That's the title of this blog post on The Corner by Kathryn Jean Lopez, where she reproduces an e-mail:
Subject: McCain's Speech(es)
Every time I hear one I wonder if there will be a Republican response, like after the State of the Union.
Good question!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Now for some Senate amnesty
Anyone who didn't believe what I wrote yesterday (about how in DC the elites are always trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens) can take a look this from Michelle Malkin and Numbers USA:
Our NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team got several confirmations through both Democratic and Republican sources that Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) was preparing to add an [agricultural] amnesty to the Iraq bill Thursday afternoon in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Yesterday it was the House trying to invalidate local and state laws that crack down on illegals. Today it's Senator Feinstein attempting an amnesty. What a surprise.
I'm sure John McCain supports it.
Our NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team got several confirmations through both Democratic and Republican sources that Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) was preparing to add an [agricultural] amnesty to the Iraq bill Thursday afternoon in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Yesterday it was the House trying to invalidate local and state laws that crack down on illegals. Today it's Senator Feinstein attempting an amnesty. What a surprise.
I'm sure John McCain supports it.
John McCain pushes me closer to the edge
John McCain is making voting for him in November more and more difficult. Obviously (to anyone who reads this space with any regularity, that is), his open-borders and pro-amnesty stance for illegal aliens is the big one. He's lately been getting worse on this issue (after his mild flirtation with enforcement that brought back his campaign last year), which was bad enough.
The other day, though, he gave a big speech on global warming. Conservatives didn't like it:
It looks like Senator McCain is going to be his own worst enemy. He’s feisty and stubborn and those attributes are showing (and not in a good way) in his refusal to compromise with conservatives on issues like global warming and illegal immigration. The more I hear from McCain, the less likely I am to vote for him. I initially intended to vote for him because he’s the Republican candidate, but with a Democratic-controlled Congress and McCain’s inclination to “reach across the aisle,” what will I get for my vote?
Exactly my thoughts. Then there is this:
The latest sign of that is the recently introduced “eco-friendly” campaign merchandise the McCain campaign has showcased on its Web site. Included are his and hers “Go Green” McCain embroidered polo shirts, T-shirts, hats and visors with or without the recycle logo. Organic cotton onesies for the babies. You can also find “Go Green” McCain tote bags, notebooks and travel mugs (with up to 100 percent recycled material and an “enhanced biodegradability additive”).
It sounds like a joke, and I wish it was. This is nauseating to me. If hippies want to get into that stuff, fine, but for the conservative party's nominee to is too much for me. Here's Rush's take:
“The troubling thing here, Senator McCain, is I’m mapping out plans here to try to persuade Republicans to eventually cross over to vote for you and this is not making it any easier,” conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his May 12 show. “At some point Republicans are going to have to decide whether to cross the aisle and vote for McCain. Clearly, he’s rolling the dice in thinking that the ‘green’ community and the independents and the yutes out there will buy into this global warming business and think he’s different than the average conservative Republican and that will stand him in good stead.”
If the election was today, I'd leave the presidential spot blank.
The other day, though, he gave a big speech on global warming. Conservatives didn't like it:
It looks like Senator McCain is going to be his own worst enemy. He’s feisty and stubborn and those attributes are showing (and not in a good way) in his refusal to compromise with conservatives on issues like global warming and illegal immigration. The more I hear from McCain, the less likely I am to vote for him. I initially intended to vote for him because he’s the Republican candidate, but with a Democratic-controlled Congress and McCain’s inclination to “reach across the aisle,” what will I get for my vote?
Exactly my thoughts. Then there is this:
The latest sign of that is the recently introduced “eco-friendly” campaign merchandise the McCain campaign has showcased on its Web site. Included are his and hers “Go Green” McCain embroidered polo shirts, T-shirts, hats and visors with or without the recycle logo. Organic cotton onesies for the babies. You can also find “Go Green” McCain tote bags, notebooks and travel mugs (with up to 100 percent recycled material and an “enhanced biodegradability additive”).
