Friday, April 30, 2010

On Hold

My cohost Heidi Joy and I will both be indisposed this weekend, so there will be no live show.  Whether you have listened before or not, you are welcome to listen to our archives through the BlogTalkRadio widget to the left of the page, and we'll be back on May 9, 2010.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Papers, Please

Pundits of all stripes, from anarchist-libertarians to diehard leftists, have been crowing about the "nazi overtones" of the law in Arizona that will supposedly allow cops to harass ordinary citizens for their "papers." Bearing in mind that a valid driver's license is sufficient for the purpose of Arizona's law, I have compiled a list of instances in which I, personally, have been "harassed" for my "papers:"

  • At the pleasure of the doormen or bartenders at virtually every nightclub or other drinking establishment I've been to since I've turned 21
  • Every time I have applied for a new job (two independently verified forms of ID)
  • Renewal of my ID card (which requires three independently verified forms of ID under new federal rules, since I don't drive a car)
  • Doing business with the federal government at the local Federal Building (including a metal detector and pat-down at the pleasure of the security personnel)
  • Establishment of a bank or credit union account
  • Booking a hotell room
By no means a comprehensive list, but these are all instances in which I have personally been asked for my "papers," and I don't have a drop of hispanic blood in me.  I live less than a ten-hour drive from the Canadian border.  Spare me the whiny nazi BS.  I don't buy it.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Incest, Washington-Style

While Ron Paul is splitting hairs over the definition of "socialism," Goldman-Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has been visiting the White House during a nine month fraud investigation.

And of course, Obama is keeping the campaign money he received from Goldman-Sachs. Why bother if it's not technically illegal?

“Anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record, again in 2007 and 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business,” he said.

That doesn't put my mind at ease, Mister President. Of course you made it clear that you wanted to take over Wall Street, but that's when you cross the line from campaign donation to protection money.

Good luck in 2012.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Lance "DC Douglas" Baxter: Buh bye!

Today, Lance Baxter, better-known in the voice-over industry as DC Douglas, was fired from his job as a noted (if not by name) voice from many of the Geico commercials that have run for the last 15+ years.

I'm a little late to the party, but it turns out that one week ago today, on April 14, 2010, Freedomworks posted a voice mail that DC left in their system:



While there is no love lost between myself and Dick Armey, this whole episode makes me question DC's mental faculties more than anyone else's. The dude works for one of the nation's largest auto insurance firms, and piddles it all away in a fit of completely moronic and misdirected anger.

Such a shame, in a way. I was familiar with a lot of his work before I even knew who he was. I wonder how radioactive this will make him in hollywood now...? Probably not very. I hope Lance "DC Douglas" Baxter enjoys his electoral trouncing in November.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Bandwagon Riding

You know, when Felix Ortiz sounds like an idiot trying to defend his proposed salt ban, at least I don't have to live in New York City. When Mitt Romney bloviates about why his health care reform in Massachusetts was a good idea even though he can't campaign on it nationally, I thank God that I don't live in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, such stupidity is more infectious than the plague.

All politics is local. First it's our salt in the name of "health." What next? Where does this end?

Monday, April 19, 2010

Obama/Romney-care

From the fine folks at Right Wing News:

Warner Todd Huston warns us that Mitt Romney...

"...is one of the main influences for Obama's socialist takeover of America's healthcare system."

I doff my hat to you sir. Correct.

However, after a video which Huston uses to make his case, he goes on to say:

"There is NO difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. None."

Technically not true, sir. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution of the United States of America that forbids states from doing what Romney did, ergo Romneycare is not unconstitutional on the federal level. Is it a good idea? No. Is it something that Massachusetts should have allowed to happen? Hell no! Unfortunately, I have to call Huston on the carpet for this technical mistake.

"...in 2012 the only way we'll win the White House away from Obama is to run against Obama. With Mitt Romney as our nominee that will be utterly impossible and he will cause us to lose in 2012."

Again, I disagree. But here, I think that Huston is vastly underestimating the people's discontent with President Obama, as well as underestimating the amount of damage that Obama can do betweenn 2010 and 2012. Absent a Perot-esque third-party vote splitter, Barack Hussein Soetero-Obama will lose in 2012. Which candidate Republicans run will merely determine the margin of said loss.

I understand the depths of Huston's anger. From a strictly philosophical standpoint, I share it. The fact still remains, however, that no one is forced to live in Massachusetts. That is one not-so-insignificant difference between Romney's baby and Obamacare: We can't escape socialized medicine now. There's no place left to run to.

All this having been said, while I don't share Huston's zeal for keeping Romney away from the 2012 presidential nomination, I think we can find far better candidates -- and Romneycare is one reason of several I feel that way.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Yeoman's Work, Freepers.

