This is a fantastic new blog. It's not that I like all of these things, but in general it's an accurate assessment of American whites. Especially this one:
White men love asian women so much that they will go to extremes such as stating that Sandra Oh is sexy, teaching English in Asia, playing in a coed volleyball league, or attending institutions such as UBC or UCLA (please note that both schools’ colors of “blue” and “yellow” are intentional also the “A” in “UCLA” stand for “Asian” while the “B” in “UBC” stands for “Billion” try and figure out what the rest of the letters stand for). Another factor that draws white guys to asian women is that white women are jealous of them.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
They hate the military until they want their help
Surprise. From Melanie Morgan via Michelle Malkin, a Marine tells his story of the Code Pink protest of the Marine recruitment center:
“While we were at the protest in Berkeley from 12 to 4 PM a white volvo drove by and a man spat upon code pink. They chased him down the street and got into a verbal altercation. The police were NO WHERE in sight. That’s not the best part, ready for this? Medea Benjamin yelled and I quote “Marines!” she actually yelled for our help because this man had stepped out of his car. Lol. I even asked her if she was yelling Police and she told me “I said Marines” then put her arm around my friend Allen (the Marine vet) Ironic? Ok back to the emails!! “
They'd probably say the same thing if al Qaida was attacking them, but hey, our military is evil when it's safe to say so.
“While we were at the protest in Berkeley from 12 to 4 PM a white volvo drove by and a man spat upon code pink. They chased him down the street and got into a verbal altercation. The police were NO WHERE in sight. That’s not the best part, ready for this? Medea Benjamin yelled and I quote “Marines!” she actually yelled for our help because this man had stepped out of his car. Lol. I even asked her if she was yelling Police and she told me “I said Marines” then put her arm around my friend Allen (the Marine vet) Ironic? Ok back to the emails!! “
They'd probably say the same thing if al Qaida was attacking them, but hey, our military is evil when it's safe to say so.
Life imitates the Simpsons
At least he didn't have to make wine and test its toxicity:
HALLOWELL, Maine - Jonathan McCullum was in excellent health at 155 pounds when he left last summer to spend the school year as an exchange student in Egypt.
But when he returned home to Maine just four months later, the 5-foot-9 teenager weighed a mere 97 pounds and was so weak that he struggled to carry his baggage or climb a flight of stairs. Doctors said he was at risk of a heart attack.
McCullum says he was denied sufficient food while staying with a family of Coptic Christians, who fast for more than 200 days a year, a regimen unmatched by other Christians.
HALLOWELL, Maine - Jonathan McCullum was in excellent health at 155 pounds when he left last summer to spend the school year as an exchange student in Egypt.
But when he returned home to Maine just four months later, the 5-foot-9 teenager weighed a mere 97 pounds and was so weak that he struggled to carry his baggage or climb a flight of stairs. Doctors said he was at risk of a heart attack.
McCullum says he was denied sufficient food while staying with a family of Coptic Christians, who fast for more than 200 days a year, a regimen unmatched by other Christians.
Funny commercial - Holiday Inn Express
Every once in a while a commercial comes into rotation that just kills me. Every time I'll see I break out laughing, no matter how many times it comes on. I have found the latest in that line.
Holiday Inn Express has a new hot breakfast bar (that's a travel tip!), and they have some new commercials to highlight it. I've only seen two of these five (the 2nd and 3rd), but the 2nd gets me every time. Heck, I just watched it twice and broke out laughing both times.
So if you haven't yet, I urge you to check out "Designated Driver".
UPDATE: Just watched "Pick-Up". It's pretty good, too, but not as good as "Designated Driver".
Holiday Inn Express has a new hot breakfast bar (that's a travel tip!), and they have some new commercials to highlight it. I've only seen two of these five (the 2nd and 3rd), but the 2nd gets me every time. Heck, I just watched it twice and broke out laughing both times.
So if you haven't yet, I urge you to check out "Designated Driver".
UPDATE: Just watched "Pick-Up". It's pretty good, too, but not as good as "Designated Driver".
One more useless post
Given that we have had a pretty brutal winter (relatively) here in Chicago, and given that we are only two days from March, I predict that our days of any temperature below 20 degrees is over. See this 10-day forecast, which goes to March 8.
I'm not saying we're hitting 60 any time soon, but we should be done with the really cold days. This morning was a great way to go out.
Oh, and if I jinxed it, please don't beat me with sacks of doorknobs.
I'm not saying we're hitting 60 any time soon, but we should be done with the really cold days. This morning was a great way to go out.
Oh, and if I jinxed it, please don't beat me with sacks of doorknobs.
What's Hebron so worked up about?
I saw this headline and wondered for a moment, "What kind of peace do Hebron residents seek?" before I figured out it was about the town in Israel. Let me explain.
Hebron is a small town in NW Indiana whose school system is (or at least was) in the same conference as my school. Pronounced "heeb-run" (as opposed to "heb-run"), as is the Indiana way, I wondered how a story about it made the Washington Times but not even the Chicago papers.
So yes, this is a stupid and pointless post.
Hebron is a small town in NW Indiana whose school system is (or at least was) in the same conference as my school. Pronounced "heeb-run" (as opposed to "heb-run"), as is the Indiana way, I wondered how a story about it made the Washington Times but not even the Chicago papers.
So yes, this is a stupid and pointless post.
The Renaming of Wrigley Field
I find it funny the way the media and Cub fans are going apoplectic over the prospect of new Cubs owner Sam Zell selling naming rights to the stadium. The Sun-Times (and probably every other media outlet in Chicago) has craploads of coverage on it. The windsock columnists, who I refuse to read or even link to, are predictably going insane also.
A few points:
1. Why do Cub fans think they are the special ones who get to have a park with no corporate sponsor? Every other team has to face the humiliation of going to "United Center" or "US Cellular Field" (except the Bears and a few others). History isn't good enough for me.
2. Sam Zell didn't get rich by giving away assets. The naming rights to Wrigley Field are a big asset. If he's going to use the money to upgrade the park, how can fans complain? It's a dump, and they should hope for some improvements even if the name changes.
3. To fans who are angry, keep in mind that you've railed against the Tribune for years as poor owners becaue they treat the team like a line item rather than a millionaire's toy. Well, now you've got that millionaire, so take the good with the bad. Do you really think that anyone who buys the park from Zell is going to just leave the name and not consider selling it? If so, you're crazy and stupid.
You may not like it, but unless Wrigley (the gum company) coughs up some cash, it's going to be changed.
By the way, With Leather has a funny picture of the renamed park.
A few points:
1. Why do Cub fans think they are the special ones who get to have a park with no corporate sponsor? Every other team has to face the humiliation of going to "United Center" or "US Cellular Field" (except the Bears and a few others). History isn't good enough for me.
2. Sam Zell didn't get rich by giving away assets. The naming rights to Wrigley Field are a big asset. If he's going to use the money to upgrade the park, how can fans complain? It's a dump, and they should hope for some improvements even if the name changes.
3. To fans who are angry, keep in mind that you've railed against the Tribune for years as poor owners becaue they treat the team like a line item rather than a millionaire's toy. Well, now you've got that millionaire, so take the good with the bad. Do you really think that anyone who buys the park from Zell is going to just leave the name and not consider selling it? If so, you're crazy and stupid.
You may not like it, but unless Wrigley (the gum company) coughs up some cash, it's going to be changed.
By the way, With Leather has a funny picture of the renamed park.
It's been so long...
...since I've had an anti-John McCain post around here. Let's change that.
There's a whole story embedded in John Hawkins' post that I am linking to. The point is this:
Furthermore, it's no secret to anyone who reads RWN that I was never a fan of Mitt Romney, but here's a question: Did John McCain ever show a fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, even half as much respect as he has shown to Hillary and Obama? The answer is of course, "No, he didn't." So what does that say about McCain? A lot, actually.
Incidents like this one are exactly why so many conservatives loathe John McCain: the man is reflexively hostile to conservatives who support him while he bends over backwards to cater to liberals who think he's two steps away from being Hitler merely because he's a Republican.
If you're a conservative, how do you ever trust a man who has made a career out of spitting in the face of his friends while prostrating himself before his political enemies when you know that making nice with people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the New York Times will always be of a much higher priority to him than defending other Republicans or pursuing a conservative agenda?
You don't.
I couldn't agree more. I may end up voting for him, but I'll never trust him.
There's a whole story embedded in John Hawkins' post that I am linking to. The point is this:
Furthermore, it's no secret to anyone who reads RWN that I was never a fan of Mitt Romney, but here's a question: Did John McCain ever show a fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, even half as much respect as he has shown to Hillary and Obama? The answer is of course, "No, he didn't." So what does that say about McCain? A lot, actually.
Incidents like this one are exactly why so many conservatives loathe John McCain: the man is reflexively hostile to conservatives who support him while he bends over backwards to cater to liberals who think he's two steps away from being Hitler merely because he's a Republican.
If you're a conservative, how do you ever trust a man who has made a career out of spitting in the face of his friends while prostrating himself before his political enemies when you know that making nice with people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the New York Times will always be of a much higher priority to him than defending other Republicans or pursuing a conservative agenda?
You don't.
I couldn't agree more. I may end up voting for him, but I'll never trust him.
I hope no one started watching quarterlife
Because it sounds like it's gone. By the ratings, though, no one did.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sean Salisbury is GONE
How did I miss this news? Anyway, he is no longer on ESPN. After Michael Irvin last year, all they need to do is unload Stephen A. Smith and I may be able to watch SportsCenter again.
Sun-Times High School of the Week
The Morton Mustangs!
Something tells me that they won't be winning any more state titles in basketball any time soon, what with the entire school being full of short Hispanic kids.
UPDATE: Intrepid commenters "Toolio" and "Fubar" say this year's basketball team is actually very good. I take back my snarky comment.
Something tells me that they won't be winning any more state titles in basketball any time soon, what with the entire school being full of short Hispanic kids.
UPDATE: Intrepid commenters "Toolio" and "Fubar" say this year's basketball team is actually very good. I take back my snarky comment.
Cook County budget update
By state law, the county must have a budget in place by Friday. Board President Stroger won't negotiate with anyone else on the Board, but at least it looks like his big expansion of the county government won't happen:
Commissioners and labor union leaders say Stroger will get the votes if he:
• • Scales back his plan to increase spending 7 percent and add 1,100 new employees to the payroll.
• • Agree to a long-discussed plan to give up control of the county hospital system to outside professionals.
• • Commit to a more modest sales tax increase than the 1.25 percentage point increase he's holding at.
The issue is that the board lives in a bubble that is inflated with their own sense of self-importance. If the county government disappeared, with its functions rolled into other levels of government, would it matter? Clearly not. Tony Peraica and the fiscal conservatives understand this, but Stroger and the liberals don't.
And here I am again, feeling like Al Bundy and campaigning against a 2 cent beer tax increase:
On the table and set for a vote today are tax plans that could ultimately end up costing you more to buy a plane ticket, a drink at a bar, a car, hotel room, clothing or other merchandise.
As a final point, the problem any time a level of government raises the sales tax is that sales taxes go up every year anyway as the prices of goods go up. Raising the rates is just a figurative kick in the junk of the wallet.
Commissioners and labor union leaders say Stroger will get the votes if he:
• • Scales back his plan to increase spending 7 percent and add 1,100 new employees to the payroll.
• • Agree to a long-discussed plan to give up control of the county hospital system to outside professionals.
• • Commit to a more modest sales tax increase than the 1.25 percentage point increase he's holding at.
