, I'm printing the whole thing.)

Maybe, just maybe, they forgot.  Or maybe they actually  believe that what the U.S. is doing in Libya somehow doesn’t constitute the use of our armed forces -- $750 million worth of bombs and missiles notwithstanding.  Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the President has no intention of  complying with the War Powers Act with regard to our military intervention in Libya. 

This blatant disregard for the law must not go unchallenged.  As several Senators did this week, Congress must demand an explanation for the fact that, with no declaration of war, no authorization from Congress, and certainly no imminent threat to the U.S., our forces are today engaged in what is clearly a military conflict halfway around the world in Libya.  

Specifically, the War Powers Act requires that the use of American forces in a conflict must be ended within 60 days of commencing – unless Congress expressly authorizes otherwise.  In terms of our current engagement in Libya, Congress hasn’t authorized anything, nor has the President asked them to, and today, May 20, is the 60th day.

Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised and the President will stop our military’s involvement in Libya -- today, but I rather doubt it.   The War Powers Act was enacted almost 40 years ago for a reason.  After fighting two costly wars, Korea and Vietnam, with no formal declaration of war, Congress acted to limit the authority of the President to engage the military in “open-ended” conflicts with no clear congressional consent.  It was carefully crafted to allow the Commander-in-Chief to respond to attacks and otherwise take whatever action necessary to protect us.   At the same time, it was obviously crafted to limit precisely the kinds of ill-defined and costly uses of our military that we are witnessing in Libya right now.

To be fair, this President is certainly not the first to disregard the War Powers Act.  Some have even questioned its constitutionality.  But until the Courts or Congress deem otherwise, it is the law of the land – and in my opinion, a good one.

If there are compelling reasons, strategic, humanitarian or otherwise, to be doing what we are doing in Libya, then Congress will likely authorize it.  If not, then perhaps we shouldn’t be firing those missiles and dropping those bombs – missiles and bombs financed with borrowed and printed money.

Either way, Mr. President, don’t treat today as just another deadline to ignore.
Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

The RNC gets a lesson in free markets

The NYT (via Memeorandum) is reporting that the Democratic National Convention received twice the contributions in April that the Republican National Convention drew.

Democrats raised $12.4 million. The Republicans, by contrast, raised $6.1 million.

The Times credits massive fundraising by Obama - and Republican voter discontent over Michael Steele - for the difference.

I'm not convinced that's the case here.

Oh, Obama's raising cash. That part's correct. And Republican voters are discontent, that's also correct. But the idea that they're still irritated over Michael Steele? I don't think so... (Well, maybe they are. I just don't see that as the money problem.)

So what's going on?

I think Republican voters learned an important, albeit painful, lesson about the National Party in 2010 - starting with Charlie Crist. Also, let's not forget Newt Gingrich's candidate Dede Scozzafava. How about Arlen Specter?

Time and again, despite actual conservative candidates with grassroots support, the Republican establishment has chosen to ignore the will of the voters (read: DONORS, you fools) in favor of keeping it all in the club. And finally, it got to be more than non-establishment types could bear.

Michelle Malkin has multiple archived posts (in her link style: here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating exactly how previous donors reacted to solicitations from the RNC. Some of those are hilarious, you should check 'em out.  RS McCain has also covered the grassroots dissent, and linked the "Not One Red Cent" movement.

So now we have another Presidential election on the horizon... What'll happen? Will there be empty coffers for Republican candidates? Have the conservative voters disengaged?


But they've learned.

They aren't going to send hard-earned money to a National Party that is more concerned with itself than the country or the voters. They're going to wait... choose their candidate... and send the cash directly to those campaigns.

I think it's a good thing. Let the Republican Party as an entity get a little taste of how the free market works. Maybe they'll learn a lesson, just like their voters have - the hard way.

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Another funny Gary Johnson "Pothead for President" post

Everybody's having a little harmless fun at Gary Johnson's expense.

See, Willie Nelson and The Pothead TeaPot Party endorsed him for President. Then they forgot. Or got the munchies. Or saw something shiny. And then Willie remembered he doesn't really know as much about politics as playing the guitar. Which is probably for the best.

Anyway, anytime Johnson's name comes up, it's a good time for pot jokes. And a lot of it's funny.

But there's nothing funny about this.