It sounds like a joke, and I wish it was. This is nauseating to me. If hippies want to get into that stuff, fine, but for the conservative party's nominee to is too much for me. Here's Rush's take:
“The troubling thing here, Senator McCain, is I’m mapping out plans here to try to persuade Republicans to eventually cross over to vote for you and this is not making it any easier,” conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his May 12 show. “At some point Republicans are going to have to decide whether to cross the aisle and vote for McCain. Clearly, he’s rolling the dice in thinking that the ‘green’ community and the independents and the yutes out there will buy into this global warming business and think he’s different than the average conservative Republican and that will stand him in good stead.”
If the election was today, I'd leave the presidential spot blank.
A small step towards sanity for the Chicago City Council
As much as I like to hammer on the nanny-staters in the Chicago City Council, I should give them credit when they deserve it. Yesterday they repealed the city's ban on foie gras, which is some kind of fancy food, being served in restaurants. You could still always buy it at the store and cook it home. I had never heard of it before the ban (as I imagine is the case with most Chicagoans), but for some reason Alderman Joe Moore thought it was important enough to pass the ban a couple of years ago. That, of course, made our city a laughingstock. I mean, it's FOOD.
Apparently there were some protocols that were violated to get the repeal through, but I don't care. The right thing was done, and it's not like the city council is known for staunch constitutional principles. What I do know is that Moore is PISSED:
When Moore tried to debate the merits, Daley ruled that the measure was not debatable. He ordered the clerk to call the roll and to continue, even as Moore shouted for the right to be heard.
"If it can happen to me, tomorrow it could happen to you," Moore warned his colleagues.
"Thank you, Ald. Joe ‘Foie Gras’ Moore," Daley said.
After the show of force, Moore denounced the mayor as a dictator and Wednesday’s meeting as a new low.
"Even in the ugliest days of one-man rule, members of the City Council still had the opportunity to ... state their case. For the mayor to fail to recognize me to debate the merits of this issue was the height of arrogance," Moore said.
"The city had placed its mark as a city of compassion, a city that was standing up against [animal] cruelty and it’s taken a giant step backward. But, it’s also taken a giant step backward in ... good old fashioned democracy. ... There was no reason that this issue had to be ramrodded through today," Moore said.
The animal rights crankss are also unhappy, but that just tells me that this was the right thing to do:
Julie Janovsky, a spokesperson for the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary, argued that the foie gras ban had "massive public support" and that the City Council’s repeal "effectively endorsed animal cruelty."
"Chicagoans were proud to live in a city that took a stand for humanity. To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in society -- animals raised for food," Janovsky said.
Yeah, that's exactly what this repeal did did. Next thing you know they will pass a resolution praising Michael Vick. And a goose or duck is not quite the most vulnerable being in our society (how about babies?), since many of them are killed anyway for food.
I've never eaten it before, but now I want to have some the next time I'm in a fancy joint just to shove it up these animal rights dorks' asses.
Apparently there were some protocols that were violated to get the repeal through, but I don't care. The right thing was done, and it's not like the city council is known for staunch constitutional principles. What I do know is that Moore is PISSED:
When Moore tried to debate the merits, Daley ruled that the measure was not debatable. He ordered the clerk to call the roll and to continue, even as Moore shouted for the right to be heard.
"If it can happen to me, tomorrow it could happen to you," Moore warned his colleagues.
"Thank you, Ald. Joe ‘Foie Gras’ Moore," Daley said.
After the show of force, Moore denounced the mayor as a dictator and Wednesday’s meeting as a new low.
"Even in the ugliest days of one-man rule, members of the City Council still had the opportunity to ... state their case. For the mayor to fail to recognize me to debate the merits of this issue was the height of arrogance," Moore said.
"The city had placed its mark as a city of compassion, a city that was standing up against [animal] cruelty and it’s taken a giant step backward. But, it’s also taken a giant step backward in ... good old fashioned democracy. ... There was no reason that this issue had to be ramrodded through today," Moore said.
The animal rights crankss are also unhappy, but that just tells me that this was the right thing to do:
Julie Janovsky, a spokesperson for the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary, argued that the foie gras ban had "massive public support" and that the City Council’s repeal "effectively endorsed animal cruelty."
"Chicagoans were proud to live in a city that took a stand for humanity. To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in society -- animals raised for food," Janovsky said.
Yeah, that's exactly what this repeal did did. Next thing you know they will pass a resolution praising Michael Vick. And a goose or duck is not quite the most vulnerable being in our society (how about babies?), since many of them are killed anyway for food.