The issue is that the board lives in a bubble that is inflated with their own sense of self-importance. If the county government disappeared, with its functions rolled into other levels of government, would it matter? Clearly not. Tony Peraica and the fiscal conservatives understand this, but Stroger and the liberals don't.
And here I am again, feeling like Al Bundy and campaigning against a 2 cent beer tax increase:
On the table and set for a vote today are tax plans that could ultimately end up costing you more to buy a plane ticket, a drink at a bar, a car, hotel room, clothing or other merchandise.
As a final point, the problem any time a level of government raises the sales tax is that sales taxes go up every year anyway as the prices of goods go up. Raising the rates is just a figurative kick in the junk of the wallet.
With big surplus, Hong Kong slashes taxes
If only this happened here! They even cut some sin taxes on beer and wine. Instead, liberals love to piss extra money away on new programs. Of course, those programs don't go away when the money dries up.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Obama's work an a community organizer
Here's an interesting column on what Barack Obama was doing as a community organizer here in Chicago. Hint: it's not setting up softball leagues.
Al Gore was unavailable for comment
Wonder if he's going to update all those Powerpoint presentations from his fictional documentary:
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.
In fairness, one year doesn't mean anything. But then a short period of 50 years doesn't either, and it didn't stop him and all of his acolytes from saying that it was guaranteed proof that irreversible global warming was happening and being caused by man.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.
In fairness, one year doesn't mean anything. But then a short period of 50 years doesn't either, and it didn't stop him and all of his acolytes from saying that it was guaranteed proof that irreversible global warming was happening and being caused by man.
Falling ice
When you are walking around Russia and you see those signs in the sidewalk, you really better watch out:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Six people have been killed in three days by icicles falling from buildings in a central Russian region, ITAR-TASS news agency reported Tuesday.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Six people have been killed in three days by icicles falling from buildings in a central Russian region, ITAR-TASS news agency reported Tuesday.
Background checks for illegals
It's been a while since anything regarding immigration has been highlighted here, so let me present a column showing the absurdity of the supposed background checks that will be part of any amnesty package:
Yet proponents of immigration reform insist that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who will step forward to claim a chance at legalization can indeed have their histories adequately researched. Some have even suggested that background checks on illegal immigrants could be conducted in a similar fashion to the so-called instant background checks that are used to screen potential gun buyers.
This fiction slips into the public discourse so easily simply because too many reporters have become stenographers, transcribing comments by rote and declining to challenge or analytically explore such sweeping claims.
Fundamental questions about these proposed background checks remain unanswered because they are not asked: What agency will conduct them? What universe of source material will be researched? What is the scope of the search? What's the criterion for approval or denial of the immigrant's application? What is the budget for this mammoth undertaking? And here's the biggie that presidential candidates Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are all loathe to answer: Will illegal immigrants whose background checks are flagged and applications for legalization denied face immediate deportation?
Should the American people be asked to believe that Mexico — the corruption-riddled narco-state that is responsible for seven out of every 10 illegal immigrants in the United States today — will provide adequate information about its citizens that may result in their deportation home? Or is it more likely the Mexican government will do whatever it takes to ensure they stay in America and continue wiring billions in hard cash back to Mexico?
Here's my own question: Will document fraud (in regard to using a false social security number for employment) be one of the crimes that would get someone flagged as a criminal alien worthy of deportation?
If so, then there isn't any point to these background checks since they will all fail.
If not, then the message is that tax and social security fraud are just A-OK.
Yet proponents of immigration reform insist that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who will step forward to claim a chance at legalization can indeed have their histories adequately researched. Some have even suggested that background checks on illegal immigrants could be conducted in a similar fashion to the so-called instant background checks that are used to screen potential gun buyers.
This fiction slips into the public discourse so easily simply because too many reporters have become stenographers, transcribing comments by rote and declining to challenge or analytically explore such sweeping claims.
Fundamental questions about these proposed background checks remain unanswered because they are not asked: What agency will conduct them? What universe of source material will be researched? What is the scope of the search? What's the criterion for approval or denial of the immigrant's application? What is the budget for this mammoth undertaking? And here's the biggie that presidential candidates Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are all loathe to answer: Will illegal immigrants whose background checks are flagged and applications for legalization denied face immediate deportation?
Should the American people be asked to believe that Mexico — the corruption-riddled narco-state that is responsible for seven out of every 10 illegal immigrants in the United States today — will provide adequate information about its citizens that may result in their deportation home? Or is it more likely the Mexican government will do whatever it takes to ensure they stay in America and continue wiring billions in hard cash back to Mexico?
Here's my own question: Will document fraud (in regard to using a false social security number for employment) be one of the crimes that would get someone flagged as a criminal alien worthy of deportation?
If so, then there isn't any point to these background checks since they will all fail.
If not, then the message is that tax and social security fraud are just A-OK.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Moment Of Truth
So I'm watching this here Moment Of Truth show on the television. They sucked me in with my desire for an hour of mindless entertainment and the teaser of it being an episode they hadn't showed before due to its sensitive nature. Apparently they ruin a marriage or something. We'll see.
I only bring this up because anyone who would go on this show for the money is an idiot. Take me: I have lived a pretty clean life with very few skeletons in my closet, as they say. I'm pretty certain they'd find some dirt on me, though, and there is no way I'd want to go through with it. Some people are just attention whores, I guess.
These questions are getting harder and worse as this continues, and the host has actually warned her to stop the game to save herself (because he knows what questions are coming). She won't do it, though.
UPDATE: She eventually got the 15th or so question actually wrong (Do you think you are a good person? She answered yes, when I guess she really thinks not), so she lost out on all the money anyway. She was willing to go the distance, though. I think I agree with her that she's not a good person, and I'm glad I'm not married to her.
I only bring this up because anyone who would go on this show for the money is an idiot. Take me: I have lived a pretty clean life with very few skeletons in my closet, as they say. I'm pretty certain they'd find some dirt on me, though, and there is no way I'd want to go through with it. Some people are just attention whores, I guess.
These questions are getting harder and worse as this continues, and the host has actually warned her to stop the game to save herself (because he knows what questions are coming). She won't do it, though.
UPDATE: She eventually got the 15th or so question actually wrong (Do you think you are a good person? She answered yes, when I guess she really thinks not), so she lost out on all the money anyway. She was willing to go the distance, though. I think I agree with her that she's not a good person, and I'm glad I'm not married to her.
Newsflash: Airport security is annoying
This girl has a prosthetic leg, which causes her much embarrassment when going through airport security screening.
Well, yeah, I'm sure it's unpleasant for her to have the extra attention from having a leg like Robocop. I don't blame her for getting cranky about it. The problem is she is turning her fire towards the wrong targets.
The first is the terrorists who hijack planes. Before they started doing it in the late 1960's, there basically was no airport security. Guys going on hunting trips would store their rifles in the overhead compartments (no joke). Heck, I remember back in 1996 taking a wooden baseball bat on a plane with me. So first and foremost, blame the Muslim a-holes who want to take down planes.
The second is our ridiculous policy of treating everyone the same in screening. It's obvious that young Muslim men are by far most likely to hijack or destroy a plane, yet they get the same attention as an old black lady. Sure, it would then really be bad for Muslims who fly who mean no harm, but it would be a lot better for everyone else.
Well, yeah, I'm sure it's unpleasant for her to have the extra attention from having a leg like Robocop. I don't blame her for getting cranky about it. The problem is she is turning her fire towards the wrong targets.
The first is the terrorists who hijack planes. Before they started doing it in the late 1960's, there basically was no airport security. Guys going on hunting trips would store their rifles in the overhead compartments (no joke). Heck, I remember back in 1996 taking a wooden baseball bat on a plane with me. So first and foremost, blame the Muslim a-holes who want to take down planes.
The second is our ridiculous policy of treating everyone the same in screening. It's obvious that young Muslim men are by far most likely to hijack or destroy a plane, yet they get the same attention as an old black lady. Sure, it would then really be bad for Muslims who fly who mean no harm, but it would be a lot better for everyone else.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Update on the Chiefs and their draft position
Intrepid commenter "Tony" has found the likely answer to my post below:
NFL.com had more info. "All three teams finished the 2007 season with identical 4-12 records, but the Raiders were awarded the fourth overall selection based on their finish behind the Chiefs in the AFC West standings. Kansas City finished ahead of Oakland in the division standings based on a better record against common opponents."
So, it sounds like the league wanted to force KC to pick behind Oak. There are 3 possible outcomes. 1: Atl-Oak-KC; 2: Oak-Atl-KC; 3: Oak-KC-Atl.
Thanks to "Tony" for researching this and solving the mystery. I thought this was worth highlighting for those who won't repeatedly read my posts for the additional comments.
NFL.com had more info. "All three teams finished the 2007 season with identical 4-12 records, but the Raiders were awarded the fourth overall selection based on their finish behind the Chiefs in the AFC West standings. Kansas City finished ahead of Oakland in the division standings based on a better record against common opponents."
So, it sounds like the league wanted to force KC to pick behind Oak. There are 3 possible outcomes. 1: Atl-Oak-KC; 2: Oak-Atl-KC; 3: Oak-KC-Atl.
Thanks to "Tony" for researching this and solving the mystery. I thought this was worth highlighting for those who won't repeatedly read my posts for the additional comments.
Soccer announcers are stupid
So as I sit here at home watching the Liverpool-Middlesbrough game, the announcers on Setanta just had what was quite possibly the dumbest conversation ever. I am recording the game, so maybe later I'll try to do a complete transcript (but that's unlikely).
The gist was that one guy asked the other if he thought that the crowd at Anfield (Liverpool's stadium) was more subdued during day games than night games. The second guy agreed. Then they tried to figure out why it was, and couldn't come up with a good answer.
Now...
Any American sports fan knows that a night game on the weekend is going have many more fans who have been drinking all day, making them louder. I think we can assume that English soccer fans take the drinking part of the sporting event even more seriously than we do. The obvious answer, then, as to why the crowds at the night games seem more boisterous is that they are hammered.
It's possible that the announcers know full well that this is the reason, but the EPL doesn't want to talk about alcohol and their fans since in the past they have had so many problems with fan hooliganism. You think these guys could come up with artful euphemisms rather than play dumb, though.
The gist was that one guy asked the other if he thought that the crowd at Anfield (Liverpool's stadium) was more subdued during day games than night games. The second guy agreed. Then they tried to figure out why it was, and couldn't come up with a good answer.
Now...
Any American sports fan knows that a night game on the weekend is going have many more fans who have been drinking all day, making them louder. I think we can assume that English soccer fans take the drinking part of the sporting event even more seriously than we do. The obvious answer, then, as to why the crowds at the night games seem more boisterous is that they are hammered.
It's possible that the announcers know full well that this is the reason, but the EPL doesn't want to talk about alcohol and their fans since in the past they have had so many problems with fan hooliganism. You think these guys could come up with artful euphemisms rather than play dumb, though.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Column of the year
I'm declaring this one already.
It's about the smoking ban here in Illinois. I agree with every single word of it, so I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here's the first part I'll quote. Surprise:
And yet the smokers are not without hope. Less than a year after Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the smoking ban, and gushed, "This law will save lives. The realities are that smoking kills people...My only regret is that this took so long," the news out of Springfield is that the owners of taverns, casinos and strip clubs may soon be able to buy a "special license" that will allow their patrons to smoke inside.
