Thursday, May 29, 2008

Obscene Profits?

It dawned on me Monday morning as I read the reports of the top earners for movies over the holiday weekend, and now I've remembered it and wondered. What will Hillary or Barry do about the obscene profits of film makers? "Indiana Jones", "Iron Man", "Prince Caspian" and others did rather well, I'd say. Let's take those profits and...

Stark Difference

I offer this essay not as a direct answer to the question Dan asks at Eric's blog, but in answer to the sentiment that motivates it. Tell me this ain't Thinkin'.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Almost, But No Cigar, IMHO

I recently agreed to review a few of Vinny's posts wherein he believes he has victoriously pointed out blatant falsehoods or mistakes of local radio hostess Sandy Rios. She is also president of Culture Campaign, a Fox news contributor, and a sometime columnist at The thread in question concerned the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2, and whether it states that blacks are three-fifths of a person.

Now before I go on, it is on purpose that I have chosen not to reprint the section. It is a good idea for anyone to go and look it up, and better yet, review on occasion our founding documents.

So anyhoo, the complaint was that Rios stated to a caller that the Constitution didn't say that, and that it was in a later court decision. Well, I didn't review the decisions in question and will hereby concede that point to Vinny, that though I feel for the purpose of the discussion Rios was in with the caller, her blunder is a minor point. (Vinny disagrees.)

But as to the Constitution piece, I have to say that I don't believe it does condemn blacks to only 3/5 of a person. Rather, I believe, based on reviewing Federalist 54, that it states they are at least 3/5 of a person. The distinction is important.

At the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the slave owning states (SOS) had a habit of flipping on blacks being either people or property. If it served them to do so, blacks were people. If it served them to do so, they were property. The section in question had to do with apportioning representatives to the states. The SOS decided that they would get more representation if they were to consider blacks as persons equal to anyone else. The non-SOS said, "Whoa, dudes!" (ala Spicoli) "Which is it? Are they people or property?" As Alexander Hamilton put it, to some extent they were both. They were often treated legally as the law treats everyone else, but they were at the same time, owned as property was. For the most part it was totally based on the whim of the slave owner.

But Hamilton argues that they could not be totally on par with free men because they were not free. That's not to say that Hamilton thought they weren't people, but that the law of the states in question treated them as property at least a portion of the time. So the non-SOS insisted that the SOS couldn't have it both ways. The result, as I see it, is that it was decided that blacks were at least 3/5 of a person if not entirely so, and it was then written in the Constitution as such. This guaranteed that they could not be treated as less. Not much consolation if you're a black person, but a sight better than being akin to a chair, and a whole lot better than being whatever the slave owner says you are based on his whim at the moment. A slim distinction to be sure, but what if you were a slave?

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

It’s A Wonderment!

The title of this post comes from a phrase often used by Cole Younger, as played by Cliff Robertson in “The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid”. It applies here to the returning visitor Geoffrey Kruse-Safford (and really, Dan Trabue as well). Here’s a guy that posts on topics that just make my head swim. Philosophy, science, the philosophy of science (or perhaps, the science of philosophy) are often topics into which he dives deeply. There’s no doubt that he is sincerely and totally fascinated with these topics, and he uses his blog to, among other things, explore and discuss these weighty things with his visitors. It’s all very impressive, if you’re into that sort of thing.

But, in a shocking twist, Geoffrey, like Dan, can’t seem to avoid missing obvious points in the opinion pieces of others. It’s really a wonderment!

Case in point: Geoffrey, like Dan, feign confusion in understanding the simple terms of my challenge, which was, once again, to visit, select one of the many Obama related articles there, and defend BARRY against the critiques the author makes. What could be so hard to fathom in this challenge? Three simple steps. Cretins could do it.

But then he makes an attempt. You can read it and his response here. (In the comments section, you’ll find more examples of the difficulty liberals have understanding conservative commentary. Dan attacks the prose of the many fine writers there, as if he’s a journalism professor, rather than stiffening the spine and engaging in substantive rebuttal.)

Geoffrey begins by presenting the article he had chosen and immediately shows he missed the point. He thinks the article was about the religion of Obama’s father. It was not. Bear in mind, I read both the article and Geoffrey’s response to verify what I thought I saw and sure enough, he totally blew it. The article was about the left’s reaction to concerns about Muslim influence in Obama’s life. That’s the main point of the article.

In fact, there are a number of points Geoffrey made that show his lack of understanding in what I found to be an easy to read and understand piece. Here’s a few:

-He wonders as to the relevance of the faith of Obama’s father and compares it to, among other things, Nixon’s mother’s obsessive-compulsive disorder. Yet in the piece, the author shows examples of what relevance there might be. Geoffrey’s confusion is answered right in the article. To wit, what would be the perception of the Muslim world to Obama considering his Muslim connection? Yeah, to us it would seem there should be nothing about which to worry, but we are not devoted Muslims who are coming from an entirely different place.