KFOR-TV reports an Oklahoma woman is serving a 12 year prison sentence. For $30 worth of pot.
Dee Starr, who was facing more serious charges, two felony counts for dealing drugs and for having drugs in front of children, got 30 years probation, again no jail time. Patricia Spottedcrow pleaded guilty to her crimes as well.  She faced the very same two felony charges as her mother, Dee Starr.  However, Spottedcrow got a 12 year prison sentence, no probation. 
The four children are living with their grandmother. They'll be denied a mother for twelve years of their early lives. And I'm not hearing "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Twelve years in prison for what basically amounts to a few joints is barbaric. And how can you justify the costs?
This year Oklahoma taxpayers will pay about $40 a day for Patricia Spottedcrow's minimum-security incarceration, that's appoxirmately $14,000 a year.
So that's what...? $168,000 over the course of her sentence? Oh, wait... I'm not factoring in the raises in organized prison labor costs over that stretch. So the cost will come somewhere closer to... say... a gajillion dollars sound right?

But surely we're talking small numbers here, right? How many prisoners like this are we talking about?
Oklahoma leads the nation in the incarceration of women. We imprison women at a rate twice the national average. And the number one crime for which Oklahoma women are in prison is drugs.
It's time to have a grown-up conversation about our marijuana laws.

We can laugh together. And we should also be able to have a serious discussion. According to the WHO, 42% of Americans admit to having tried pot. As have the last three Presidents. And what, half the candidates or would-be's? Santorum, Palin, Gingrich, Daniels... Oh yeah, and Johnson.

It's time to stop acting hysterical (or laughing hysterically) every time the subject comes up. (And just by the way... if marijuana were truly a scourge, would we be making jokes in the first place?)

We need to talk about this, and we have one candidate willing to do so. Fortunately, that candidate also has an impressive record in both the private-sector and public office.

(h/t Reason)

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

On the road again... and under the bus

Willie Nelson has un-endorsed Gov. Gary Johnson for President.

Has Johnson changed his positions since yesterday? No. But apparently Nelson has smoked more than enough of the substance he and Johnson want legalized to affect his thinking and judgement.

When asked by his own TeaPot Party to explain why he was for Gary Johnson before he was against Gary Johnson, Nelson offered the following:
“I know I said that... But I think I will wait and see where he stands on other things. My bad. Sorry. I still think he is a good guy but so Is Dennis [Kucinich] and if he decided to run I would personally vote for him. If it came down to either him or Gary I’m already committed to Dennis. They both have said they support legal pot.”
He went on to say (emphasis mine):
"If we back someone that’s us telling them how to vote. I’m not qualified."
I'm inclined to agree. In fact, if he can't stick to a decision from one day to the next, I'm not convinced he's qualified to vote, let alone endorse a candidate.

In truth, Nelson's endorsement would do more harm than good anyway. First, it offered itself as joke fodder for numerous bloggers and pundits. But more importantly, the TeaPot Party (as T pointed out) has "We lean a little to the left" as a portion of their motto. While I'd be happy to see a Republican candidate who can pick up moderates the way Obama did, the "lean left" and Nelson's efforts for farm subsidies would be held against Johnson.

So I'm not heartbroken that "my candidate" has lost his first endorsement. It comes, after all, from someone with so little understanding of politics that he thinks Kucinich has a shot at the White House. And as a Reason commenter mentioned, "If pot smoking aliens invaded tomorrow, Willie would endorse them."

No great loss.

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Obama to announce aid for Middle East... forgets basic rule of survival

According to the WSJ, President Obama is set to announce a new aid plan for North Africa and the Middle East including what could be billions of dollars in debt forgiveness and "direct aid", which I suspect is a euphemism for "hand 'em some cash".

We're facing a continuing economic repression depression stagpression struggle, no one's volunteering to forgive our debt, we're battling over cuts to our own budget...

And President Obama wants to dish out billions of dollars worth of shameless buttkissing aid to the Middle East. Money we do not have.

Mr. President, have you never flown commercial? You know, before it came with the complimentary happy ending massage? Every flier (even those who can't read - see below) knows that when the plane is going down, you put on your own oxygen mask first! If you don't save yourself, you can't save anybody else.

"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"    (Airplane, 1980)

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Monday, May 16, 2011

A decision for Mitch and Cheri Daniels

I spent the weekend thinking a lot about politics... and marriage.

I'm married myself. Like most marriages, I think, it's more often than not a happy one. Sure, there are the occasional flares of temper or clashes of personality... and more rarely there are the knock-down, drag-out, winner-take-all blowouts that are inevitable when two different people with two different minds each believe they are "right"  and the other, therefore, "wrong".

Anyone who is in a successful marriage knows it's a balancing act. A balancing act done on a high wire, in hurricane gusts, with the audience occasionally throwing things at you while you pinwheel your arms in an effort to keep it all together and up in the air.

I realize that sounds negative. It shouldn't. It's just that marriage is work. A successful, happy marriage is even more work - and includes sacrifice, selflessness, and support.