So all of that talk about saving lives from second-hand smoke was all just a bunch of...second-hand smoke. Or was it just another Chicago-style scam so the state could sell expensive smoking licenses to bowling alley operators? The fact is officeholders thought the smoking ban was a terrific idea -- or at least an efficient way to get those annoying single-issue pressure groupees out of their offices and off their backs -- until they discovered that Illinois would have a budget shortfall of $750 million next year, and learned how much tax revenue the state made off its smokers, boozers, gamblers and stripshow devotees.
Illinois bar owners report that revenue is down in some cases by 50 percent. Casinos report that the ban has caused a 17 percent drop in gaming. I haven't spoken to any strippers recently, but I bet they are feeling the pinch too.
Then there is this later:
These aren't the quaint, looney laws that you read about on the comics page. ("A Kirkland, Illinois, law forbids bees to fly over the village or through any of its streets.") Instead these laws create new classes of criminal behaviors; conduct that only yesterday was perfectly legal. Cynically the state assumes that, with time, the masses will get used to fewer rights, and to an ever-expanding, ever-meddling nanny state. All is well as long we are stripped of our rights gradually and imperceptibly.
Again, I recommend reading the whole thing.
It's about the smoking ban here in Illinois. I agree with every single word of it, so I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here's the first part I'll quote. Surprise:
And yet the smokers are not without hope. Less than a year after Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the smoking ban, and gushed, "This law will save lives. The realities are that smoking kills people...My only regret is that this took so long," the news out of Springfield is that the owners of taverns, casinos and strip clubs may soon be able to buy a "special license" that will allow their patrons to smoke inside.
So all of that talk about saving lives from second-hand smoke was all just a bunch of...second-hand smoke. Or was it just another Chicago-style scam so the state could sell expensive smoking licenses to bowling alley operators? The fact is officeholders thought the smoking ban was a terrific idea -- or at least an efficient way to get those annoying single-issue pressure groupees out of their offices and off their backs -- until they discovered that Illinois would have a budget shortfall of $750 million next year, and learned how much tax revenue the state made off its smokers, boozers, gamblers and stripshow devotees.
Illinois bar owners report that revenue is down in some cases by 50 percent. Casinos report that the ban has caused a 17 percent drop in gaming. I haven't spoken to any strippers recently, but I bet they are feeling the pinch too.
Then there is this later:
These aren't the quaint, looney laws that you read about on the comics page. ("A Kirkland, Illinois, law forbids bees to fly over the village or through any of its streets.") Instead these laws create new classes of criminal behaviors; conduct that only yesterday was perfectly legal. Cynically the state assumes that, with time, the masses will get used to fewer rights, and to an ever-expanding, ever-meddling nanny state. All is well as long we are stripped of our rights gradually and imperceptibly.
Again, I recommend reading the whole thing.
Glimpse into my life
...not that it's pleasant or interesting. I am now listening to an album that was bought by probably only about 20,000 other people. It's Ghetto Heisman by WC.
Yes, I was (OK, am) still hanging on to West Coast gangster rap in 2002. There isn't much left, so I think this is a good album. At least it's got a somewhat cool cover:
An editorial from Barack Obama
Not really, but it's funny:
So why do we need both hope and change? Isn't hope enough? Let me tell you a story. One night when the baby was crying and smelled horrible, my wife and I tried to solve the situations through hope. It didn't work. Change was needed. Similarly, once a homeless man came to me and asked for change. I offered him hope, but he was not satisfied. You see, hope must be backed by change.
So why do we need both hope and change? Isn't hope enough? Let me tell you a story. One night when the baby was crying and smelled horrible, my wife and I tried to solve the situations through hope. It didn't work. Change was needed. Similarly, once a homeless man came to me and asked for change. I offered him hope, but he was not satisfied. You see, hope must be backed by change.
You vs. Celebrities
In height. I just wasted 20 minutes on it.
Most disappointing: Rachel Bilson
Best surprise: Mariah Carey
Oddest surprise: Sebastian Bach
Most disappointing: Rachel Bilson
Best surprise: Mariah Carey
Oddest surprise: Sebastian Bach
Did the Chiefs get hosed?
When it comes to ties in record, the NFL determines draft position by strength of schedule (SOS). The team with the weaker strength of schedule picks first. What happens when there are two teams with the same SOS? There is a coin flip.
We found out this morning what the league does when there are 3 teams with the same SOS, and unless there is more information than is provided in this ESPN article, the statistician in me says the Kansas City Chiefs got a raw deal. Here's what happened:
The Falcons had the first call and won the toss. Under that scenario, the Falcons got the third pick and the Raiders the fourth pick. Had the Falcons lost the toss and the Raiders won, the Raiders would have drafted third, and then the Falcons would have flipped against the Chiefs for the No. 4 and No. 5 picks.
The Falcons had the first call. If they got it right, they go #3. If they get it wrong, they go against the Chiefs for #4. That means the Falcons have a 50% chance of having #3 and 25% chance each of having #4 and #5.
The Raiders are in even better shape than the Falcons. They had chances of 50% for #3, 50% for #4, and 0% for #5.
Where does this leave the Chiefs? It's easy from the math above that they have a 0% chance for #3, 25% chance for #4, and 75% chance for #5.
Here are the expected draft positions for the three teams under this scenario:
Falcons = (.5 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.25 * 5) = 3.75
Raiders = (.5 * 3) + (.5 * 4) + (0 * 5) = 3.5
Chiefs = (0 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.75 * 5) = 4.75
I am assuming that there were some other behind-the-scenes tie-breakers not mentioned in the article to determine the coin flip position, because if not the Chiefs did indeed get hosed.*
*There is another possible explanation. Mainstream media reporters are notoriously horrible at understanding statistics (they are just journalism majors after all), so the author probably doesn't comprehend that his article gives the impression that the Chiefs had terrible odds. This may be worth an e-mail to the league for clarification.
We found out this morning what the league does when there are 3 teams with the same SOS, and unless there is more information than is provided in this ESPN article, the statistician in me says the Kansas City Chiefs got a raw deal. Here's what happened:
The Falcons had the first call and won the toss. Under that scenario, the Falcons got the third pick and the Raiders the fourth pick. Had the Falcons lost the toss and the Raiders won, the Raiders would have drafted third, and then the Falcons would have flipped against the Chiefs for the No. 4 and No. 5 picks.
The Falcons had the first call. If they got it right, they go #3. If they get it wrong, they go against the Chiefs for #4. That means the Falcons have a 50% chance of having #3 and 25% chance each of having #4 and #5.
The Raiders are in even better shape than the Falcons. They had chances of 50% for #3, 50% for #4, and 0% for #5.
Where does this leave the Chiefs? It's easy from the math above that they have a 0% chance for #3, 25% chance for #4, and 75% chance for #5.
Here are the expected draft positions for the three teams under this scenario:
Falcons = (.5 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.25 * 5) = 3.75
Raiders = (.5 * 3) + (.5 * 4) + (0 * 5) = 3.5
Chiefs = (0 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.75 * 5) = 4.75
I am assuming that there were some other behind-the-scenes tie-breakers not mentioned in the article to determine the coin flip position, because if not the Chiefs did indeed get hosed.*
*There is another possible explanation. Mainstream media reporters are notoriously horrible at understanding statistics (they are just journalism majors after all), so the author probably doesn't comprehend that his article gives the impression that the Chiefs had terrible odds. This may be worth an e-mail to the league for clarification.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
How to fix the Army
I don't know enough about the Army to critique this article, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Basically, the theme is to cut the number of officers in half.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Cult of Obama
I only wish she said this about me. Oh, how I wish:
"I'll do whatever he says to do," actress Halle Berry said to the Philadelphia Daily News. "I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."
"I'll do whatever he says to do," actress Halle Berry said to the Philadelphia Daily News. "I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."
Because trendiness comes out of government beaurocracy
I'm sure this will work very well. Apparently the city government has set up some lame and unnecessary department (more tax dollars down the drain...) to help make Chicago, well, read on:
Six local fashion designers have been chosen to be the first to occupy the Chicago Fashion Incubator at Macy’s on State Street.
The incubator, set to open in March on Macy’s 11th floor, is part of Mayor Richard Daley’s efforts to turn the Windy City into the Trendy City, known as much for its fashion as its residents’ remarkably unfashionable winter garb.
The mayor and business leaders want to give local designers a reason to stay in Chicago rather than going to New York or Los Angeles. “This is another important step toward developing the next generation of design talent in our city,” said Mayor Richard Daley in a statement.
I don't really give a rip if Chicago becomes a fashion center. I do, however, know it won't happen because the people who bring you the CTA, the Chicago Housing Authority, and every other wasteful beaurocracy run by the city are in charge of it.
Six local fashion designers have been chosen to be the first to occupy the Chicago Fashion Incubator at Macy’s on State Street.
The incubator, set to open in March on Macy’s 11th floor, is part of Mayor Richard Daley’s efforts to turn the Windy City into the Trendy City, known as much for its fashion as its residents’ remarkably unfashionable winter garb.
The mayor and business leaders want to give local designers a reason to stay in Chicago rather than going to New York or Los Angeles. “This is another important step toward developing the next generation of design talent in our city,” said Mayor Richard Daley in a statement.
I don't really give a rip if Chicago becomes a fashion center. I do, however, know it won't happen because the people who bring you the CTA, the Chicago Housing Authority, and every other wasteful beaurocracy run by the city are in charge of it.
Todd Stroger likes to waste our tax money
From the guy who wanted to raise the Cook County sales tax by 2 percentage points to pay for his wasteful level of government, here is his latest scam of taxpayers:
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger is laying the groundwork to turn to taxpayers for more money to help in his struggling public relations efforts.
In a proposal to the County Board, Stroger's hospital chief asks for $120,000 for a five-month contract with a clout-heavy PR firm to spread the good word about the hospital and its services.
Very nice of him to want to take more taxpayer money for something like this. He is truly appalling, and everyone who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves (but I know they are not).
Let's summarize:
The county hospitals are wasteful and expensive, and there isn't enough tax money coming in right now to keep them going in their current state.
Stroger's solution is to spend more money to publicize to poor people county hospital services they may not be using.
So they can't afford what they do now, but he wants to have to spend more? That just doesn't make sense. It sounds to me that he just wants to have as much power as possible in his county government.
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger is laying the groundwork to turn to taxpayers for more money to help in his struggling public relations efforts.
In a proposal to the County Board, Stroger's hospital chief asks for $120,000 for a five-month contract with a clout-heavy PR firm to spread the good word about the hospital and its services.
Very nice of him to want to take more taxpayer money for something like this. He is truly appalling, and everyone who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves (but I know they are not).
Let's summarize:
The county hospitals are wasteful and expensive, and there isn't enough tax money coming in right now to keep them going in their current state.
Stroger's solution is to spend more money to publicize to poor people county hospital services they may not be using.
So they can't afford what they do now, but he wants to have to spend more? That just doesn't make sense. It sounds to me that he just wants to have as much power as possible in his county government.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Classic Coach Knight
Tonight's huge IU-Purdue game has me nostalgic for the late 1980's-early 1990's, when Purdue and IU were both pretty good. It really has been since about 1994 when both teams were this good.
It also has me thinking about the greatest Bob Knight clip of all time. (It's full of profanity, so be warned.) It's from the 1991 season, when they actually had a good year. In the rant he's referring to the 8-10 record the year before when the team had the great freshman class led by Calbert Cheaney and Greg Graham (and the year after Jay Edwards led them to a Big Ten title when two of the other top teams were national champ Michigan and Final Four participant Illinois). Here's a bunch more background on it.
Enjoy.