I've never eaten it before, but now I want to have some the next time I'm in a fancy joint just to shove it up these animal rights dorks' asses.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Newsflash: Congress still trying to sneak amnesty for illegal aliens past us
It's hard to surprise me lately when it comes to Washington DC, but I should always keep in mind how much they all want to give amnesty to as many illegal aliens as possible, along with keeping the borders wide open.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
Sorry, Urlacher
So Brian Urlacher wants a new contract from the Bears, and he is willing to sit out mandatory workouts to show how serious he is. Oh and he has FOUR YEARS left on his current deal. Here's his rationale:
Urlacher, who said he has recovered from neck surgery, has four years left on his nine-year, $56.5 million contract, but he believes the deal is outdated.
"It's easy for people to criticize me for wanting [a new deal], and I understand that it's a contract and I signed it," Urlacher said, according to Yahoo.com. "But this is the NFL, and if I'd signed it and I'd played like [expletive], they'd have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there's no difference. If they can 'break' a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.
"When I signed my deal the salary cap was $75 million. It's, what, $116 million now? Things have changed. I understand that all of this, to a normal person, sounds crazy. It's all relative to what you do. If you're a chair-builder, and you feel you're the best at what you do, and other chair-builders are making more than you, then you'd want to be paid more, too."
(Chair builders don't sign 9-year contracts with large signing bonuses. This sounds like Scottie Pippen all over again.)
He's right that the Bears could cut him any time during the contract. That's because in the NFL, there are almost no guaranteed contracts. When free agency first started back in the 1990's, there were a couple of guys who had them, but nobody since has, I believe. So sure, this is bad for Urlacher. But let's dig a little deeper.
Every time a big contract is signed, we always hear about how much guaranteed money the player is getting. It's always much more than the average salary for the life of the deal. The reason (generally) is that the signing bonuses are quite large in comparison, with the money prorated over the life of the contract to make it advantageous for cap purposes. It's all explained here.
However, a reason the team wouldn't want to cut him is that his prorated 4 years of bonus for cap purposes would be accelerated to this year, leaving the team with less money to spend on other players.
So obviously this is all more complicated than Urlacher's analysis. What's really going on here?
After Urlacher's original rookie contract expired, the Bears gave him his current contract. At the time, it was very large for a linebacker, probably the highest in the league if I recall correctly. So he got a huge signing bonus back then.
Why did he sign a 9-year contract rather than a 5-year one? Give youself a gold star if you said it's because he got a bigger signing bonus! He could have opted for a shorter deal with a smaller bonus, but he got greedy.
I don't see why the Bears should renogotiate with him now, because, as the article states:
Despite playing with back pain, Urlacher led the Bears in tackles last season with 123 and added five sacks and five interceptions.
That's right, he developed some back problems last year. He also turns 30 over Memorial Day weekend. Clearly, he is going for a big payday while he can still command one, because there is a chance of his career going south quickly.
If I were running the Bears, I would just sit tight. The only leverage Urlacher has is his huge popularity, and that's not enough when he has 4 years left on his contract.
Urlacher, who said he has recovered from neck surgery, has four years left on his nine-year, $56.5 million contract, but he believes the deal is outdated.
"It's easy for people to criticize me for wanting [a new deal], and I understand that it's a contract and I signed it," Urlacher said, according to Yahoo.com. "But this is the NFL, and if I'd signed it and I'd played like [expletive], they'd have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there's no difference. If they can 'break' a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.
"When I signed my deal the salary cap was $75 million. It's, what, $116 million now? Things have changed. I understand that all of this, to a normal person, sounds crazy. It's all relative to what you do. If you're a chair-builder, and you feel you're the best at what you do, and other chair-builders are making more than you, then you'd want to be paid more, too."
(Chair builders don't sign 9-year contracts with large signing bonuses. This sounds like Scottie Pippen all over again.)
He's right that the Bears could cut him any time during the contract. That's because in the NFL, there are almost no guaranteed contracts. When free agency first started back in the 1990's, there were a couple of guys who had them, but nobody since has, I believe. So sure, this is bad for Urlacher. But let's dig a little deeper.
Every time a big contract is signed, we always hear about how much guaranteed money the player is getting. It's always much more than the average salary for the life of the deal. The reason (generally) is that the signing bonuses are quite large in comparison, with the money prorated over the life of the contract to make it advantageous for cap purposes. It's all explained here.