So, allow me to admit right up front that I'm sympathetic to Cheri Daniels, before I get further into this.

It's no secret that Mitch Daniels is allowing his wife's (and daughters') feelings to play an enormous part in his decision whether to run for the Republican nomination. He compared running for President to bungee jumping... with your loved ones along for the ride.
"This is one where you have to strap a bunch of people, your family and others, along with you."
Now, I don't intend to touch on the actual gossip involved. It's all over the innerwebs - go look it up if that interests you. I don't care that they once divorced, I don't care who left who or why. I'm not even going to speculate about it for the simple reason that I wasn't there. (There are two sides to every story, especially between spouses, and it boils down to their business, in my opinion.)

What I consider relevant is that they are married now, and by all appearances want to remain that way. Mrs. Daniels clearly does not care for the role of "politician's wife" and the media scrutiny that entails. Mr. Daniels just as clearly does care about the impact of a Presidential run on his wife and family.

As he should.

I'll be honest... the reaction from many "pro-family" conservatives has surprised me.

Ace had a piece up at AOSHQ where he seemed to see this from the same angle I do... but unlike me, he realized ahead of time that others would see it very differently.
Here's the thing: That's what a husband is supposed to do, right? When women imagine dream husbands, that's the sort of thing they'd claim they really respected, right?
But I don't think people will respect this.
He notes in his post that some of his own commenters are going after Daniels. (Actually, savaging him might be a more apt description...)
When I wrote this post, I expected commenters to give Daniels a bit of a break. Turns out, not so much. It seems like even people who should be predisposed to giving him some space on this are looking for reasons to mock him. If the comments are a preview of the liberal media, then forget it.
The reality is this:  In our era of "new civility", it doesn't even matter about the divorce and remarriage. The media, comedians, and Blogosphere will go after Cheri Daniels just because.

I'm no different. I have several posts about Michelle Obama that are not just uncomplimentary but actually kinda mean.  (Though in comparison to some of what I've read, they're mild.)  So why did I write them?  Because she's fair game.  (Lest you think this is a partisan thing for me, you can see where I've also called Olbermann's remarks about SE Cupp acceptable as well. And while I don't care for Glenn Beck, I found his remarks about Meghan McCain hilarious - and acceptable.)

A few years ago, while I was subjecting one of my offspring to a rant on politics, The Kid said, "You should run for office!"  I replied, "Not at all. You couldn't give me the job."  You see, unlike many Americans, I never want to be famous. The idea horrifies me. I've said it before:
See, this is America. In America, we ONLY put people on pedestals so we can watch them fall off. And if they don't cooperate and fall of on their own, we nudge them off. And sometimes we knock them right off like American gladiators jousting with those big styrofoam lances. Get the picture?
Is it nice? Well, no. But it's reality, which isn't always nice.

So I can understand where Cheri Daniels is coming from. And as someone who acknowledges that marriage is a team sport, I can understand where Mitch Daniels is coming from, too.

What I can not understand is the conservative reaction.

The media has portrayed the deference to Daniels's wife as "waiting for permission", although I've yet to see an actual "permission" quote attributed to either Daniels. And reader comments on various blogs (which I'm not linking, as I don't want to be held responsible for the ideas of my own commenters) have ranged from dismissive to downright brutal assertions that Daniels is "whipped", along with some sentiments that he should just tell the little lady how it's gonna be.

This from the pro-family side? Really? We should show we're pro-family by mocking him as a wimp who took back a runaway wife? Or by encouraging him to disregard her wishes? Or by demanding (like the spoiled brats such commenters sound like) that the Daniels marriage be damned, run because we say so?

Ben Smith wrote (basically) that if Cheri was afraid of the spotlight... well, she's in it anyway so problem solved.

Uhh... no. If Daniels runs, Cheri will be subjected to everything from fashion critiques to parsing of her every spoken word. This is only the front edge of the storm.

Perhaps the best take on this, in my opinion, comes from Moe Lane:
But if Gov. Daniels is well and truly not sure whether his family is ready for that, well, I would advise the governor then that he already knows the answer to the question “Should Mitch Daniels run?”
I agree. He knows the answer.

And so do we.

While Mitch and Cheri have not announced their decision, I've made mine.
Daniels can't run. And if he does, no genuine pro-family voter can support him.

We do not want a leader so callous that the feelings of the woman who shares his home and bed count for nothing.  And if Cheri comes around under pressure, we do not want a leader who is (understandably) distracted from the job at hand because of marital strain that will happen when a hesitant spouse gets the treatment we must admit she will receive.