It also has me thinking about the greatest Bob Knight clip of all time. (It's full of profanity, so be warned.) It's from the 1991 season, when they actually had a good year. In the rant he's referring to the 8-10 record the year before when the team had the great freshman class led by Calbert Cheaney and Greg Graham (and the year after Jay Edwards led them to a Big Ten title when two of the other top teams were national champ Michigan and Final Four participant Illinois). Here's a bunch more background on it.
Enjoy.
Recovery is slow
When one gets old, it's hard to hit the sauce 3 days in a row. Posting has been light around here because of this wicked 2-day hangover I'm nursing.
Also, I don't have a lot to say. The weekend consisted of an Abe Lincoln look-a-like, a cups tournament, closing Four Shadows on Sunday, and watching 7 episodes of the Wire. That's really about it. Normal posting should resume tomorrow. Until then, I urge you all to watch IU and Purdue battle in Bloomington at 6 PM tonight.
Also, I don't have a lot to say. The weekend consisted of an Abe Lincoln look-a-like, a cups tournament, closing Four Shadows on Sunday, and watching 7 episodes of the Wire. That's really about it. Normal posting should resume tomorrow. Until then, I urge you all to watch IU and Purdue battle in Bloomington at 6 PM tonight.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The new Thomas Edison
This guy is a giant among men. He invented beer with Vitamin B in it to reduce hangovers:
Malang’s Vitamin B complex-fortified beer or Vitamin Beer takes some of the guilt out of drinking.
“If you are looking for an excuse to take a swig, this is it,” said Malang, who claimed that Vitamin Beer replaces the essential Vitamin B which is lost when excessive amounts of alcohol are consumed.
Malang’s Vitamin B complex-fortified beer or Vitamin Beer takes some of the guilt out of drinking.
“If you are looking for an excuse to take a swig, this is it,” said Malang, who claimed that Vitamin Beer replaces the essential Vitamin B which is lost when excessive amounts of alcohol are consumed.
Do you want taxes raised?
I'm guessing there are lots of liberals in Virginia who want higher taxes (or at least, who are liberal Democrats). Strangely, when they have a chance to not be hypocrites and pay more voluntarily, they don't:
RICHMOND — State lawmakers can rule out Virginian's offering up more of their hard-earned money to fix the $1.4 billion budget shortfall Gov. Tim Kaine announced this week.
At least that is what a peek at the so-called "Tax Me More Fund" suggests.
Since its inception in 2002, the fund has collected a total of $10,217.04.
As a state lawmaker says:
"It's amazing how people want to tax other people for every idea they have, and they are not willing to step up to the plate themselves, said Delegate M. Kirkland Cox, Colonial Heights Republican and a sponsor of the legislation that created the Virginia fund. "It's a real good way to make a point."
The whole article is so fantastic that I recommend reading the whole thing.
RICHMOND — State lawmakers can rule out Virginian's offering up more of their hard-earned money to fix the $1.4 billion budget shortfall Gov. Tim Kaine announced this week.
At least that is what a peek at the so-called "Tax Me More Fund" suggests.
Since its inception in 2002, the fund has collected a total of $10,217.04.
As a state lawmaker says:
"It's amazing how people want to tax other people for every idea they have, and they are not willing to step up to the plate themselves, said Delegate M. Kirkland Cox, Colonial Heights Republican and a sponsor of the legislation that created the Virginia fund. "It's a real good way to make a point."
The whole article is so fantastic that I recommend reading the whole thing.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Big weekend
This weekend will be bigger than most for me for a few reasons.
- Unlike the rest of you people who hate our country's greatest presidents, my employer has decided to give me Monday off to celebrate them. (I always think of Calvin Coolidge, who was perhaps our most underrated president.)
- Friday, I have a pub crawl in my neighborhood. This is extremely rare for me, but I'm very excited. It starts at The Mutiny at 7 PM if anyone wants to show up.
- Saturday night the Hoosiers try to come back and post a win against the Spartans in Bloomington.
- Sunday, bowling has been put off for a week, so those of us that don't have to work on Monday are going to drink all night at my Regal Beagle.
- I finally (no thanks to Netflix) have finished season 4 of The Wire on DVD, so I can get to the six episodes of the penultimate season 5 I have recorded at home (with an additional new episode on Monday making it seven total).
- Huge Netflix movie weekend: Transformers, Hostel II, and Superbad. My head is about to explode thinking about it.
- Unlike the rest of you people who hate our country's greatest presidents, my employer has decided to give me Monday off to celebrate them. (I always think of Calvin Coolidge, who was perhaps our most underrated president.)
- Friday, I have a pub crawl in my neighborhood. This is extremely rare for me, but I'm very excited. It starts at The Mutiny at 7 PM if anyone wants to show up.
- Saturday night the Hoosiers try to come back and post a win against the Spartans in Bloomington.
- Sunday, bowling has been put off for a week, so those of us that don't have to work on Monday are going to drink all night at my Regal Beagle.
- I finally (no thanks to Netflix) have finished season 4 of The Wire on DVD, so I can get to the six episodes of the penultimate season 5 I have recorded at home (with an additional new episode on Monday making it seven total).
- Huge Netflix movie weekend: Transformers, Hostel II, and Superbad. My head is about to explode thinking about it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
That is softening me...
Media Matters is a website that, well, here is their mission in their own words (bolding is mine):
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
OK, now that we are all done laughing at that thought, here is something pointed out by Greg Pollowitz regarding MM and John McCain. His opening sentence is the best:
Media Matters continues its quest to unite the Republican party behind John McCain:
And then he quotes MM as it points out how far to the right McCain has moved on immigration.
I tell you, MM is definitely helping to get conservatives like me behind him!
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
OK, now that we are all done laughing at that thought, here is something pointed out by Greg Pollowitz regarding MM and John McCain. His opening sentence is the best:
Media Matters continues its quest to unite the Republican party behind John McCain:
And then he quotes MM as it points out how far to the right McCain has moved on immigration.
I tell you, MM is definitely helping to get conservatives like me behind him!
Geraldo Rivera wrote a book
Geraldo Rivera has famously (or, at least in cable news circles it's well-known) become a bit of an open-borders zealot. I mean that he's become the opposite of me on illegal immigration. He's now written a book about it.
Since he's just a news goof rather than a writer, you may not imagine it to be very good. This guy comes to the same conclusion, and in a funny way. Here's how the review starts:
Being Hispanic has only benefitted me. I can tan. I don't look like a total ass when I dance. I can roll my "r"s in a sophisticated way. Surrounded by conservatives as I frequently am, I help boost the number of minorities in the room by 100 percent. The best part is, they don't know it or have to come to terms with it, because of my dark secret. I'm Spanish (indeed, from Spain), which is technically Hispanic, according to dictionaries, but I look white, depending on where I spend my weekend.
There are downsides. I have to shave almost twice a day to prevent myself from looking like Pancho Villa. I dial "1" for Spanish just to practice for when I talk to my distant relatives. And I have to dodge the paranoid, delusional bigots my compadre (that's a Spanish word) Geraldo Rivera has uncovered in his book, His Panic. Of course, that last bit is easy, primarily because I've never found any.
Since he's just a news goof rather than a writer, you may not imagine it to be very good. This guy comes to the same conclusion, and in a funny way. Here's how the review starts:
Being Hispanic has only benefitted me. I can tan. I don't look like a total ass when I dance. I can roll my "r"s in a sophisticated way. Surrounded by conservatives as I frequently am, I help boost the number of minorities in the room by 100 percent. The best part is, they don't know it or have to come to terms with it, because of my dark secret. I'm Spanish (indeed, from Spain), which is technically Hispanic, according to dictionaries, but I look white, depending on where I spend my weekend.
There are downsides. I have to shave almost twice a day to prevent myself from looking like Pancho Villa. I dial "1" for Spanish just to practice for when I talk to my distant relatives. And I have to dodge the paranoid, delusional bigots my compadre (that's a Spanish word) Geraldo Rivera has uncovered in his book, His Panic. Of course, that last bit is easy, primarily because I've never found any.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Life is like Futurama, but 993 years early
This article asks the question of whether robots are to be used for, um, pleasure in the future. Luckily, we have an episode of Futurama showing us exactly how that would work out. You can watch the whole episode here as long as you are not distracted by the subtitles.
In other completely unrelated news, it's not terribly surprising that a teacher could hold his job while being illiterate since so many of the students in some schools also are.
Finally, this is the greatest article of all time. Trust me on this. Please click the link.
In other completely unrelated news, it's not terribly surprising that a teacher could hold his job while being illiterate since so many of the students in some schools also are.
Finally, this is the greatest article of all time. Trust me on this. Please click the link.
Barack Obama = Kirk Cameron
That's gist of this article:
College Park, Maryland - You can see it in their flushed-face smiles and hear it in their screams. They say the phenomenon is difficult to describe, but once they experience it they tell their friends, sisters, mothers and daughters, and they come back for more if they can.
"He's very charismatic. It was a 'you-had-to-be-there' kind of experience," said Lolita Breckenridge, 37, after hearing Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama address a packed rally at the University of Maryland on Monday.
There's much more in that vein.
A few things come to mind. Doesn't anyone notice that his speeches never contain any substance? It's all fluff.
Second, I think this is the reason it took women until 1920 to have the right to vote. If this is their reaction to the guy, I'm all for repealing that amendment. Ladies, please tell me you are ashamed of your sisters! Seriously, it's this crap that was used to rationalize denying women suffrage. Congrats, you've set yourself back at least 100 years.
Then how's this, which I always find horrifying when it's explicitly stated:
Her friend Tyra Simpkins, 37, said she has always rooted for Obama.
"I think he has a lot of momentum and I'm really excited about his health care plan, I know he's going to do a lot of great things for people with disabilities," said Simpkins, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.
Translation: Give me free stuff for my vote!
College Park, Maryland - You can see it in their flushed-face smiles and hear it in their screams. They say the phenomenon is difficult to describe, but once they experience it they tell their friends, sisters, mothers and daughters, and they come back for more if they can.
"He's very charismatic. It was a 'you-had-to-be-there' kind of experience," said Lolita Breckenridge, 37, after hearing Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama address a packed rally at the University of Maryland on Monday.
There's much more in that vein.
A few things come to mind. Doesn't anyone notice that his speeches never contain any substance? It's all fluff.
Second, I think this is the reason it took women until 1920 to have the right to vote. If this is their reaction to the guy, I'm all for repealing that amendment. Ladies, please tell me you are ashamed of your sisters! Seriously, it's this crap that was used to rationalize denying women suffrage. Congrats, you've set yourself back at least 100 years.
Then how's this, which I always find horrifying when it's explicitly stated:
Her friend Tyra Simpkins, 37, said she has always rooted for Obama.
"I think he has a lot of momentum and I'm really excited about his health care plan, I know he's going to do a lot of great things for people with disabilities," said Simpkins, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.
Translation: Give me free stuff for my vote!
Arizona's crackdown on illegals is working too well - II
Too bad Illinois can't pass something like this:
PHOENIX — The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients.
While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state.
PHOENIX — The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients.
While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state.
Sun-Times vs. Tribune
The Sun-Times is ratcheting up its efforts to overtake the Tribune (in their own paper, of course):
Communications conglomerate Tribune Co. has an unusual way of practicing communications in the Chicago area.
Tribune stifles it.
Tribune Co. recently ordered WGN-AM (720) radio staffers to re-record the voice-over for a Chicago Sun-Times commercial that highlighted the Sun-Times' readership edge over the Chicago Tribune in Chicago. The 30-second spot initially was voiced by Dean Richards, the high-profile TV and radio personality whose distinctive voice is easily recognized at Tribune-owned WGN.