On principle, I'm rather hesitant to link to it...

But some massive tool by the name of Jason Levin has been inciting leftists to crash tea party events and make them look bad with all manners of violence and other malfeasance.

Fortunately, the men and women of FreeRepublic.com are on the prowl, and they have exposed the truth of just who this guy is.

I don't normally like to make rash assumptions, but it's getting harder and harder for me to believe that tea parties are capable of violence. Everywhere I look, the only worms and insects I see crawling out from under the rocks are leftist.

For more details about Jason Levin and the company he keeps, check out FreeRepublic.com and show the Freepers your support.

Friday, April 9, 2010

"Crazy" Alan Grayson

From TeaPartyPatriotsLive.com by way of Hotair.

Displaying more of the class and grace that has made him a household name, Alan Grayson crashed an Orange County Republican Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, April 8.

As you watch this video, please bear in mind that these are Grayson's constituents that he is condescending to, although "condescension" hardly seems to cover it, in my opinion.



And then, in an absolutely ingenious oh-crap moment, Grayson decides he'd better leave when he realizes he's being recorded for posterity (at around 3:00 in the second video).



Cowardly and condescending don't quite cover it, do they?

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

A Triumph for Freedom...?

This morning, a three-judge panel from Washington, DC tossed out a cease-and-desis order against Comcast, Inc. Read more at Cnet.com:

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to begin.

A brief history of the internet:

In the wake of the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was founded in 1958 in order to ensure that America would be at the forefront of such technological surprises in the future.

Leonard Kleinrock, working in theoretical research at UCLA along with Vint Cerf's hardware architecture, pioneered the packet-switching technology that gave birth to ARPANET (the forerunner of our modern internet) in late-1969.

In 1989, the last of the first-generation Interface Message Processors was taken offline, and ever since then, every router on the modern internet has been privately-owned.

So aside from the technological minutiae, ask yourself: Do you trust the same government that runs Social Security, Medicare, and the education system to make decisions about what information your internet providers make available to you? I sure don't.

Update (4-6-10 1:20 PM CDT): A dear friend of mine pointed out that some routers are owned and maintained by state governments, and others are owned and maintained by state-run colleges and universities. I have to concede that doesn't qualify as privately-owned by the strictest definition, but my larger point is that there is no federal control over the internet. That point still stands.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Don't Report It

Don't report what? From examiner.com, The White House clearly has something to hide. I wouldn't mention that here if it wasn't a fact, but speculation in the blogosphere is running rampant. I can't help but wonder if perhaps this is being engineered to make the tea party movement look bad.

Tread with caution, fellow bloggers. The truth will out, eventually.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Are We Overtaxed?

Anne E. Kornblut, writing at Washingtonpost.com, documents an interesting Obamaism in response to a simple yes-or-no question.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package.

"We are over-taxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.

Apparently, President Obama doesn't think he has a problem with overexposure yet. His answer to Doris started thus:

"Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.

..and went on for 17 minutes and 12 seconds. 2,500 words.

Hand it to the president. Money isn't the only thing he has a talent for wasting.

But is this idiocy, or is it purposeful obfuscation? Time will tell.

Friday, April 2, 2010

O'Reilly's Glory Days

A very dear friend of mine, Miss Daria DiGiovanni, has a brilliant piece on Bill O'Reilly's treatment of the tea party movement at Parcbench.com today. Although I don't necessarily share her zeal (I like to think I don't upset easily), the substance of Daria's column is spot-on.

I think the key to understanding O'Reilly's admittedly poor understanding of the tea party movement stems from his days as an investigative journalist:



The journalistic ideal, of course, is "neutral point-of-view." Such an ideal is a near impossibility in anything except encyclopedic writing, but it is the ideal that journalists the world over now aspire to.

Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist. As the video above shows, he was a journalist as recently as 1995, shortly before Fox News came on the scene.

Most Americans are not ideologues. They are just folks who want a fair system and a noble country.

Spoken like a true journalist, and true even as far as it goes, but it kind of misses the point. When you hold a neutral point-of-view as your highest possible journalistic achievement, then anyone with a strong opinion becomes an ideologue.

I truly believe that O'Reilly fancies himself a journalist, when in truth, he was hired by Fox News Channel as a pundit. Pundits ought to ground their opinion in truth and in fact, but pundits don't have to maintain that neutral point-of-view. I think it tends to be destructive to the conservative movement as a whole, and the tea party movement in particular, when pundits (and that means you, Bill O'Reilly) try to be something they are not.

Get over the self-loathing, Bill. The left will call you an ideologue whether you claim to be one or not. Might as well embrace it.