And do we want to bear partial responsibility if their marriage, after all it has survived, fails in the White House because we've pressured him to run and his wife to be compliant?

I don't judge either Daniels for the things they've come through together. And I don't think any of what I've learned from all this reflects on him as a candidate...

But his wife's concerns have merit, and although I certainly won't take a "Be nice to Cheri" pledge or suggest anyone else should, I won't pretend that I would subject my own family to the kind of scrutiny and criticisms she'd be sure to face.

And I'd like to suggest that some married (or wanna-be-married) conservatives try looking at this from the perspective of their own relationships. Isn't the mantra "God... Family... Country"? If you're going to start disregarding the "family" part of it in favor of "country",perhaps you've switched teams.

Cross-posted at Republican Redefined.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

I think I'm alright... Hell, yeah!

Today's ear worm, courtesy of Todd Snider.

At least it's a song I like. A lot. And it reminds me of someone...  ;)

You know just the other morning
I was hanging around in my house
I had that new book with pictures of Madonna naked
I was checkin' it out
Just then a friend of mine came through the door
Said she never pegged me for a scumbag before
She said she didn't ever want to see me any more
And I still don't know why

I think I'm am alright guy, I think I'm am alright guy
I just want to live until I've gotta die
I know I ain't perfect, but God knows I try
I think I'm an alright guy, I think I'm alright

Now maybe I'm dirty
And maybe I smoke a little dope
It ain't like I'm going on TV
And tearing up pictures of the Pope
I know I get wild and I know I get drunk

Well, it ain't like I got a bunch of bodies in my trunk
My old man used to call me a no good punk
And I still don't know why


You know, just the other night
These cops pulled me over outside a bar
They turned on their lights
And they ordered me out of my car
Man, I was only kidding when I called them a couple of dicks
But still they made me do the stupid human tricks
Now I'm stuck in this jail with a bunch of dumb hicks
And I still don't know why


(Neurotic note... The "alright" for "all right" is the artist's error, not the author's... just sayin'...)

Monday, May 9, 2011

The ONE car that could (maybe) make a hybrid driving hippie outta me...

Zero to sixty in three seconds... top speed over 200 mpr... and fergawdssakes LOOK at it.

The Jaguar C-X75 concept car:

Sure it costs $1.1 to $1.7 MILLION... 

But I'm about as likely to pay that for this baby as I am to pay forty-something grand for a Volt.

Just sayin'.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Thoughts on the GOP debate...

So. The first GOP debate is a done deal.

I'm really troubled. I'll come back to it.

I thought it was Herman Cain's night. I like Cain. He's not my first preference, but I could get behind him.

I'm disappointed for Gary Johnson. Read that:  for, not in. His problem is, he comes off as kind of a dork. He isn't a great public speaker, and he tends toward low-key. He's got some great ideas, and some remarkable accomplishments as Governor... but few conservatives on Twitter knew much about him (Their fault. If you don't know something, educate yourself before you form an opinion!) and judged him on presentation. It didn't go well.

Oh, dear... if only we could find a President who was eloquent... and photogenic... and could whip out a snappy soundbite!  Oh.  We've done that.  I believe that's what we've been told about the last two Democrats in the Oval Office. President Rockstar has certainly worked out well.

It's a shame we couldn't have heard more about his record. As Governor, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times without ever raising them. He cut the size of government. He cut the growth of government. He privatized much of the prison system and did the same with highway construction. He fought for school choice. He was nicknamed Governor Veto because he vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation and used line-item veto on thousands more.

And, in fairness, he didn't get the same questions/face time as others. People on Twitter were calling him a whiner when he brought it up, but it isn't whining if it's the truth.

But it's early. I can hope. He is tenacious. And really, Herman Cain walked away a star because he is one. I'm not taking anything away from him. If he's the GOP pick, I'll back him.

What troubled me last night was the reaction to Rick Santorum. On Twitter, and in the Fox focus group.

They loved him.

I'm aghast. Literally, and I've never used that word before to describe myself.  I'm concerned, and horrified, and disgusted, and as close to speechless as I get.

I understand social conservatism, even when I disagree with it. Or, I thought I did.

But Rick Santorum is a bigoted, hateful human being.

I'm not generalizing or stereotyping. Most of the so-cons I know from life and from blogging strike me as great people, sincere and remarkably tolerant of this admitted social-libertarian in their midst. I wasn't born an atheist, and I understand the faith behind the position most times. We've had differences of opinion, but for the most part it's been congenial and respectful from both sides...

Which is why I just don't get the slobbering over Santorum.  More than that, I'm repulsed by it.