Obviously too easily recognized for Tribune Co. brass, and a week after the spot first aired, they ordered the re-recording.
The article goes on:
Then just last week, the Trib advertising sales department rejected a Sun-Times print ad that also said the Chicago Sun-Times enjoys greater readership than the Tribune in the city. The Sun-Times ad was based on data from Scarborough Research that compared readership of the Sun-Times and the Tribune for five daily editions plus Sunday, and showed the Sun-Times with a clear edge in readers.
Anyone who has ever read the two papers knows why this is true. The Sun-Times is a city paper, with a focus on city news and reporting. They are the ones that always break corruption stories, for example. The Tribune is a regional paper, which is why its overall circulation is much larger. (The Tribune dominates the Sun-Times in the suburbs.)
The Tribune's laughable response is that when it is combined with Red Eye, then the circulation is higher. For those that don't know, Red Eye is a free little daily paper read on the buses and trains by people who don't read a newspaper. It's not a fair comparison.
I'm not trying to rip the Tribune here, but I just think this kind of thing is amusing and interesting. I especially like the way the Sun-Times is using its own paper to publish these "news" stories.
Communications conglomerate Tribune Co. has an unusual way of practicing communications in the Chicago area.
Tribune stifles it.
Tribune Co. recently ordered WGN-AM (720) radio staffers to re-record the voice-over for a Chicago Sun-Times commercial that highlighted the Sun-Times' readership edge over the Chicago Tribune in Chicago. The 30-second spot initially was voiced by Dean Richards, the high-profile TV and radio personality whose distinctive voice is easily recognized at Tribune-owned WGN.
Obviously too easily recognized for Tribune Co. brass, and a week after the spot first aired, they ordered the re-recording.
The article goes on:
Then just last week, the Trib advertising sales department rejected a Sun-Times print ad that also said the Chicago Sun-Times enjoys greater readership than the Tribune in the city. The Sun-Times ad was based on data from Scarborough Research that compared readership of the Sun-Times and the Tribune for five daily editions plus Sunday, and showed the Sun-Times with a clear edge in readers.
Anyone who has ever read the two papers knows why this is true. The Sun-Times is a city paper, with a focus on city news and reporting. They are the ones that always break corruption stories, for example. The Tribune is a regional paper, which is why its overall circulation is much larger. (The Tribune dominates the Sun-Times in the suburbs.)
The Tribune's laughable response is that when it is combined with Red Eye, then the circulation is higher. For those that don't know, Red Eye is a free little daily paper read on the buses and trains by people who don't read a newspaper. It's not a fair comparison.
I'm not trying to rip the Tribune here, but I just think this kind of thing is amusing and interesting. I especially like the way the Sun-Times is using its own paper to publish these "news" stories.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Berkeley's best
L-Train had a good post about the Berkeley city council's fight against our Marines. Here's a video put together by Sentor Jim DeMint's office. It's a nice view into the thinking of these warped old hippies.
McCain the jerk
From a Senate staffer, via Michelle Malkin, an excerpt:
John McCain is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. That is unfortunate, and I am sad to say that I cannot support him – as is the case with many people I know – for many of the reasons explored repeatedly on NRO and other places. As a Hill staffer, those of you who share my view and I know what is at stake – at least as much as anyone… from the confirmation of judges to the War on Terror and beyond. But, as a Hill staffer, many of us find him to be a petty, often vindictive man who treats people – from Senators to junior female staffers – disrespectfully and, frankly, without the manners appropriate for a Senator, much less a President.
His votes and stances are a matter of record and have been fully explored in many places. But we, as Hill staffers, have seen his personal vitriol up close and personally. Whether it has been personal confrontations with Senators or his cussing out of and demeaning comments toward staffers – whether it was his arrogance and dismissal of concerned conservatives displayed during the “Gang of 14” or his or his staff’s constant, repeated – often vindictive and very personal – undermining of conservative principles in the immigration debate – John McCain has proven time and time again that his worthiness to lead our Party, much less our nation, is more than questionable.
John McCain is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. That is unfortunate, and I am sad to say that I cannot support him – as is the case with many people I know – for many of the reasons explored repeatedly on NRO and other places. As a Hill staffer, those of you who share my view and I know what is at stake – at least as much as anyone… from the confirmation of judges to the War on Terror and beyond. But, as a Hill staffer, many of us find him to be a petty, often vindictive man who treats people – from Senators to junior female staffers – disrespectfully and, frankly, without the manners appropriate for a Senator, much less a President.
His votes and stances are a matter of record and have been fully explored in many places. But we, as Hill staffers, have seen his personal vitriol up close and personally. Whether it has been personal confrontations with Senators or his cussing out of and demeaning comments toward staffers – whether it was his arrogance and dismissal of concerned conservatives displayed during the “Gang of 14” or his or his staff’s constant, repeated – often vindictive and very personal – undermining of conservative principles in the immigration debate – John McCain has proven time and time again that his worthiness to lead our Party, much less our nation, is more than questionable.
Why Romney lost
Here is the best analysis I've seen as to why Mitt Romney couldn't capture the nomination:
What Romney didn’t account for is that it would take more than being a CPAC, or Agenda Conservative to win the nomination. Country Music Conservatives — and frankly, most voters outside the Beltway swamp — don’t listen to your words; they listen to your tone of voice as you’re delivering those words. Do you get angry when you should? What’s your sense of humor like? For social conservatives, are you grounded in faith? And ultimately, are you the real deal?
This has nothing to do with being right on issues. It has everything to do with being authentic.
I liked Romney and thought he was fairly authentic, but then I am an Agenda Conservative, as Patrick Ruffini puts it.
What Romney didn’t account for is that it would take more than being a CPAC, or Agenda Conservative to win the nomination. Country Music Conservatives — and frankly, most voters outside the Beltway swamp — don’t listen to your words; they listen to your tone of voice as you’re delivering those words. Do you get angry when you should? What’s your sense of humor like? For social conservatives, are you grounded in faith? And ultimately, are you the real deal?
This has nothing to do with being right on issues. It has everything to do with being authentic.
I liked Romney and thought he was fairly authentic, but then I am an Agenda Conservative, as Patrick Ruffini puts it.
I just have to post this
I haven't even read this column by Mark Hemingway yet, but I had to link to it for the title alone. I can't stop laughing at it. It's about Hillary's campaign and how she is the stronger Democratic candidate among women, especially middle-age women:
The Pantsuit Army Is Still on the March
The Pantsuit Army Is Still on the March
Does McCain's nomination mean immigration enforcement is a losing issue?
The open-borders crowd on the right has been saying that John McCain winning the Republican nomination means that enforcing immigration laws is a losing issue. Here is a good example of it.
Mark Krikorian over at NRO destroys that idea with some of his usual great work. His ending is especially good, because in their hearts Democratic elites love open borders, but there is no way they want to support it in the general election. Look for them to go to McCain's right on the issue.
Mark Krikorian over at NRO destroys that idea with some of his usual great work. His ending is especially good, because in their hearts Democratic elites love open borders, but there is no way they want to support it in the general election. Look for them to go to McCain's right on the issue.
Here comes your welfare check
At least the press has stopped calling the money being sent to old and poor people "rebates":
Congress, facing the prospect of an election-year recession, passed an emergency plan Thursday that rushes rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most taxpayers and $300 checks to disabled veterans, the elderly and other low-income people.
Congress, facing the prospect of an election-year recession, passed an emergency plan Thursday that rushes rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most taxpayers and $300 checks to disabled veterans, the elderly and other low-income people.
Chicago running out of money to remove snow
Yep, due to the higher-than-expected amount of snow we've received so far in 2008, the city has already used $14 million of its $18 million budgeted for the whole calendar year. There is lots of gnashing of teeth of how more will be paid for.
This is like an SNL skit. $18 million is nothing in the scheme of the whole budget. This is one of the few things the city provides that actually benefits everyone who lives and works here, and they might not have the money for it?
How big is the budget? I was blown away. It's $5.9 billion. This story cranks me off so much that I spent a few minutes poring over the budget, which you can do here.
For example, here's $1,132,000 that is going to be spent with absolutely no good definition whatsoever. This is the line item in the budget:
"For general assisstance to persons in need thereof, residing within the city of Chicago, and expenditures for the administration thereof."
What could that even mean? Why is that the city's job, whatever it is?
This is like an SNL skit. $18 million is nothing in the scheme of the whole budget. This is one of the few things the city provides that actually benefits everyone who lives and works here, and they might not have the money for it?
How big is the budget? I was blown away. It's $5.9 billion. This story cranks me off so much that I spent a few minutes poring over the budget, which you can do here.
For example, here's $1,132,000 that is going to be spent with absolutely no good definition whatsoever. This is the line item in the budget:
"For general assisstance to persons in need thereof, residing within the city of Chicago, and expenditures for the administration thereof."
What could that even mean? Why is that the city's job, whatever it is?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
McCain at CPAC with UPDATES
Today kicks off a conference of length of 2 or 3 days called the Conservative Political Action Committee (I think), aka CPAC. It's the biggest annual gathering of conservatives in the country, and I think that some day I'd like to go.
Anyway, the six remaining presidential contenders were invited to speak. The Democrats declined, but the four Republicans acepted. The big news is that Mitt Romney used his speech to drop out of the race. Things were looking pretty bad for him after Tuesday, so there is no point in wasting any more of his personal fortune.
John McCain gave his speech today, too. Given how much many conservatives dislike him, and considering he actually declined an invite to speak last year (no joke), he's getting a good reception. Here is the text of his whole speech. It's his usual stuff.
What interested me is what he said about immigration. As usual, he offered no contrition for his amnesty bill and the way he and his Senate buddies tried to ram it through Congress:
Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.
There is so much here that he's not being honest about that I have to try to rebut it all like a shotgun, spraying everywhere:
You don't "respect [our] opposition". You and your surrogates basically went around calling us a bunch of racists last year. You say you know we were principled, but that is the opposite of what you were saying at the time. How about an apology for that, at least?
The bill was not about "restor[ing] control of the borders". You just HAD to jam down our throats a bill that coupled amnesty with enforcement, rather than enforcement only like the House of Representatives had already passed.
You only accept that it almost killed your campaign (and I wish it had), and you want to be president so badly that you'll change your position to the bare minimum necessary to fool people who didn't follow the debate that closely the last few years.
You also didn't try to convince us of the merits of your bill. That's why it was negotiated in secret for months and sent directly to the Senate floor without even going to committe, and during Memorial Day week. The whole thing reeked of slipping one past the American people.
There is no way that an amnesty would NOT encourage another wave of illegals, so since he still wants anmesty (but would not dare say so), he's either lying or stupid. Neither speaks well of his Straight Talk.
What it comes down to is that the only even nominal change to his position is that he says repeatedly that he will "secure the borders". However, he has said there is no need for a fence along the border and that it can be done with sensors and other technology. Unless that technology includes guns mounted on posts that would shoot border crossers, it won't stop anyone. He has NEVER refuted anything else he pushed for last year.
You know, I was starting to warm up to the idea of voting for him in November. It's refreshing to be reminded of what he thinks of us who want to really end illegal immigration.
UPDATE: Here's more funny stuff from the speech:
I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. [Except immigration.]
I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives. [Except when it comes by waves of third world immigrants settling here with no one's permission...]
UPDATE 2: Picture of the day at CPAC, from Michelle Malkin (and yes, I got that issue of National Review):
UPDATE 3: Hmmm. Some guys over at NRO think this part of his speech signals a shift his position on immigration. We'll see. I'm not convinced yet.
