A Whole Lot About Mostly Nothing

Seems that Obama is considering expanding the faith-based initiatives started by GW Bush. Right now, this is the ONLY thing about Obama that I can stand. I still won’t vote for the guy, though. However, what might cause me to vote for the Obamanator is the possibility of watching noted atheist moron PZ Myers’s head explode, as the committed Democrat will have to hold his nose and vote for a politician that -in terms of lip service, at least- is in favor of expanding aid to religious institutions.

He’s still proposing an expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives — he’s going to be handing out billions of dollars to religious organizations. It’s nice that he’s specifically saying there will be restrictions, that the money can’t be used in programs that discriminate, and it must be for secular purposes, but he’s still propping up a religious middleman between government aid and the people, and that’s a tool that will be used to proselytize indirectly, even if they don’t simply flout the rules. This is a bad idea.

Well, it’s a bad idea only when you’re an atheist nutjob who sees radical religious conspiracies under every collection plate. WHEN will this bearded blowhard come to terms with his fear of God? If he will simply admit that he is terrified that his Lutheran upbringing was possibly correct, then he can come to terms with it like a good Freudian misfit, and live his life out in fearful quiet in the wilds of Minnesota.

Ain’t likely.

So, as a consolation, I do get to see him become agitated about this Obama/faith-based initiative sop to the religious of America. Twill be amusing to watch PZ get all atwitter about this. NOTHING else at this point is worth paying attention to in this wretched election year.

Remember her?

Parry Burnap, the idiot in charge of Politically Correct Feeding for the Democratic Convention in Denver this year.

She ain’t working alone. Fresh from their own padded rooms come Denver mayor John Hickenlooper,

and “Greening Director” Andrea Robinson, whose stated goal is to provide “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”.

This includes having Garbage Nazis a Trash Brigade make sure that everything is disposed of properly.

Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.

However, according to the WSJ, there are some snags on the road to true Greenness for our rezident hypocrites.

For instance, using all-cotton, union-made in USA fanny packs:

Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: “That just doesn’t exist.”

Ditto for the baseball caps. “We have a union cap or an organic cap,” Mr. DeMasse says. “But we don’t have a union-organic offering.”

Chortle.

Then there is the issue of precedent:

After all, the last time Democrats met in Denver — to nominate William Jennings Bryan in 1908 — they dispatched horse-drawn wagons to bring snow from the Rocky Mountains to cool the meeting hall. Ms. Robinson suspected modern-day delegates would prefer air conditioning. So she quickly modified the mayor’s goal: She’d supervise “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”

Can I make a suggestion? Use the 1908 version of cooling the blowhards self-important asshats delegates and candidates. Eliminate air conditioning. Ever given any thought on how THAT contributes to “global warming“?

While cooling needs increase energy use, heating needs reduce the amount. Since cooling (using electricity) is more inefficient than heating, the increase in primary energy use is amplified. Over time, the increase in cooling outweighs the decrease in heating leading to an overall increase.

The DNC this year is in Denver, August 25-28. Average daily temp in Denver in late August? 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Sounds like AC weather to me, especially when you’re talking about a bunch of overweight, overly self-important Democrats. But if they’re serious about this greening stuff, they’ll turn off the AC.

Think that’ll happen? Cold day in hell, and so on.

Actually, a guy named Fred Smith has the right idea:

Watching the greening frenzy from afar, Fred L. Smith Jr., president of the libertarian Washington think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, suggested the Democrats could really shrink their footprint by staging a virtual-reality convention: “Just have everyone stay at home with their laptops, sitting in their pajamas, interacting through their avatars.”

Just imagine. All that vast carbon footprint brought about from travel, AC usage and tremendous amounts of Liberally Hypocritical Hot Air, gone.

But do you think Mayor Green would think that is such a great idea? The economic impact on Boston from the 2004 Hypocrisy Cattle Call DNC was estimated at $163 million. Think it will be any less in Denver? Even in a recession? Don’t count on it. There is NO WAY Mayor Green would dare even think about endorsing Smith’s brilliant Green Scheme for the DNC if it means the good people of Denver lose out on ‘prox $170 million.

I mean, Greening is all well and good. But economic growth comes first.

Politically, the man is a disaster. As a public figure, he is one of the worst models known to man. As a Catholic, he would normally be laughable.