However, a reason the team wouldn't want to cut him is that his prorated 4 years of bonus for cap purposes would be accelerated to this year, leaving the team with less money to spend on other players.
So obviously this is all more complicated than Urlacher's analysis. What's really going on here?
After Urlacher's original rookie contract expired, the Bears gave him his current contract. At the time, it was very large for a linebacker, probably the highest in the league if I recall correctly. So he got a huge signing bonus back then.
Why did he sign a 9-year contract rather than a 5-year one? Give youself a gold star if you said it's because he got a bigger signing bonus! He could have opted for a shorter deal with a smaller bonus, but he got greedy.
I don't see why the Bears should renogotiate with him now, because, as the article states:
Despite playing with back pain, Urlacher led the Bears in tackles last season with 123 and added five sacks and five interceptions.
That's right, he developed some back problems last year. He also turns 30 over Memorial Day weekend. Clearly, he is going for a big payday while he can still command one, because there is a chance of his career going south quickly.
If I were running the Bears, I would just sit tight. The only leverage Urlacher has is his huge popularity, and that's not enough when he has 4 years left on his contract.
Monday, May 12, 2008
This seems like a dream
Yep, a sweet, sweet dream:
This stretch of Lafayette Avenue in the Manassas area is a fairly gloomy scene. "For Sale" signs flap outside two of the 30 1960s-era red brick starter homes on the block. Eight others appear to be vacant. Few cars are parked on the street. The worn sidewalks are deserted.
But to Pannell and Kipp, it is a tableau of hope. And victory.
For much of the past decade, according to the women and other neighbors, parking was bumper-to-bumper and most of the empty houses were packed with Latino residents they believe were in the country illegally. Now Pannell and Kipp are convinced that Prince William's illegal-immigration crackdown, which both championed as first-time activists, has helped flush many of those people out of their neighborhood, West Gate.
The experiences that hardened their attitude and the relief they now feel have been voiced by many Prince William residents who bridled at the influx of immigrants, many of whom they suspected were here illegally, according to activist leaders.
This stretch of Lafayette Avenue in the Manassas area is a fairly gloomy scene. "For Sale" signs flap outside two of the 30 1960s-era red brick starter homes on the block. Eight others appear to be vacant. Few cars are parked on the street. The worn sidewalks are deserted.
But to Pannell and Kipp, it is a tableau of hope. And victory.
For much of the past decade, according to the women and other neighbors, parking was bumper-to-bumper and most of the empty houses were packed with Latino residents they believe were in the country illegally. Now Pannell and Kipp are convinced that Prince William's illegal-immigration crackdown, which both championed as first-time activists, has helped flush many of those people out of their neighborhood, West Gate.
The experiences that hardened their attitude and the relief they now feel have been voiced by many Prince William residents who bridled at the influx of immigrants, many of whom they suspected were here illegally, according to activist leaders.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Drunkblogging
So I woke up at 7:30 this morning. How? Well, I found some evidence that I went to Burger King last night and had 2 Whoppers. I guess I made a cabbie go there.
Anyway, I am pounding water and already went to the store to get a frozen pizza, which I am cooking now.
The exam feels like a 6, which is passing for those non-actuaries. I never feel this confident, so that's a bad sign. I probably got a 3. We'll see.
The real winners last night? America's brewers.
Anyway, I am pounding water and already went to the store to get a frozen pizza, which I am cooking now.
The exam feels like a 6, which is passing for those non-actuaries. I never feel this confident, so that's a bad sign. I probably got a 3. We'll see.
The real winners last night? America's brewers.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
That's it
It's 7:30 PM the night before my exam, and my brain is offically full. I can't take any more in without losing things like how to put on pants. It reminds me of a Married...With Children episode. (Yes, I can relate most anything to an episode of Married...With Children, Futurama, The Simpsons, South Park, or Beavis and Butthead. Draw your own conclusions.):
Told he hasn't got enough "personality" to appear on a TV sports-trivia game show, Al (Ed O'Neill) trains his daughter Kelly (Christina Applegate) to take his place. Unfortunately, Kelly's brain capacity is such that she can't handle the onslaught of new information--in fact, all of her "old thoughts" are spilling all over the place (including her memories of her unlamented foster brother Seven [Shane Sweet]). American Gladiators host Todd Christensen appears in this final episode of Married. . .With Children's eighth season, which may represent the last time that an American sitcom invoked the name of O.J. Simpson without mentioning you-know-what (since "you-know-what" hadn't happened yet!)