Anyway, the six remaining presidential contenders were invited to speak. The Democrats declined, but the four Republicans acepted. The big news is that Mitt Romney used his speech to drop out of the race. Things were looking pretty bad for him after Tuesday, so there is no point in wasting any more of his personal fortune.
John McCain gave his speech today, too. Given how much many conservatives dislike him, and considering he actually declined an invite to speak last year (no joke), he's getting a good reception. Here is the text of his whole speech. It's his usual stuff.
What interested me is what he said about immigration. As usual, he offered no contrition for his amnesty bill and the way he and his Senate buddies tried to ram it through Congress:
Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.
There is so much here that he's not being honest about that I have to try to rebut it all like a shotgun, spraying everywhere:
You don't "respect [our] opposition". You and your surrogates basically went around calling us a bunch of racists last year. You say you know we were principled, but that is the opposite of what you were saying at the time. How about an apology for that, at least?
The bill was not about "restor[ing] control of the borders". You just HAD to jam down our throats a bill that coupled amnesty with enforcement, rather than enforcement only like the House of Representatives had already passed.
You only accept that it almost killed your campaign (and I wish it had), and you want to be president so badly that you'll change your position to the bare minimum necessary to fool people who didn't follow the debate that closely the last few years.
You also didn't try to convince us of the merits of your bill. That's why it was negotiated in secret for months and sent directly to the Senate floor without even going to committe, and during Memorial Day week. The whole thing reeked of slipping one past the American people.
There is no way that an amnesty would NOT encourage another wave of illegals, so since he still wants anmesty (but would not dare say so), he's either lying or stupid. Neither speaks well of his Straight Talk.
What it comes down to is that the only even nominal change to his position is that he says repeatedly that he will "secure the borders". However, he has said there is no need for a fence along the border and that it can be done with sensors and other technology. Unless that technology includes guns mounted on posts that would shoot border crossers, it won't stop anyone. He has NEVER refuted anything else he pushed for last year.
You know, I was starting to warm up to the idea of voting for him in November. It's refreshing to be reminded of what he thinks of us who want to really end illegal immigration.
UPDATE: Here's more funny stuff from the speech:
I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. [Except immigration.]
I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives. [Except when it comes by waves of third world immigrants settling here with no one's permission...]
UPDATE 2: Picture of the day at CPAC, from Michelle Malkin (and yes, I got that issue of National Review):
UPDATE 3: Hmmm. Some guys over at NRO think this part of his speech signals a shift his position on immigration. We'll see. I'm not convinced yet.
Why I don't want to vote for John McCain - Part I
After a few days of obsessively reading blogs, editorials, and columns about conservatives and John McCain's nomination, I think I'm now ready to write about it.
There are three camps. First, there are the McCain lovers. Among conservatives, this group is mainly the open immigration folks (this is important, as I'll describe later). This consists of those who are otherwise down-the-line conservatives. The main players here are The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page (not all of their writers, but most of them for both publications). I generally like these guys, which is why I read them. I have been studying them very closely this week, looking to be persuaded to vote for McCain. It hasn't happened (yet).
Here is a good example of what's coming from these guys. I'm not trying to pick on Dan Henninger, who I usually like, but it's representative of their view. Basically, they say that McCain is conservative on the big issues (defense, spending, taxes, judges) and that the Democratic alternative will be so far left of him on them that we need to vote for him. There is also usually some variant of "Grow up!", but I'm not sure that insulting us is helpful.
The second group consists of those who are saying that they either will never vote for him or are currently staying mum about what they will do in November. I jam these two together because I have a foot in both camps, and despite their bluster some of those who refuse to vote for him will in the end (not most, but some). This group consists of most the big talk radio guys (Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin), bloggers (too many to mention, but Michelle Malkin is the biggest), and various other conservative writers (many of them are at National Review Online).
I don't think I need to provide an example of why they don't want to vote for him, since anyone who reads this space has seen plenty of examples. I'll note that it comes down to a few reasons:
He led the effort for open borders and amnesty.
He wants government power to stop global warming.
He's against waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.
He wants to close Gitmo.
He led the effort to "reform" campaign financing with McCain-Feingold.
He led the "Gang of 14" that ended Republican efforts to stop Democratic filibusters on judges.
He voted against the Bush tax cuts.
It goes on and on, but that's what comes off the top of my head. Given all that, the reason they don't want to vote for him also comes down to a few different reasons:
He holds some conservative ideas, but he's not a conservative.
Might as well let a Democrat get blame for ruining the country rather than a Republican.
If he wins, a Republican Congress will follow him off the cliff due to party loyalty, killing the Republican brand.
Don't want to reward him for screwing over the party and conservatives so often in the past.
The third group consists of those who don't like him but will vote for him out of one of the following: party loyalty, his stance on the war against Islamic terrorism, or because he's still more conservative than either Democrat. This group consists of a wide spectrum of conservatives who have resigned themselves to pulling the lever for him. The most prominent so far is talk radio guy and blogger Hugh Hewitt. Here is his post detailing his decision (I'll note that he's a big Republican party guy in addition to being a true conservative).
By far (to me, at least) the best reason this group gives for backing McCain is on judicial appointments. The majority of the Supreme Court is getting really old, and I suspect that a few of the liberal activists on the court have been waiting to retire when a Democrat is in the White House (that leads to a minor obsession of mine, that court appointments should be for fixed terms of 10 years or so rather than for a lifetime, but that's for another day). Four more years of a Republican president may be too long for them to wait to call it quits, and a majority of judges who believe in the original intent of the Constitution could be cemented for a generation. This is almost as big an issue for me as immigration, but not quite.
These are the battle lines of conservatives today. This is long enough, and I need to collect my thoughts further, so Part II will come in the next day or two.
There are three camps. First, there are the McCain lovers. Among conservatives, this group is mainly the open immigration folks (this is important, as I'll describe later). This consists of those who are otherwise down-the-line conservatives. The main players here are The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page (not all of their writers, but most of them for both publications). I generally like these guys, which is why I read them. I have been studying them very closely this week, looking to be persuaded to vote for McCain. It hasn't happened (yet).
Here is a good example of what's coming from these guys. I'm not trying to pick on Dan Henninger, who I usually like, but it's representative of their view. Basically, they say that McCain is conservative on the big issues (defense, spending, taxes, judges) and that the Democratic alternative will be so far left of him on them that we need to vote for him. There is also usually some variant of "Grow up!", but I'm not sure that insulting us is helpful.
The second group consists of those who are saying that they either will never vote for him or are currently staying mum about what they will do in November. I jam these two together because I have a foot in both camps, and despite their bluster some of those who refuse to vote for him will in the end (not most, but some). This group consists of most the big talk radio guys (Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin), bloggers (too many to mention, but Michelle Malkin is the biggest), and various other conservative writers (many of them are at National Review Online).
I don't think I need to provide an example of why they don't want to vote for him, since anyone who reads this space has seen plenty of examples. I'll note that it comes down to a few reasons:
He led the effort for open borders and amnesty.
He wants government power to stop global warming.
He's against waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.
He wants to close Gitmo.
He led the effort to "reform" campaign financing with McCain-Feingold.
He led the "Gang of 14" that ended Republican efforts to stop Democratic filibusters on judges.
He voted against the Bush tax cuts.
It goes on and on, but that's what comes off the top of my head. Given all that, the reason they don't want to vote for him also comes down to a few different reasons:
He holds some conservative ideas, but he's not a conservative.
Might as well let a Democrat get blame for ruining the country rather than a Republican.
If he wins, a Republican Congress will follow him off the cliff due to party loyalty, killing the Republican brand.
Don't want to reward him for screwing over the party and conservatives so often in the past.
The third group consists of those who don't like him but will vote for him out of one of the following: party loyalty, his stance on the war against Islamic terrorism, or because he's still more conservative than either Democrat. This group consists of a wide spectrum of conservatives who have resigned themselves to pulling the lever for him. The most prominent so far is talk radio guy and blogger Hugh Hewitt. Here is his post detailing his decision (I'll note that he's a big Republican party guy in addition to being a true conservative).
By far (to me, at least) the best reason this group gives for backing McCain is on judicial appointments. The majority of the Supreme Court is getting really old, and I suspect that a few of the liberal activists on the court have been waiting to retire when a Democrat is in the White House (that leads to a minor obsession of mine, that court appointments should be for fixed terms of 10 years or so rather than for a lifetime, but that's for another day). Four more years of a Republican president may be too long for them to wait to call it quits, and a majority of judges who believe in the original intent of the Constitution could be cemented for a generation. This is almost as big an issue for me as immigration, but not quite.
These are the battle lines of conservatives today. This is long enough, and I need to collect my thoughts further, so Part II will come in the next day or two.
Bracket Buster matchups
Here is the full list. Loyola travels to William and Mary, which I think is a really old school. It's so crappy, they needed two names to make it cool. The big matchup is clearly Drake and Butler, with both ranked in the top 15.
Where do conservatives go from here?
That's what Michelle Malkin asks in her new syndicated column. Even if though I likely won't vote for McCain, I will still vote for everything else on the ballot:
Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.
Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.
If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (vetsforfreedom.org) group for their endorsements.
Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.
Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.
If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (vetsforfreedom.org) group for their endorsements.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
John McCain misses big vote
McCain was the only Senator to miss a cloture vote on the larded up "stimulus" bill today. For a guy who claims to be a real conservative, it doesn't seem like a tough vote to make. Maybe it is for Mr. Straight Talk, though. Michelle Malkin has the details at the end of her post.
How valuable is a college degree?
Of course it depends on the degree and the college, but this article talks about the common sense of supply and demand:
Barton turns statistical conventions on their head by counting the number of college-educated workers in jobs that do not require such degrees. He found that 60 percent of people in existing jobs have “some college” or post-secondary credential — yet only one in three jobs requires that level of education.
The comments are all over the place, too, with some people making perfect sense and others showing themselves to be education snobs.
It's so simple that only mushy-headed education jerks don't see it. The world is always going to need electricians, plumbers, and such. Also, if everyone has a psychology degree, though, obviously they can't all be psychologists!
Barton turns statistical conventions on their head by counting the number of college-educated workers in jobs that do not require such degrees. He found that 60 percent of people in existing jobs have “some college” or post-secondary credential — yet only one in three jobs requires that level of education.
The comments are all over the place, too, with some people making perfect sense and others showing themselves to be education snobs.
It's so simple that only mushy-headed education jerks don't see it. The world is always going to need electricians, plumbers, and such. Also, if everyone has a psychology degree, though, obviously they can't all be psychologists!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
McCain the foreign policy expert?
Not quite, according to Andy McCarthy. He provides a devastating critique of how a President McCain would execute the greater war on fundamental Islamicism. Here's the big finish (keep in mind he just destroyed his foreign policy credentials in the same article):
The mystery is why anyone would think the foreign-affairs part of Sen. McCain’s brain is not in sync with the part that produced: McCain/Feingold legislation that eviscerates core free-speech rights on which a functioning democratic republic depends; or proposals for massive, unregulated immigration (from someone claiming the mantle of national security paragon, no less); or global-warming legislation, the latest iteration of the senator’s Big Government regulatory penchant (we are talking, after all, about someone who has suggested federal government intervention in everything from professional boxing to major league baseball); or opposition to the Bush tax cuts in class-warfare rhetoric so strident it would make Hillary Clinton blush (including a swipe just last week against “greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished”); or the Gang of 14 deal, which undermined a conservative effort to end Democrat filibusters against the Bush judicial nominees.
