Wesley Willis sings Jesus Christ
Why isn't this in the missalette? Better than anything those losers from St. Louis ever wrote.
Saint Mother Teresa gets compared to a mass murderer. Great laugh line, too. I'll have to remember that.
Posted by Pauli at 10/16/2009 03:43:00 PM 3 comments
Labels: absurdity, Anita Dunn, Barack Obama, insanity, Mother Teresa, you can't make this up
The friend I mentioned in this post is up to 48-point Times New Roman in his rants. Alex Jones is his new patron saint. His emails are barely readable. I wish I was joking. Lithium is needed.
Posted by Pauli at 10/15/2009 07:15:00 AM 2 comments
Labels: Alex Jones, font inflation, insanity, truthers
This Macleans piece has a lot of humorous material in it regarding the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to President O. My favorite line: "In other words, the award is a carrot, dangled before the world’s most mighty politician at a nerve-wracking moment, like hypnotherapy: you are officially a Man of Peace: act like one."
Posted by Pauli at 10/14/2009 07:17:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: Barack Obama, humor, whatever, whirled peas
A genius of rhythm. Warning: explicit lyrics.
Oh, boy. Not only does the Anchoress hit the 16 penny nail on the head with this thorough fisking of Obama fandom, she drives it in with one blow. This may become a great reference and resource for Thanksgiving arguments with lib relatives if you haven't bought Arguing with Idiots yet.
She points out that all of Bush's most criticized policies are being continued by Obama and often expanded in scope. Then she concludes with the following:
Although some seem to be tireless in their efforts to convince me that I should “hate” President Bush as much as they think I “hate” President Obama, I don’t think we should “hate” anyone, and I am not seriously suggesting that you “should” hate President Obama. I am simply wondering why two men can do very similar (sometimes exactly the same) things, and the first man’s actions can garner your life-long, cockle-warming hate, while the other man’s actions go overlooked and your cockles go agreeably cold.
“Obama might be doing all those things, but at least he’s not Bush!” You say. Right. And Bush was bad again, because…why? Oh, yeah, all those things I mentioned plus the bad economy!
Why would I ever expect consistency, that “hobgoblin of small minds” when your minds are so wide-open and huge. Stupid of me.
I know I’ve just wasted my time asking this question, that you will continue to simply hate Bush; you’ll do that because it’s the easy, mindless thing to do, because it will keep you aboard the bandwagon with all the cool kids, and never mind where the wagon is going. But please don’t expect me to take your flaming righteousness all that seriously.
Posted by Pauli at 10/13/2009 10:41:00 AM 3 comments
Labels: Anchoress, Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, duh, kids
Ronald Kessler quotes liberal press outlets to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the award being given to the President.
From the liberal Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the Washington Post and the Times of London, opinion makers have denounced the decision as a joke, spotlighting the fact that to date Obama has only hot air to show for his efforts at world peace.
"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent,” the Times of London said. “It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush administration. The prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronizing in its intentions, and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun the period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”
...
The Washington Post editorialized, “It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree. In blessing President Obama, the Nobel Committee intended to boost what it called his ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.’ A more suitable time for the prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit.”
Posted by Pauli at 10/13/2009 08:34:00 AM 3 comments
Labels: absurdity, Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, embarrassment, Ronald Kessler
There was a guy passing out leaflets to promote "Open Carry" at the Canton Tea Party I attended last month. These folks are well-meaning, and I don't want to stand in their way. However, I have a few problems with their agenda. The leaflet I read—and as far as I can tell, the Open Carry movement as a whole—focuses on the fight against the anti-gun fanatics and the liberal agenda to call for handgun bans and take away through excessive regulation and bad interpretation the rights the Second Amendment provides to every citizen. And that's a worthy battle.
But they are in danger of losing sight of something important which is gained by carrying a concealed weapon and is likewise lost by carrying a revealed weapon, i.e., tactical advantage. This excerpt from an excellent piece on the subject by Phillip L. Smith explains it well.