He's infamous for his "man on dog" nonsense, and went so far as to imply that accepting homosexuality would put us on a slippery slope to acceptance of incest and bestiality. As to gays in the military, he says "We have a volunteer army... they can un-volunteer, too." (Perhaps he'll enlist to replace them?)  His thoughts on women make the Geico caveman look highly evolved (I covered an interview between him and a fawning SE Cupp here, where he implies that Sarah Palin would be distracted by "all those kids" she has if elected... never mind that he has a passel of his own kids, there's a wifey at home to tend them.) While I have little use for feminists, when it comes to Santorum they're right on the money.

He voted to stop big malpractice payouts... after his wife won her suit against a chiropractor. He's opposed to abortion... other than the one his wife had, of course. (In fact, when they met, Santorum's now-wife was living with the founder of the first abortion clinic in Pittsburgh. How pro-life is that?!)

And Santorum is a fan of Big Government. Not the website, the soul-crushing, liberty-stunting expansion of the federal government.

How about the fact the he purported to represent PA while living in a Virginia McMansion? (With apparently questionable financing? Very interesting article. If you support him, go read the whole thing.) And during that time, a local PA school had to fund his kids' cyber-schooling... in VA.

But what caused me the most consternation wasn't any of the many things about Santorum that already curl my hair. (Like his insistence that you can't have fiscal or any other stability without strong faith. How insulting! While I try to be accepting and tolerant of others' faith, apparently I'm not good enough for ol' Rick because I don't believe as he does. Guess he won't want my vote...)

No, what troubled me is the conservative reaction to this pompous ass.

If Rick Santorum is an example of what Republicans are looking for... well, I'm not sure I have any place among them. He's anathema to what I believe people should hope for and hope to be. He's a hateful, judgmental little man who COULDN'T WIN HIS OWN STATE!

And if the GOP runs this clown, they will also lose. Period. Four more years of Obama if this ass wins the nomination, bank on it. Not only will moderates and independents never back this arrogant prig, I'll be on a one-blog mission to convince every voter I can reach.

So please, so-cons... think carefully. I get that many of you will never set the pot issue aside long enough to learn something positive about Johnson. And I fully realize his stance on abortion is off-putting to many. (Odd that those same cons aren't bothered by Santorum's ok-for-my-wife-but-not-for-you philosophy...) While I'm a big fan of Gary Johnson, I get that my first choice probably won't make the cut. Fine. As I said, I sincerely like Cain also. Run him and you can count me in.

But Santorum? Never. I mean that. Never in this life.

And if the GOP primary goes to Santorum... I'll have to seriously consider whether I can be a part of conservatism in any form. And maybe that's for the best. If Santorum is what conservatism is all about, clearly my values and ideas are not valid or desired as part of the conversation anyway.

It makes me genuinely sad, as I fully back most of what conservatism stands for. I think I have something to add to the equation, and I certainly can't self-identify as liberal. But acceptance of Santorum effectively marginalizes me - and millions of other moderates.

For now, I'm going to take a "wait and see" approach. The way I feel this morning, I don't even care if I blog about politics for a while.

This might be the beginning of a blog vacation...

UPDATED to clarify:

After a private conversation about this post, I realize this bit didn't come across the way I meant it. Rather than change the body of the post, I'll just try to explain myself a little better...
And if the GOP runs this clown, they will also lose. Period. Four more years of Obama if this ass wins the nomination, bank on it. Not only will moderates and independents never back this arrogant prig, I'll be on a one-blog mission to convince every voter I can reach.
By that I do not mean that I'll support President Obama. I mean that if the fringe has their way and Santorum is nominated, the moderates and independents who've been looking to cash in that "Change" they got will flee the Republican candidate in droves.  If you think they tacked left for a candidate they convinced themselves was moderate, wait 'til you see their response to a Santorum theocracy.

And while I'll take my blog down before I turn it into an Organizing for America offshoot, I will do everything in my admittedly limited power to remind folks why Santorum couldn't win his own state.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

"He would like it to be clear that the crime of bestiality occurs everywhere"

Sure it does...

But especially in West Virginia.

19 year old Mark Thompson was arrested and charged with kidnapping and killing a pygmy goat.  Oh yeah, he also sexually assaulted it.  He told officers he was high on bath salts, but the cops think he just really likes goats:
"The argument of bath salts is just an excuse...  There had to be an underlying desire there somewhere, and maybe the bath salts decreased the inhibitions enough to make it happen, but the bath salts is a cop out."
Well, from the look of him, I'm thinking maybe the cops are onto something.

High on bath salts with yer dick in a goat is no way to go through life, son.

Maybe bath salts can explain the hair...?