The surge can only camouflage so much. Sen. McCain’s readiness to be the commander-in-chief fit for today’s perils is the grand hope his supporters offer to overcome substantial conservative doubts. It’s a mirage.
The mystery is why anyone would think the foreign-affairs part of Sen. McCain’s brain is not in sync with the part that produced: McCain/Feingold legislation that eviscerates core free-speech rights on which a functioning democratic republic depends; or proposals for massive, unregulated immigration (from someone claiming the mantle of national security paragon, no less); or global-warming legislation, the latest iteration of the senator’s Big Government regulatory penchant (we are talking, after all, about someone who has suggested federal government intervention in everything from professional boxing to major league baseball); or opposition to the Bush tax cuts in class-warfare rhetoric so strident it would make Hillary Clinton blush (including a swipe just last week against “greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished”); or the Gang of 14 deal, which undermined a conservative effort to end Democrat filibusters against the Bush judicial nominees.
The surge can only camouflage so much. Sen. McCain’s readiness to be the commander-in-chief fit for today’s perils is the grand hope his supporters offer to overcome substantial conservative doubts. It’s a mirage.
McCain post of Super Tuesday
I tried to go a whole day, and I just couldn't. From John O'Sullivan over on The Corner:
Many conservatives believe that the key question in this election is: Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? If McCain’s election were to make the GOP fundamentally similar to the Democrats on immigration, bilingualism, racial preferences, and all the National Question issues, that would be a resounding historical defeat for conservatives.
The willingness of a President McCain to cooperate with the Democrats would give such issues as an immigration amnesty a better chance of passage than under a President Hillary or Obama even against strong GOP resistance in Congress. Opponents of such policies, despite enjoying majority support among the voters, would find themselves politically marginalized. On the other hand, a united Republican opposition might well stop a Democratic White House from passing these measures because its party would be nervous of finding itself on the wrong side of a popular issue in the next midterm elections.
And there is another factor this time. Any bill similar to the senator’s “comprehensive” immigration reform would accelerate the GOP’s relative demographic decline by creating new voters overwhelmingly likely to vote Democrat in a quicker time scale. This dominant Democratic majority would emerge fully only after a hypothetical President McCain left office, but its approach would cloud the future of every other Republican incumbent.
All these fears lie at the root of conservative reluctance to endorse Senator McCain. Fortunately for him there is a simple way to dispel them. He can give an unequivocal assurance that he will not support such a bill, and that, if one is passed despite his opposition, he will veto it. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Thus far he has refused to do so.
It's not politically correct to discuss these things, but it's the most eloquent summary of these issues that I've seen in a while. It's why immigration is the only issue that matters to me in this election.
If he made the assurances O'Sullivan mentions in the last paragraph, I will turn on a dime and support him wholeheartedly. I'm not holding my breath, as I think he believes he can win without us nativist yahoos out here in the sticks voting for him.
Many conservatives believe that the key question in this election is: Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? If McCain’s election were to make the GOP fundamentally similar to the Democrats on immigration, bilingualism, racial preferences, and all the National Question issues, that would be a resounding historical defeat for conservatives.
The willingness of a President McCain to cooperate with the Democrats would give such issues as an immigration amnesty a better chance of passage than under a President Hillary or Obama even against strong GOP resistance in Congress. Opponents of such policies, despite enjoying majority support among the voters, would find themselves politically marginalized. On the other hand, a united Republican opposition might well stop a Democratic White House from passing these measures because its party would be nervous of finding itself on the wrong side of a popular issue in the next midterm elections.
And there is another factor this time. Any bill similar to the senator’s “comprehensive” immigration reform would accelerate the GOP’s relative demographic decline by creating new voters overwhelmingly likely to vote Democrat in a quicker time scale. This dominant Democratic majority would emerge fully only after a hypothetical President McCain left office, but its approach would cloud the future of every other Republican incumbent.
All these fears lie at the root of conservative reluctance to endorse Senator McCain. Fortunately for him there is a simple way to dispel them. He can give an unequivocal assurance that he will not support such a bill, and that, if one is passed despite his opposition, he will veto it. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Thus far he has refused to do so.
It's not politically correct to discuss these things, but it's the most eloquent summary of these issues that I've seen in a while. It's why immigration is the only issue that matters to me in this election.
If he made the assurances O'Sullivan mentions in the last paragraph, I will turn on a dime and support him wholeheartedly. I'm not holding my breath, as I think he believes he can win without us nativist yahoos out here in the sticks voting for him.
Thomas Sowell interview
Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite writers. He was trained as an economist, but he also has written books about anthroplogy. An example of how smart he is: when one of his children was a late talker, he wanted to read more about it. Since there was so little research done at the time, he wrote a book about it himself.
He also still writes a syndicated column that can be found in many places on the web.
I've only read a few of his books overall (and I'd love to one day just buy them all and read them), but my favorite of those is Black Rednecks and White Liberals. I realize it's a provocative title, but it blew me away with stuff I've never read or heard before.
He's got a new book out, and John Hawkins over at Right Wing News interviewed him about it. Here's an exceprt of the interview:
One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...
I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.
But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.
He also still writes a syndicated column that can be found in many places on the web.
I've only read a few of his books overall (and I'd love to one day just buy them all and read them), but my favorite of those is Black Rednecks and White Liberals. I realize it's a provocative title, but it blew me away with stuff I've never read or heard before.
He's got a new book out, and John Hawkins over at Right Wing News interviewed him about it. Here's an exceprt of the interview:
One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...
I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.
But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.
Alderman Burke was on fire yesterday
We must be back in the Chicago City Council silly season, which is good for me because I am getting tired of railing against John McCain.
Clearly, these guys have nothing left to do. Maybe they could just become citizen-legislators and meet for one month out of the year:
Chicago retailers would be required to install plastic bag recycling bins—and distribute bags that state, “Please reuse or recycle at participating store”—under an ordinance proposed Monday that would follow New York City’s lead.
Whether this is a good idea or not, why is it the government's job to force stores to do it?
Clearly, these guys have nothing left to do. Maybe they could just become citizen-legislators and meet for one month out of the year:
Chicago retailers would be required to install plastic bag recycling bins—and distribute bags that state, “Please reuse or recycle at participating store”—under an ordinance proposed Monday that would follow New York City’s lead.
Whether this is a good idea or not, why is it the government's job to force stores to do it?
Chicago City Council parodies itself
From the Sun-Times:
Before they could agree to raising the [real estate transfer] tax from $7.50 to $10.50 per $1,000 of sale price, aldermen demanded that senior citizen home buyers would have to be exempt from the increase — and that active members of the military and disabled veterans join seniors in riding the CTA for free.
Aldermen also demanded that CTA pension funds in line for a $1.2 billion windfall diversify their roster of money managers.
Only six of the 43 existing financial advisers are minorities and they receive only a “small fraction” of pension funds invested, according to Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th).
“If Chicago taxpayers’ money is at risk here, the pension fund ought to do business, to the extent they can, with Chicago-based businesses. That’s where the jobs are provided. That’s where economic development occurs — not in New York or in Menlo Park, Calif.,” Burke said. “Giving $1.2 billion to the pension fund, which has a record of ignoring issues that we’ve been talking about here with our pension funds for years, is counterproductive.”
So they don't know how they are going to pay for new money for the CTA, but one of their solutions is to give away more free rides! This is too silly to comment further.
Then, they have a problem with CTA pension funding. One part of the solution has to be good investment returns (believe me, since I work in the field). You'd think they would say to hell with their affirmative action policies, we just need the best investment managers we can find. You'd be wrong.
See, when I rail against government-run programs it's because I know they will be run horribly inefficiently compared to the way private companies would do so. Private companies only care about making money, so they are ruthless in cutting costs and finding people who do good work for them.
The information in this article is a microcosm of it. When faced with a funding problem, the obvious solutions are to cut expenses or increase revenues. These guys want to increase revenues and expenses (only less than revenues).
The second part shows the other main problem with government programs, which is that politicians like to inject political considerations into everything. That's fine when it comes to a law against murder or whatnot. That's no so fine when the public's money that's being used to prop up a pension fund has to be managed by a certain number of black- and Chicago-owned business. That only leads to more inefficiency. I mean, maybe a black-owned business would do a great job. But if that's the case, why can't they compete on their own merits? It's not discrimination, since if they are good everybody will let them manage their money since (as mentioned above), all private compaies care about it making money.
Before they could agree to raising the [real estate transfer] tax from $7.50 to $10.50 per $1,000 of sale price, aldermen demanded that senior citizen home buyers would have to be exempt from the increase — and that active members of the military and disabled veterans join seniors in riding the CTA for free.
Aldermen also demanded that CTA pension funds in line for a $1.2 billion windfall diversify their roster of money managers.
Only six of the 43 existing financial advisers are minorities and they receive only a “small fraction” of pension funds invested, according to Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th).
“If Chicago taxpayers’ money is at risk here, the pension fund ought to do business, to the extent they can, with Chicago-based businesses. That’s where the jobs are provided. That’s where economic development occurs — not in New York or in Menlo Park, Calif.,” Burke said. “Giving $1.2 billion to the pension fund, which has a record of ignoring issues that we’ve been talking about here with our pension funds for years, is counterproductive.”
So they don't know how they are going to pay for new money for the CTA, but one of their solutions is to give away more free rides! This is too silly to comment further.
Then, they have a problem with CTA pension funding. One part of the solution has to be good investment returns (believe me, since I work in the field). You'd think they would say to hell with their affirmative action policies, we just need the best investment managers we can find. You'd be wrong.
See, when I rail against government-run programs it's because I know they will be run horribly inefficiently compared to the way private companies would do so. Private companies only care about making money, so they are ruthless in cutting costs and finding people who do good work for them.
The information in this article is a microcosm of it. When faced with a funding problem, the obvious solutions are to cut expenses or increase revenues. These guys want to increase revenues and expenses (only less than revenues).
The second part shows the other main problem with government programs, which is that politicians like to inject political considerations into everything. That's fine when it comes to a law against murder or whatnot. That's no so fine when the public's money that's being used to prop up a pension fund has to be managed by a certain number of black- and Chicago-owned business. That only leads to more inefficiency. I mean, maybe a black-owned business would do a great job. But if that's the case, why can't they compete on their own merits? It's not discrimination, since if they are good everybody will let them manage their money since (as mentioned above), all private compaies care about it making money.
Coach Knight retires
The real big news this morning is that Bob Knight, the long-time Hoosiers coach who guided them to 3 national titles, retired last night.
He was obviously a great coach, regardless of what you think of his personality. The game will miss him.
He was obviously a great coach, regardless of what you think of his personality. The game will miss him.
Here's a good picture. Unfortunately, I can't find my all-time favorite, that of him holding a bull whip over Calbert Cheaney before an NCAA tournament game in the early 1990's:
My voting experience
I showed up at my polling place at 6:30 this morning. I like going then because there is never a line. I mean, stores around here don't even open until 10 on the weekends, so I knew I was ahead of the curve.
Anyway, I walk in and there is a guy ahead of me with 2 people working the voter lists (the lists are broken up alphabetically). He got his info, but then he started asking about his mom, who apparently was going to tear herself away from Telemundo and waddle in later. This was taking a good 45 seconds, with the highlight being him asking one of the monitors if his madre was registered there. The monitor responded, "If she's on the list then she is." Good answer. I caught a glimpse at this guy's last name, and let's just say I bet his mom is going to attempt some voter fraud as an illegal alien, if you know what I mean.