Here's the scenario: It's 9:25 p.m. and you're last in line at the ice cream shop. Unknown to you, two perps have been watching the clerk make the evening deposit for the last 3 days. The perps think it is too risky trying to rob the clerk while he is dropping the deposit bag in the bank's well lit and patrolled night depository, so they decide a quick armed robbery at closing time is in order. You've lived in Arizona all your life and are quite aware of the law which allows open carry and you even think its macho and a good idea. Who would ever give trouble to a person who carries an open hand gun on their side? Well, you are about to find out. The robbers burst in the front door and what do they see? A scared teenager armed only with an ice cream dipper, AND you, with your 1911 strapped to your side.
Since they perceive you will draw your handgun, they fire first, and you drop to the floor without having drawn your weapon. Is it fair—no! Is it real—yes! Time for the big question: "What did you do wrong that ended up costing you your life?" You laid your Aces on the table while you were playing poker—You gave up an extremely important tactical advantage by displaying your sidearm thereby broadcasting the exact location of a hindrance to a criminal's evil intent. The greatest tactical advantage you possess is surprise! You lose that advantage when you wear your firearm openly. You can also lose the advantage by flashing (allowing it to be seen), by printing (allowing the outline of the gun to be seen), or by bragging to everyone that you carry a concealed weapon. Would the scenario be different if your handgun was concealed? Probably so, although you might be missing your wallet and a little pride, but the advantage gained is that you survived a deadly confrontation! Never give up your advantage of surprise. The only person who should ever know about your handgun is a perp trying to take you down.
People new to concealed carry often have a personal problem with the stealth required to conceal and carry a handgun. Confusing stealth with "being sneaky" can lead to feelings of dishonesty or even guilt. After all, hiding something from the people around you is being sneaky, right? Yes and no, depending on your intentions. Are you trying to actively deceive and harm those around you, or are you actively trying to protect an extremely important tactical advantage?
Posted by Pauli at 10/12/2009 09:29:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: 2nd amendment, common sense, Defending Your Family, tactics
The more I think about this concept, the better it sounds.
For the price of a three-bedroom home with a pool in a leafy suburb, you can now buy something really and truly invaluable. Your own stadium seat.
Earlier this month, the boards of regents at the University of Kansas and the University of California-Berkeley approved plans to fund stadium expansions and renovations by selling something called "equity seat rights." Fans who are approved for financing can buy their seats and pay for them—with interest, of course—over as long as 50 years. Once the seat is paid for, it's yours, just like a house.
If this "mortgage" model catches on, it will mark a radical departure from the past, when most new stadiums were financed with a combination of taxpayer dollars, private loans and corporate sponsorships.
Cal plans to sell about 3,000 seats under the plan and hopes to raise $270 million. The school's best seats cost $175,000 to $220,000 apiece over a 50-year term, while the cheapest sell for $40,000 per seat for a 40-year term. "Without this program, I don't see any way we could secure the funds," said Cal associate athletic director David Rosselli. "We needed a different approach."
David Freddoso points out a no-brainer, a win-win-win, a common sense approach—whatever you want to call it—to save $54 billion on health care as proposed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. It's basically a tort reform approach, which means that Obama and most Democrats will automatically be against it since shutting off the money spigot to their big lawyer donors does not represent "change they can believe in". Excerpt:
The list of reforms that CBO considered includes:
- A reform of "joint and several liability." This means that instead of putting one "deep-pocketed" defendant on the hook for everything, each defendant would pay only his fair share according to his liability.
- A $250,000 cap on non-economic damages.
- A cap on punitive damages equal to $500,000 or twice economic damages, whichever is greater.
- A claw-back of money already recovered from insurers.
- A limit on the percentage of judgements and settlements that trial lawyers can pocket.
The CBO report cites studies that already show reduced Medicare costs in states where some or all of these liability reforms have already been implemented. The conclusion:In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years.
CBO says that the reforms would also increase tax revenues by $13 billion, as premiums drop and a greater share of employees' income becomes taxable take-home pay. The bottom line for the federal government is $54 billion over ten years, including $11 billion this year.
Posted by Pauli at 10/11/2009 06:13:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: common sense, lawyers, obamacare, tort reform
For me, this article first produces a feeling of deep irony. Then it sort of turns into validation; I've always argued that people with means and/or determination will never wait in line for health care. When there's a will there's a way and a means to finance it.
Then my feelings turn toward fear at the last sentence in this paragraph:
Let's hope that by then Canada has expanded its own private option, so Americans will one day be able to visit Alberta for faster, better care. Unless Congress bars that too.