So yes, I'm no smarter than Kelly Bundy. On an unrelated note, I don't recall ever seeing women wearing clothes like hers in the early 1990's:
...which was always a bit of a shame.
Just doing the jobs Americans won't do
Like impregnating 10-year-old girls, I guess:
KIDK-TV says Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez, a suspected illegal immigrant, is being held at the Fremont County Jail. He's due in court next week to face rape charges.
"I wouldn't have believed a 10-year-old could conceive in the first place," Fremont County Sheriff Ralph Davis tells the Associated Press.
KIDK-TV says Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez, a suspected illegal immigrant, is being held at the Fremont County Jail. He's due in court next week to face rape charges.
"I wouldn't have believed a 10-year-old could conceive in the first place," Fremont County Sheriff Ralph Davis tells the Associated Press.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Studying and exam update
I have come to realize that I probably won't pass this exam I'm taking on Friday. Thus, I've done things like go out all night Saturday and spend my Tuesday at the bowling alley until 2:30 WITHOUT EVEN BOWLING.
That being said, I'm still going to give it a shot. It's the most odd exam I've ever taken; I can really see myself nailing it, bombing it, or doing something in between (most likely bombing it, though).
I have nothing else here, but I'd like to note that I'm home studying the next two days, so barring another stupid decision like going out to the lanes tonight, the next time you people will see me is at Hidden Shamrock on Friday at around 3:30.
That being said, I'm still going to give it a shot. It's the most odd exam I've ever taken; I can really see myself nailing it, bombing it, or doing something in between (most likely bombing it, though).
I have nothing else here, but I'd like to note that I'm home studying the next two days, so barring another stupid decision like going out to the lanes tonight, the next time you people will see me is at Hidden Shamrock on Friday at around 3:30.
It's Obama
Hills didn't get the job done last night in the motherland, and she got clobbered in NC. The result is that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for president.
Given that he's the most left-wing presidential nominee in the history of the country, I don't find this to be a positive development. I do think, though, that McCain will beat him in November if McCain can avoid bleeding too many conservative voters.
And that's the crux of the problem for McCain. Despite his slick talk in trying to fool the voters, he's still pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He's also loved spending the last four years stabbing conservatives in the back. He made a big speech a couple of days ago on his supposed judicial philosophy, but he can't be trusted on that issue, either. If the general election was today, I really don't know if I'd vote for him or stay home.
Of course, I realize that it wouldn't matter since Illinois is in the bag for Obama regardless...
Given that he's the most left-wing presidential nominee in the history of the country, I don't find this to be a positive development. I do think, though, that McCain will beat him in November if McCain can avoid bleeding too many conservative voters.
And that's the crux of the problem for McCain. Despite his slick talk in trying to fool the voters, he's still pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He's also loved spending the last four years stabbing conservatives in the back. He made a big speech a couple of days ago on his supposed judicial philosophy, but he can't be trusted on that issue, either. If the general election was today, I really don't know if I'd vote for him or stay home.
Of course, I realize that it wouldn't matter since Illinois is in the bag for Obama regardless...
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Loyola's ranking in the newest from US News and World Report
#112. Not too bad, as they edged out such august institutions as Kentucky, Arkansas, and Samford.
Friday, May 2, 2008
When is your "rebate" coming?
I use scare quotes around the word rebate because it's not necessarily a rebate. It's a welfare check to people who made less than $75,000 last year.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Does Hollywood have amnesia?
The Incredible Hulk is coming out June 13. That would be fine, except that I could swear we just had a different, crappy Hulk movie just a few years ago.
Lo and behold! In fairness, it was all the way back in 2003. Life was simpler then. After all, the White Sox and Red Sox had the second and third longest streaks of championship futility in baseball, respectively.
This one isn't a sequel:
The film was originally meant to continue from Hulk (2003) but Edward Norton rewrote the script to make it similar to "The Incredible Hulk" (1978) and Bruce Jones's (run in the the comic books, thus severing all ties to its predecessor and retelling Bruce's origin through flashbacks. Therefore the two films are not within the same continuity.