But as a human being, he is being forced to live out a great terror now. Despite his myriad flaws -and we all have our own to wrestle with-, and to their great shame the fact that the press is pimping his unfortunate situation, he is in dire need of our prayers and our sincere hope that he might recover.

Lapsed Catholic has a great reflection on this.

Lord have mercy on me and bless Teddy Kennedy and his family in this dark time for them.

. . .ugly ones, at that.  That is the Democratic primary race.  What we have here are two nasty, trim and at one time in-shape bulldogs in a vicious fight-for-their-lives; the loser more or less dies.

The winner?  Gets the dubious distinction of going off into another fight, this time with a pit bull.  This pit bull may be aged, but he is battle tested (in more ways than one) and is very well rested.

Hillary is amazing.  She pretty much is single-handedly assuring that we will have a President McCain.

Then there is this Danish joke that gives a chuckling European read on this ridiculousness (from PianoGirl via Anchoress):

From a Danish associate:

“We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election. On one side, you have a b*tch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a b*tch who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

Those brainless f***buckets at Pharyngula and Pandagon are at it again.

PZ, on the Texas, FLDS nightmare:

Here, let me ruin your morning, just in case you hadn’t already heard the story of this raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

(snip)

I think “fundamentalist” has become a synonym for “misogynistic pedophile”.

/Irony/ Nope. No generalities here. /Irony

What an asshole. Yes. In the cosmology of Herr Doktor Myers, if one is a “conservative” Christian, one therefore must:

1. Hate women, and
2. Have deep urges to mate with younger members of the species.

Well, last I checked, being a conservative Catholic (note: Quick test to determine this. If you think Pope Benedict is mostly a good guy and the idea of Catholic universities ought to, well, you know, teach basic Catholic doctrine, you too are a conservative Catholic) means I’m a conservative Christian.

In PZ’s book, that means I’m a “fundie.”

Which then means I must hate women and lust after kids.

I’ll say it again: What an asshole.

As for my misogyny, ask my co-workers, who for nearly 20 years have been women. Ask my wife. I doubt highly any of them will suggest that I am a misogynist.

As for my incipient pedophilia according to Herr Doktor Myers, bad news. Almost 18 years working with kids grade K-12, and you know what? I’ve managed to keep my hands off of ALL of them.

It’s easy, really. The very concept of pedophilia frankly grosses me out. Besides that , I still lust after my wife, and that keeps me fully occupied, thank you very much. Perhaps Herr Doktor Myers knows something about Jimmy Carter’s “lusting in the heart” that I do not. But I don’t want the details if he does.

But I must then be a liberal. Herr Doktor Myers’ theory demands that this be so.

Hmm. Fucked up in the basic computations, Herr Doktor. Back to the fantasyland mill drawing board.

Meanwhile, there is Amanda the Berserk:

like all the other little empires Warren Jeffs has built, it’s a religious patriarchy taken to its logical conclusion, i.e. built around the practice of raping underage girls. (bold by ed)

So, I guess the Pope all along has been lusting in his heart to build little compounds to rape little girls. What absolute fever-swamp idiocy.

She blathers on:

Considering that atheists supposedly have our own fundamentalists, I’m sure any day now we’ll find out that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are running rape farms where they swap daughters with their friends because Darwin told them they have a right.

Frankly, I would not normally expect this of Dawkins and Harris, but I would not at all be surprised that some of the more lunatic fringe of their particular stripe in fact WOULD think that is a good idea. In fact, some already do.

But the question that PZ raises—why does it always come back to misogyny and pedophilia with religious nuts who push it too far?

PZ didn’t raise a question, Sister Moonbat. He was talking out of his ass. I think he was about 50% serious when he wrote that. You of course take it all too seriously.

Now, of course, most fundie Christians don’t slide towards polygamy, because there are laws and rules and restrictions against it.

What.

A.

Bitch.

SHE can make it appear my “misogyny” is being raised, though the fact is, I don’t hate women.

I just loathe Amanda Marcotte. If she were male, I’d be just as outraged.

It’s not the rules that forces most people -conservative or liberal, whomever- to avoid pedophilia; it’s the fact that the very idea of it is repugnant. This is especially true for conservatives. I wonder how many members of NAMBLA, who are fighting to legalize pedophilia, are registered Democrats, good, “free-thinking” liberals who desire to legalize what is deep in the hearts of all sex-sodden Democrats.

