Wesley Willis sings Jesus Christ

Why isn't this in the missalette? Better than anything those losers from St. Louis ever wrote.

Rhymes with "I need a gun"

Saint Mother Teresa gets compared to a mass murderer. Great laugh line, too. I'll have to remember that.


Mao Tse Tung was a piece of shit who killed Americans along with 70 million Chinese people.

What should be done with this woman? Early retirement? Pull the ejection lever, Barack.

Truther Friend Update

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.

More on Obamanobel Awesomeness

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."

"Decapitation is not somethin' you could afford"

A genius of rhythm. Warning: explicit lyrics.


Guru "Lost And Found" from East Coast Digital Radio on Vimeo.
Whether or not Guru knows what he's saying, one thing is for sure: he knows how to say it. Wonder what Eric Burdon thinks? Personally, I'd be flattered, but that's me.

Who needs a nail gun when you have the Anchoress?

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.

Kessler on Obama Nobel Prize

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.”

It's all interesting to me that liberals are miffed and embarrassed about this dubious choice for the peace prize. But most serious people have been laughing about the Nobel Prize since 1994 when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat. Of course, the Nobel Committee did make him share it with two Israelis which I'm sure he appreciated. I don't know if Arafat was the first homosexual to receive the peace prize or not.

Tactical Advantage Versus "Open Carry"

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?

It seems the open carriers are forgetting about why we pack in the first place: bad guys. Because they exist and could be anywhere, you may as well paint a target on yourself when you carry a weapon openly in some situations, as the story points out. Ironically, the gun control fanatics make the same omission. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of the threat from violent criminals whether or not weapon possession is legal. Likewise, the Open Carry proponents downplay the threat from bad people who can see you are carrying a $500.00 piece around.

One of the arguments the open carry leaflet tried to advance was that if enough good people were carrying openly, the others would realize "Hey, people who carry guns aren't that bad! They're actually really cool! They're just ordinary folk, you know, except they like to exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms!" Come on, guys. Carrying openly is just going to place you into a weirdo subgroup. Unrealistic optimism and guns don't mix any better than drunkenness and driving. I don't know if belief in this theory is due to excessive jocundity stemming from being able to admire and/or show off a favorite pistol every 10 minutes, or just good old fashioned wishful thinking, but regardless they need to take a breath and come back down to earth. Do the normal things citizens are supposed to be doing. Support law enforcement, vote, learn the laws, talk to local politicians, get a concealed carry license, write to the newspaper.... Maybe these people should get into law enforcement or become security guards. Or would that sound too dangerous to them?

Equity Seat Rights

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."

Back in the mid-nineties when I lived in Pittsburgh, people were trying to get tax levies passed to fund two new stadiums. The strategies I remember being deployed to talk the voters into passing the levies were having hometown media heroes cry on television about how awful Three Rivers was and radio DJ's prophesying economic catastrophe if we didn't vote to start paying higher retail prices. It was amusing to hear residents living in the buckle of the Rust Belt being preached to about financial collapse seemingly two decades after the fact. The resounding NO from voters didn't keep the sports industrial complex down for long, and ketchup and bank people stepped up to the plate several years later. Plus a bunch of people bought rubble from the demolished hallows of the immaculate reception. I'd say they were trying to lend credence to the famous saying about suckers, but I clearly remember spending $10 or so on an undersized screen-printed hand towel at one point in my life.

This incident reminds me of another which took place in Pittsburgh at about the same time. I recall a small crowd at the software office where I worked gathered around a sales guy who was pulling up his pant leg, accompanied by hushed "oohs" and "aaahs". As I moved closer, a 4-inch diameter, full color Steelers logo was revealed to be tattooed on the outside of his semi-shaved calf. Proud of his permanent, coaster-sized branding he announced, "Now they'd better win, dammit!" Was he a season ticket-holder? Stupid question.

Looking back on this it's fairly obvious that this guy and his cronies should be paying for sports stadiums. And this "Sports Mortgage" idea seems to be just the thing to facilitate their love and devotion. I know that I benefit from the stadiums whenever I get around to watching a game. But since I've bought several nice overpriced Steelers shirts in my time, methinks I can say honestly say that I "gave at the office", at least enough to cover my small slice of entertainment taken.

This makes too much sense

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.

It's been nice, eh

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.

I'm not too scared, however. I always remind myself that I'm part of an angry mob of unruly Americans who are willing to kill to get our way.