So Edward Norton, who has done nothing good since Rounders and Fight Club (and I didn't like Fight Club), has enough stroke to pull off a re-write?
We will find out once and for all how stupid the American public is.
Lo and behold! In fairness, it was all the way back in 2003. Life was simpler then. After all, the White Sox and Red Sox had the second and third longest streaks of championship futility in baseball, respectively.
This one isn't a sequel:
The film was originally meant to continue from Hulk (2003) but Edward Norton rewrote the script to make it similar to "The Incredible Hulk" (1978) and Bruce Jones's (run in the the comic books, thus severing all ties to its predecessor and retelling Bruce's origin through flashbacks. Therefore the two films are not within the same continuity.
So Edward Norton, who has done nothing good since Rounders and Fight Club (and I didn't like Fight Club), has enough stroke to pull off a re-write?
We will find out once and for all how stupid the American public is.
You knew this was coming
Since illegal aliens who want citizenship, despite breaking numerous laws such as crossing the border without authorization and Social Security fraud, like to march for it on the biggest communist "holiday" of them all, let's check in on yesterday's events.
Apparently turnout was way down. I guess illegals are too stupid to realize that there actually won't be ICE agents there loading them into busses and shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from:
Some said participation likely was lower because many immigrants increasingly fear deportation.
Margot Veranes, a volunteer organizer in Tucson, Ariz., - where 12,000 took to the streets last year but early estimates Thursday put the crowd at about 500 - blamed the turnout on aggressive enforcement by Border Patrol and police.
This line from the AP's story struck me as funny:
"We're marching to end the raids and the deportations, but we're also marching for health care and education and good jobs," she said.
So people with no right to even be in this country are marching for health care and education (meaning, of course, stuff paid for by you and me), along with "good jobs"? How is an uneducated peasant from a third world country going to hold down a "good job"?
Then there is this, from a kid who probably hasn't mastered the fundamentals of his courses just yet, but has an EXCUSED ABSENCE from school:
Seventh-grader Vicente Campos of Milwaukee was granted an excused absence from school to attend the march. He said he was concerned by stories of immigration officials separating parents and children.
That last line is the newest refrain we hear from the illegals and their left-wing advocates in general, that we are "'separating families" by enforcing our laws. How, you ask? Well, the parents are illegal but the kids are American due to their parents using them as anchor babies. So the parents get shipped back to their home country. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from taking their kids with them, so in fact the parents are voluntarily separating themselves from their kids. Should we stop enforcing our other criminal laws that send parents to prison because it "separates familes"?
My own experience on the day came when I looked out the window of my office and saw some kids walking around. Two of them were draped in Mexican flags and one in a US flag.
Three points. First, if they want to convince Americans to come to their point of view on the topic, wearing a MEXICAN flag is not going to do it. All it shows is that they have dual (or singular, as I tend to think) loyalties and they do NOT consider themselves American first.
Second, these kind of protests, especially on (Commie) May Day, are quite common in the third world countires of Latin America. They are not common here, and we generally just get pissed off when a group of people goes around demanding a bunch of free stuff, including citizenship.
Finally, I was immediately struck by the disrespect of our flag by the little bastard who was using it as a cape. He may as well have set it on fire (hopefully he'd still be wearing it). Here is the relevent part of the US Flag Code:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor...
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery...
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
But hey, it's not like a little shit like him, unmoored in our traditions and respect for this country, would know that. After all, his parents probably just snuck across the border for a better job!
Apparently turnout was way down. I guess illegals are too stupid to realize that there actually won't be ICE agents there loading them into busses and shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from:
Some said participation likely was lower because many immigrants increasingly fear deportation.
Margot Veranes, a volunteer organizer in Tucson, Ariz., - where 12,000 took to the streets last year but early estimates Thursday put the crowd at about 500 - blamed the turnout on aggressive enforcement by Border Patrol and police.
This line from the AP's story struck me as funny:
"We're marching to end the raids and the deportations, but we're also marching for health care and education and good jobs," she said.
So people with no right to even be in this country are marching for health care and education (meaning, of course, stuff paid for by you and me), along with "good jobs"? How is an uneducated peasant from a third world country going to hold down a "good job"?