See how much fun generalities can be, you two morons?

The final irony to this is the fact that Amanda subtitles her little moronicy as part of the “Sunday Freethinker Sermon”.

Free-thinking my blue ass.

UPDATE: Then PZ, the absolute barking-mad asshole, berates some poor old guy who demolished two Porsches.

Total damage: £60,000.

So what does the senile twit say afterwards? You guessed it:

It was a miracle I got out alive and I put it down to the power of prayer and God looking after me.

Why was he praying to wreak havoc on expensive German cars?

Cars (at least Porsches, good. Old men with bad driving skills who invoke God? Bad. Myers? Asshat of the first water).

See, I haven’t read the dolt for weeks. Amanda links to him, I see what foolishness he is raving about now, and again, I go off the end.

Bastard is bad for my health.

Rachel is capital P Pissed OFF because of her tax bill.  And I cannot say that I blame her.  $11K is one helluva chunk of change to fork out at the end of the tax season.  I should like to know why her rate is so high, as I get the impression that being self-employed has something to do with it . . .and that smells.  Why are small-businessmen taking it in the shorts?

But, as Rachel is wont to do , when she gets pissed, she rants and has a tendency to do some carpet f-bombing.

Are you on welfare? FUCK YOU.

Do you have children you can’t provide everything for all by your widdle self? FUCK YOU.

Are you on unemployment because you just can’t find a job that’s good enough for ya? You don’t want to work at McDonald’s temporarily because you have a college degree? FUCK YOU.

Are you hoping for a bail-out because you’re too stupid to buy a house you can afford? FUCK YOU.

Are you a federal employee who has anything to do with making the government inefficient, bloated, and more costly than necessary? FUCK YOU.

Let’s cut the crap: Do you take any money from the federal government for any purpose due to your own poor decision-making? FUH-HUH-HUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL.

Seriously. I hate those people and everything they represent. They’re the worst kind of parasites, sucking vortexes of need and stupidity, and I am genuinely enraged that I spend a huge chunk of my life working for those people. They take and take, never giving SHIT back, and you know what the actual worst part is? We put up with it!

Ahem.

Well then.

I placed in bold those items that I suspect that she would be on me like stink on cheese for engaging in.

Welfare?  My family receives state medical benefits.  I do not.  But as I am head of the household, I guess I have to say that “I” benefit from them.

And I have seven children.  Since that then results in a sizable tax benefit, then I guess I also get to receive the “F” bomb for this as well.

The last bold paragraph comes about because I -apparently- benefit from the earlier two.

I italicized the one paragraph because I used to work in public schools.  Got the hell out when I found the ridiculous interpretation of the 1st Amendment too much to stomach.  This, combined with the union mentality that provided tenure to the most experienced and generally, most disillusioned teachers, thereby both affirming and entrenching the Peter Principle to a nauseating degree, I got the hell out of the there and into private education.

While I sympathize with her anger and laugh at her language, I have to disagree that everyone who may be benefiting from government “largesse” -even if it is by receiving lower tax bills- is somehow becoming an automatic leech on the rest of society.

Truth in advertising:  I receive government “benefits” of health care for my kids, and lower tax bills due to having children and due to the fact that I am “buying” my own home.   And not with a bleeping subprime mortgage, either.  Those Ponzi schemes were a) not heavily advertised here in Washington, and b) seemed too damned good to be true; and I see that my reasons for being distrusting of such loans has been proven all-too-correct these past few months.

Now, I am not going to defend the welfare.  It is there, my kids need coverage, I cannot get them coverage and feed them at the same time.  Does that mean I cannot take care of them adequately?  By Rachel’s definition, perhaps.  But then, Rachel’s definition presents a pernicious threat to society that I’ll get to in a minute.  If the state withdrew the welfare, I would suck it up and pay as needed.  I would not complain to Olympia or DC.