Next, they ask him what kind of ballot he wants (Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Green[?]). He responds with, "Democrat, all the way. I'm sick of Bush."
Now...
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the President, let's break this down. First, President Bush is constitutionally barred from running for another term in office. For people like this voter, let me translate: no matter how you vote in this election, he's leaving office on January 21, 2009. Your ballot here has no bearing on that fact.
Second, let's say the President is as nefarious as his most insane critics make him out to be, and he found a way to run for a third term. Presumably he'd be running as a Republican. How, then, does getting a Democratic ballot help get him out of office? If you really want him out, ask for a Republican ballot! Then you could vote against him directly today.
The reason I am making fun of this doofus is to point out the general ignorance (or, in this guy's case, I'll blame it on stupidity) of the voting populace. I understand that most people don't have the interest or the time to follow things as closely as I do. However, these are basic principles of our constitution and then primary voting system. This guy gets to vote?
Another explanation is that he knows this stuff and he's just infected with BDS. BDS makes otherwise normal people lose their minds, so it's possible. Chicago does have a high rate of infection.
My experience was otherwise pleasant. The only races of note on my ballot were for president and the Senate. Most were blank, meaning no one ran.
Anyway, I walk in and there is a guy ahead of me with 2 people working the voter lists (the lists are broken up alphabetically). He got his info, but then he started asking about his mom, who apparently was going to tear herself away from Telemundo and waddle in later. This was taking a good 45 seconds, with the highlight being him asking one of the monitors if his madre was registered there. The monitor responded, "If she's on the list then she is." Good answer. I caught a glimpse at this guy's last name, and let's just say I bet his mom is going to attempt some voter fraud as an illegal alien, if you know what I mean.
Next, they ask him what kind of ballot he wants (Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Green[?]). He responds with, "Democrat, all the way. I'm sick of Bush."
Now...
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the President, let's break this down. First, President Bush is constitutionally barred from running for another term in office. For people like this voter, let me translate: no matter how you vote in this election, he's leaving office on January 21, 2009. Your ballot here has no bearing on that fact.
Second, let's say the President is as nefarious as his most insane critics make him out to be, and he found a way to run for a third term. Presumably he'd be running as a Republican. How, then, does getting a Democratic ballot help get him out of office? If you really want him out, ask for a Republican ballot! Then you could vote against him directly today.
The reason I am making fun of this doofus is to point out the general ignorance (or, in this guy's case, I'll blame it on stupidity) of the voting populace. I understand that most people don't have the interest or the time to follow things as closely as I do. However, these are basic principles of our constitution and then primary voting system. This guy gets to vote?
Another explanation is that he knows this stuff and he's just infected with BDS. BDS makes otherwise normal people lose their minds, so it's possible. Chicago does have a high rate of infection.
My experience was otherwise pleasant. The only races of note on my ballot were for president and the Senate. Most were blank, meaning no one ran.
New weigh-in counter
Yes, the past 6 months of trying to get in shape has been a disaster. I've cleared it out for brevity's sake and am starting over today.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Smoking ban claims its first victim
The Chicago violation under Illinois' draconian law is a craphole near my house. As an aside, the "two-way" in the title refers to the fact that it is contained between Fullerton and Milwaukee (which is at a 45 degree angle), and there are entrances and exits facing both streets.
Anway, they send around inspectors to enforce this nanny-statism? Nauseating.
Anway, they send around inspectors to enforce this nanny-statism? Nauseating.
After tomorrow
I presume that John McCain will have almost wrapped up the Republican nomination after tomorrow (not that I won't still be pushing for Mitt Romney while he's viable). Clearly, efforts by me and other like-minded folks to stop that will not have been effective.
With that in mind, this space's seemingly single-minded focus against McCain will wane. I'll still follow him closely, but there will be no point in hammering on him daily. I've probably turned off enough people that schtick.
What will strike my fancy? Well, college basketball is going strong, so I will write more about it. In addition, baseball is starting soon. Let's not forget the never-ending supply of Netflix DVD's.
The point is that if you get some enjoyment from reading the political stuff here, there will still be some of it. It just won't be so focused on the national presidential race (overall, though, posting will be lighter since we'll likely be out of the Republican presidential primary silly season). For those of you who don't care, on the other hand, you should enjoy this space more (there will be LOTS more movie reviews). Unless you also don't care about my lame opinions on movies and sports, that is.
Meanwhile, enjoy this picture of Rose McGowan from Planet Terror, which I watched this weekend. It was a pretty solid movie with lots of cartoonish violence of zombies dying. Yes, she actually had a chunk of her leg eaten off (I'm not giving away much plot here) and replaced by an automatic weapon:
With that in mind, this space's seemingly single-minded focus against McCain will wane. I'll still follow him closely, but there will be no point in hammering on him daily. I've probably turned off enough people that schtick.
What will strike my fancy? Well, college basketball is going strong, so I will write more about it. In addition, baseball is starting soon. Let's not forget the never-ending supply of Netflix DVD's.
The point is that if you get some enjoyment from reading the political stuff here, there will still be some of it. It just won't be so focused on the national presidential race (overall, though, posting will be lighter since we'll likely be out of the Republican presidential primary silly season). For those of you who don't care, on the other hand, you should enjoy this space more (there will be LOTS more movie reviews). Unless you also don't care about my lame opinions on movies and sports, that is.
Meanwhile, enjoy this picture of Rose McGowan from Planet Terror, which I watched this weekend. It was a pretty solid movie with lots of cartoonish violence of zombies dying. Yes, she actually had a chunk of her leg eaten off (I'm not giving away much plot here) and replaced by an automatic weapon:
John McCain's real views on immigration
Don't let his weasely language of today fool you. If you support him and also want enforcement of our immigration laws, check out Michelle Malkin's post detailing his sad history on the topic.
As if I needed a reminder for why I won't vote for him:
Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the “tapering down” of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: “With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.”
Straight talk? Decide for yourself.
As if I needed a reminder for why I won't vote for him:
Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the “tapering down” of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: “With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.”
Straight talk? Decide for yourself.
McCain post of the day
From Mark Levin, who makes some good points on his electability in November over in The Corner. Here's the whole thing:
I wanted to post a sober thought. If McCain is the Republican nominee, how will he position himself as a candidate? This weekend Obama already telegraphed the Democrat strategy by picking apart McCain's inconsistencies on taxes and immigration. If McCain moves to the right during the general election to try to appeal to more conservatives, Obama will be able to portray him as a disingenuous flip-flopper. If McCain moves further left to try and blunt those charges, he will continue to alienate a portion of the base. What is he going to run on? If he runs on the surge, how many Democrats and Independents will that attract? Is he going to run against earmarks and for a balanced budget? I don't think that's going to resonate with too many voters. The Democrats will be talking about saving the poor, sick and elderly, in the tradition of FDR. McCain will be talking like Herbert Hoover. And since McCain is running on his personal story, let me suggest that neither McCain's age nor temperament will be ignored by the Democrats. Do we ignore Obama's age and Hillary's temperament?
So, I would encourage Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, David Brooks, VDH, et al, to pause and reflect about what they're urging Republicans and conservatives to embrace. I don't think John McCain can win in November because of his record, not "unfair" criticism, talk radio, or what have you. If the issue is electability based on current polls, that's an absurd position. Six months ago Rudy was the inevitable Republican nominee and Hillary was the inevitable Democrat nominee.
If after tomorrow McCain looks like he will be the nominee, I'll lay off for a while. At that point, perhaps I'll have some things to write about regarding our local and state elections.
I wanted to post a sober thought. If McCain is the Republican nominee, how will he position himself as a candidate? This weekend Obama already telegraphed the Democrat strategy by picking apart McCain's inconsistencies on taxes and immigration. If McCain moves to the right during the general election to try to appeal to more conservatives, Obama will be able to portray him as a disingenuous flip-flopper. If McCain moves further left to try and blunt those charges, he will continue to alienate a portion of the base. What is he going to run on? If he runs on the surge, how many Democrats and Independents will that attract? Is he going to run against earmarks and for a balanced budget? I don't think that's going to resonate with too many voters. The Democrats will be talking about saving the poor, sick and elderly, in the tradition of FDR. McCain will be talking like Herbert Hoover. And since McCain is running on his personal story, let me suggest that neither McCain's age nor temperament will be ignored by the Democrats. Do we ignore Obama's age and Hillary's temperament?
So, I would encourage Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, David Brooks, VDH, et al, to pause and reflect about what they're urging Republicans and conservatives to embrace. I don't think John McCain can win in November because of his record, not "unfair" criticism, talk radio, or what have you. If the issue is electability based on current polls, that's an absurd position. Six months ago Rudy was the inevitable Republican nominee and Hillary was the inevitable Democrat nominee.
If after tomorrow McCain looks like he will be the nominee, I'll lay off for a while. At that point, perhaps I'll have some things to write about regarding our local and state elections.
Least bad on illegal immigration
Besides Mitt, of course. Mickey Kaus looks into it, and I agree with his conclusions in ranking the other three.
I've become basically a single-issue voter (and this is it), which is why McCain is worse than either Democrat on this issue. He won't have my vote barring a significant change in his position, and I realize that's just not coming:
3) President McCain would seem like a replay of George W. Bush. Bush couldn't get his "comprehensive" immigration plan through, even with a Democratic Congress. What would be different with McCain? Quite a bit. a) McCain's likely to be more popular, at least if Iraq continues to improve; b) The Democrats are likely to have bigger Congressional majorities; c) McCain might be able to claim voter validation of his long-standing pro-legalization views. Certainly the Republicans wouldn't be united against a McCain "comprehensive" bill. Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain doesn't have ambitious New Dealish health legislation that would compete for his and Congress' time and energy.
I've become basically a single-issue voter (and this is it), which is why McCain is worse than either Democrat on this issue. He won't have my vote barring a significant change in his position, and I realize that's just not coming:
3) President McCain would seem like a replay of George W. Bush. Bush couldn't get his "comprehensive" immigration plan through, even with a Democratic Congress. What would be different with McCain? Quite a bit. a) McCain's likely to be more popular, at least if Iraq continues to improve; b) The Democrats are likely to have bigger Congressional majorities; c) McCain might be able to claim voter validation of his long-standing pro-legalization views. Certainly the Republicans wouldn't be united against a McCain "comprehensive" bill. Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain doesn't have ambitious New Dealish health legislation that would compete for his and Congress' time and energy.
Lots of disappointment around here
First, Mercury Morris and crew now will go to their graves knowing they were the only modern NFL history to go undefeated. That makes me cranky.
Second, barring some Mitt-mentum (which may or may not be occurring), John McCain will be the Republican nominee after tomorrow's primaries. Any regular reader of this space knows what I think of him.
However, let's also celebrate some of the good things in life. For example, I went to an excellent Super Bowl party last night. The food was great and we had just enough beer to satisfy the crowd.
Additionally, while I had to shovel 4 inches of snow this morning, due to the warm temperature I was able to do so relatively easily.
Finally, I have been watching my DVD set of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia lately. It provides me with a great sense of humor that most other shows can't.
Second, barring some Mitt-mentum (which may or may not be occurring), John McCain will be the Republican nominee after tomorrow's primaries. Any regular reader of this space knows what I think of him.
However, let's also celebrate some of the good things in life. For example, I went to an excellent Super Bowl party last night. The food was great and we had just enough beer to satisfy the crowd.
Additionally, while I had to shovel 4 inches of snow this morning, due to the warm temperature I was able to do so relatively easily.
Finally, I have been watching my DVD set of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia lately. It provides me with a great sense of humor that most other shows can't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)