Then there is this, from a kid who probably hasn't mastered the fundamentals of his courses just yet, but has an EXCUSED ABSENCE from school:
Seventh-grader Vicente Campos of Milwaukee was granted an excused absence from school to attend the march. He said he was concerned by stories of immigration officials separating parents and children.
That last line is the newest refrain we hear from the illegals and their left-wing advocates in general, that we are "'separating families" by enforcing our laws. How, you ask? Well, the parents are illegal but the kids are American due to their parents using them as anchor babies. So the parents get shipped back to their home country. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from taking their kids with them, so in fact the parents are voluntarily separating themselves from their kids. Should we stop enforcing our other criminal laws that send parents to prison because it "separates familes"?
My own experience on the day came when I looked out the window of my office and saw some kids walking around. Two of them were draped in Mexican flags and one in a US flag.
Three points. First, if they want to convince Americans to come to their point of view on the topic, wearing a MEXICAN flag is not going to do it. All it shows is that they have dual (or singular, as I tend to think) loyalties and they do NOT consider themselves American first.
Second, these kind of protests, especially on (Commie) May Day, are quite common in the third world countires of Latin America. They are not common here, and we generally just get pissed off when a group of people goes around demanding a bunch of free stuff, including citizenship.
Finally, I was immediately struck by the disrespect of our flag by the little bastard who was using it as a cape. He may as well have set it on fire (hopefully he'd still be wearing it). Here is the relevent part of the US Flag Code:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor...
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery...
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
But hey, it's not like a little shit like him, unmoored in our traditions and respect for this country, would know that. After all, his parents probably just snuck across the border for a better job!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Today's random thought
Sobriety sucks. I am thinking more about where to go out after my exam next Friday than the exam itself. Not a good sign.
By the way, I'm thinking Durkin's since for $15 I can drink all the beer and eat all the pizza I want from 5-9. Check out Christine M.'s winning review:
The smell of Durkin's makes me feel a bit nauseas. The floor is sticky. TVs loud. I have a hard time taking any bar seriously when I am handed a plastic cup.
I think it gets the job done if you are 21 years old (or under) or if you went to Purdue. Otherwise there are a lot of other places to visit. Or if you have a good friend who loves going there and gets happy when you join her :)
Sounds good to me.
Then a fun drunk CTA bus ride to Four Shadows would be nice. Thanks for checking in, spoons35:
Food was below average and took forever to get to our table and they were not even that busy? The bartender looked hung over and the waitress was a bit snotty. We were not offered refills on our drinks and my girlfriend had to go up to the bar and order more as the waitress was too busy on her cell phone. Might have been the wrong day but I WONT be back.
Yes, these are two of my favorite places in the city.
By the way, I'm thinking Durkin's since for $15 I can drink all the beer and eat all the pizza I want from 5-9. Check out Christine M.'s winning review:
The smell of Durkin's makes me feel a bit nauseas. The floor is sticky. TVs loud. I have a hard time taking any bar seriously when I am handed a plastic cup.
I think it gets the job done if you are 21 years old (or under) or if you went to Purdue. Otherwise there are a lot of other places to visit. Or if you have a good friend who loves going there and gets happy when you join her :)
Sounds good to me.
Then a fun drunk CTA bus ride to Four Shadows would be nice. Thanks for checking in, spoons35:
Food was below average and took forever to get to our table and they were not even that busy? The bartender looked hung over and the waitress was a bit snotty. We were not offered refills on our drinks and my girlfriend had to go up to the bar and order more as the waitress was too busy on her cell phone. Might have been the wrong day but I WONT be back.
Yes, these are two of my favorite places in the city.
This day in music history
Misleading title, I know. Anyway, here is a website that shows you the #1 song on any date in history.
Please note that on the day I was born the top song was Eric Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff". In other news, I'm old.
Please note that on the day I was born the top song was Eric Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff". In other news, I'm old.
News on the illegal alien front
This article focuses early on remittances, but then we get to some great news near the end:
As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.
We can only hope! Maybe 100% of Logan Square illegals will be part of the 1/3. That would be AWESOME.
As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.
We can only hope! Maybe 100% of Logan Square illegals will be part of the 1/3. That would be AWESOME.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)