But in advocating for that absolute flat tax rate with no deductions, common taxpayers such as me will get hit, and hit hard, with long-term consequences that would in the end damage the Republic.  They are:

1. Lower home ownership rates, which would exacerbate the already-widening gulf between rich and poor as landlords get more and young families get hosed.
2. The birth rate would drop.  Take a look at modern Italy or recent France or England to see the dangers to a culture associated with a declining birth rate.  The decay of the Republic is to follow, as the burden of caring for an increasingly aging populace falls more and more on those childless remainders.
3. Those that WOULD still be having kids in Rachel’s universe would be the wealthy.  Assuming they actually procreate, this then results in an increasingly elitist society, with only the wealthy actually able to afford the birthing and rearing of children.  Francic Galton might have liked this concept.  We should not.

Re: #1.  Home ownership, despite the beating it has taken in recent months due to irresponsible lenders and borrowers, is still one of the most reliable means of savings left to us.  But much of what makes that manageable for many middle class citizens is the tax break on interest paid that then makes the large payments workable.  Take away that tax break, and either the housing market collapses further, or, as I said above, marginal families are forced to rent, the rich get richer, and personal savings rates decline even further than they already have.

Re: #2:  Res ipsa loquitur.

Re: #3:  Children are considered by a healthy society not only as valuable gifts, but by their government as future producers.  My wife and I spend a helluva lot of resources on our children, both time and money, with the idea that they be successful adults.  Now, do I rear them so that the State can have productive workers.

Oh, HELL no.

But, the State wisely (for once) views these children as investments for the future.  To tax parents when they are (in some ways) literally killing themselves to rear decent future workers is not only bad policy, but counterproductive.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I did not have these kids so that I could get a break from Uncle Sam.  Hell, at the time I didn’t even KNOW about the break.  But you may bet that many parents not so hot on the idea of having kids -such as Rachel Lucas- would swear off of them forever if they realized that Uncle Sam was in effect going to soak them for having kids.

I’m telling you:  That tax benefit helps the entire country.  And as the country becomes more and more fixated on the idea that procreation and orgasm are mutually exclusive goals, that break becomes even more important.

Cynical?  Yeah, I know.

Delicious irony, anyone?

Federal prosecutors have unsealed an affidavit that details a rendezvous in a Washington hotel room last month between a prostitute and a client who a source tells CNN was New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

The affidavit does not mention Spitzer by name, but a source with knowledge of the case said the subject identified as Client 9 is the governor.

Creepy.

I can’t help it.  I listen to the chanting on this video, apparently the brainchild of Will.I.Am. of the Black-Eyed Peas, and I start flashing back to videos of hundreds of crazed brownshirts stamping their feet, hurling their arms straight out and screaming “Sieg HEIL” at the appearance of their Fuhrer.

Now, I understand that Obama is no fascist, and I am not trying to compare him to Hitler.  But I AM comparing the fawning of his sycophants to that of the unthinking adulation and obedience the Germans gave to der Fuhrer.  And that adulation is dangerous, both to Obama, his followers and the country at-large.

HT: Anchoress 

It is just amazing to read some of the swill bandied about on the Far Left. It is getting more and more to be like the Freakshow at the circus.

The basic premise of this article -that McCain will be difficult for the Evil Party to beat in November- is correct. But for all -I mean ALL- the wrong reasons.

But what we must absolutely remember is that even though political junkie liberals see McCain for the phony, war-mongering, woman-hating, lobbyist-loving, K-Street sellout that he is, there’s no reason to think that our accurate perception is shared.

THAT’S an accurate perception? Well, then. Let’s see what other hallucinations Mandy the Berserk is serving up tonight.

. . .we just hope that he looks so tired and worn out that people pick the vibrant, youthful-looking Democrat against him, which describes both candidates in the contest.

To quote Harlan Ellison, “you’ve got to be pulling my gotkes.” I’ll freely admit that Obama is vibrant and youthful; that’s part of his charm, as well as his ability to present himself as a Rorschach inkblot for all dissatisfied American voters to then project their own wishful thinking desires upon him, and he becomes All Things for All Voters.

Which is a carny-barker scam of the first water. . .but that is also all beside the point. How in HELL can Mandy call this:

. . .”vibrant and youthful”?

Moving on to the next Clozapine symptom:

all these things put together are often no match for a mainstream media that openly campaigns for the Republican.

What.

Utter.

BULLSHIT!!!!

And Gore won anyway. He didn’t win enough to keep the Republicans from stealing it, no, but a few things have changed since that dark election 8 years ago.

Good God almighty. This ancient tripe. The way Democrats win close elections is to count and re-count the votes until they get the result theywant, then end any further re-counts.  It worked in Washington State. It damned near worked in 2000 on the national level. Not that Bush is my all-time favorite president. but he’s a DAMNED sight better than the Bloviator, and dammit, he won honestly.

In the aftermath of the election, independent recounts were conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today, concluding that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios. . .

Move the f*** on, you deranged cow.

We have the blogs.

Frankly, I’m not so sure of that. And even if it IS true, do you think that laying claim to some hundred thousand people who sit on their cans all day reading other people’s writing is going to make THAT much of a difference? Face facts, people. The value of Kos, DU and their ilk is going to lessen significantly once the conventions are over. At that point, all the people they can call over to their side will already be there; their only hope to dissuade potential McCain voters, none of whom will be reading that deranged moonbattery anyway.

Just amazing to read some of the swill bandied about on the Far Left. It is getting more and more to be like the Freakshow at the circus.

In some ways, the current fascination with Obama in the Democratic party reminds me of the Messianic fervor that swept the ‘68 and ‘72 primaries, with McCarthy and more importantly RFK filling the roles of the Chosen One. One glaring difference between McCarthy and RFK vs. Obama is the fact that both ‘68 Dems had evident themes upon which they were placing their campaigns, whereas Obama appears to be a blank slate, an open Rorshach inkblot upon which prospective voters may project whatever political desires they may wish and feel that they are in fact present. A very attractive -and dangerously deceptive- attribute for a candidate to possess.

But once Sirhan Sirhan snuffed the Impossible Dream out in Los Angeles and the nightmare that was Chicago and the DNC then ravaged the party, the Democrats were left in a state similar to the country-at-large during the depression, desperate for deliverance.

And amongst the younger -and more easily fooled- Democrats in ‘72 there came the out-of-nowhere McGovern, a breath of fresh air seemingly destined to seize control of the political apparat and flush the brainless functionaries such as Muskie and Humphrey from their bastions of power, injecting new meaning into the workings of the Republic, and finally drive the gargoyle Nixon from the White House.

Coming out of Miami in the summer of ‘72, after McGovern whipped the last efforts of the old party hacks to unseat him, the Democratic grassroots seemed ready to storm the country.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. McGovern’s obvious appeal to younger voters in the Blue Areas of the US did no translate to a larger appeal to the more general electorate. He suddenly appeared to be “just another politician” as the Eagleton episode and his inability to properly formulate a working economic plan became permanent albatrosses around his neck.

Now in ‘08, we have another “new Democrat” who is making a huge appeal to young and activist Democrats, and his grassroots-style of campaigning, very reminiscent of McGovern’s, is doing the same thing to the old Party Establishment that McGovern did to Muskie. Clinton, the heir apparent as was Muskie, was holding all the pre-election cards just as Muskie did before her, is getting her ass kicked from here to next November by a bunch of wild-eyed young punks who are lit with the fire of True Belief that their candidate is the one to lead them to the Promised Land. Again, just like Muskie and McGovern.

But like McGovern before him, Obama is going to have a very hard time making a broader appeal to those voters who are not taken in by his great charisma that is also devoid of tangible meaning.

It is this very lack of meaning that is the basis of his appeal. A Rorshach test is meaningless if the inkblots make for a clear picture. It is their very ambiguity that allows them to work as projective instruments. Obama’s own vagueness on his actual executive actions allows voters to transform him into whatever they wish.

That will change once if the guy gets elected, and fast.

But I do not think he will. There are still too many rock-ribbed pragmatists (and cynics) out there who espouse the old motto of the State of Missouri: “Show Me.” Obama cannot claim that he can show anyone anything.

In ‘72, a maverick from nowhere drove the Party hacks from their perches to broker a convention and then seize the Democratic nomination. He promptly got his ass kicked in the general by what was regarded at the time as one of the least desirable of Presidents, Richard Nixon.

In ‘08, it appears that yet another maverick will again drive the party hack Clintonites from their perches, either broker yet another convention or outright seize the nomination. But it is my prediction that he will also get his ass kicked by a Republican maverick in his own right, John McCain.

So long as McCain does not say anything to jeopardize himself, that is.