-He accuses the author of “subtle racism” for mentioning the common practice of
omitting the race of a non-white crime suspect. Is Geoffrey saying that this doesn’t happen? Is he saying that it would never make a difference to a story? It’s certainly happened at least a few times since 9/11 that is, not mentioning that the suspect is Muslim.

Geoffrey then speaks of the middle of the article and that which has been disproved: Barry in a madrassa (perhaps not, but a Muslim school where he learned the religion), that he’s an apostate facing death (perhaps to some radicals, but this is covered in the Robert Spencer quote in the article), Barry’s Islamic middle name (Geoffrey’s right. It’s clearly Swedish), that we’re at war with Islam (Nobody says this. It’s radical Islam we fight. Big difference.)

Geoffrey ends by slamming, which doesn’t surprise. For all his well-read background, he doesn’t display much in the way of understanding what he reads. He attacks it as a source of race baiting and religion knocking and accuses them of school yard tactics. Ironic. Typical.

Friday, May 23, 2008

From McCain's Own State

Geoffrey took up my challenge, but posted it at his own blog "What's Left in the Church". I've been working on my response, which I will post here. There's so much to mock, I mean, to refute, so it's taking some time to compose it without being incredibly long. I tend to glaze over when new threads are too long. I spend too much time visiting blogs as it is without reading book-length posts. (Sorry to all who write them---feel free to carry on as you see fit.)

In the meantime, with a stomach full of Japanese food and saki, I chose to simply relax, do a little light reading and came across this. I had heard of this before and it suggests that the cries that we can't deport all 12-20 million illegals are simply shrill whines. And, surprise, surprise, it's a matter of enforcing laws, as well as passing a few initiatives. Get on the horn with your reps and turn up the heat. If Arizona can have success with this, why not everyone else?

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Blog Roll Addition

Note under "Left Ones" that I have added Vinny's blog, "You Call This Culture?" Give him a read. It's all in the name of fairness and balance and equal time.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Boo Hoo Barry!!

This AOL piece presents a video from the Tennessee Repubican Party that Barry calls "low class". He believes that his wife should be off limits for critique. I'd agree if she wasn't front and center speaking on his behalf and saying silly things about never being proud of the USA until now. This is a terrible whine. If Michelle is bold enough to speak publicly, she, and more so Barry, should be accepting that there may be criticism of what is said. Now if she were to have stayed in the background, as some politicians' spouses do, then the complaint would be valid. But then, there'd likely have been no criticisms of her. Grab a hanky, Barry, and calm down.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

This'll Take Some Time

As my challenge has gone unanswered (beyond mockery and lame excuses), I have taken back the gauntlet and instead have decided to take up the challenge laid down by my man Danny Trabue to review the "plan" of one Barry H. Obamanable. I've already visited his website (Barry's, not Dan's) and reviewed the section entitled "Fiscal". I figured it would be the funniest, so I started there.

Dan was right. There's a lot of words there. I didn't compare it to McCain's site since I don't give a rat's patooty about McCain, other than the fact that he is not Clinton or Obama. But there are lots of words. They're the same old words we hear and have heard from the left for, like, ever, and as far as I can tell so far, there's a curious lack of "how". That is, how is he going to make these things happen, how will they fix what he thinks they will fix, and how will he prevent the results that these ideas have been shown to bring about in the past. But hey, it's early and I just started.

One thing I noted: Dan said that there are links for more info about what he plans to do. I don't know yet about the rest of the site, but the one link I came upon in the Fiscal section took me to a page that simply repeated what was said on the page with the link. Well, that's one way to make the site bigger than McCain's. But it doesn't make it more informative. And as to that, McCain has been in politics for a couple of decades. I think we have a pretty good idea whence he comes.

As the title of this post says, this'll take some time trudge through. It'll be painful. In fact, I already feel it in my backside reading his fiscal policies. But I've a good set of waders and a closepin for my nose, so wish me luck. It's a dirty job...

Saturday, May 17, 2008

I Was Sure I'd Hear Something!

Well gentle readers, I must say that I am greatly disappointed. I put up the challenge to Obama supporters to visit to peruse a few of the many opinion pieces about Barak Obama and then pick one to defend him against the author of the chosen piece. No one picked up the gauntlet. Sure, I know I don't have that many readers. But I was certain that at least one of the lefties who visit had spine enough to step up to the plate. I mean they're all blog readers/hosts, so it's not like they aren't wasting time anyway. The only thing I can take away from this sorry result is that what has been suspected is actually true: Obama is undefensible, and his supporters are afraid to learn who he really is.

This is typical of the left. As we learned during the Bill Clinton campaigns, it's never about character in selecting a president. I mean I get Hashfanatic visiting and using terms like "the Bush crime family" (I always get a chuckle when this guy posts his goofy comments---thanks Hash), but there is never anything to back up such assertions. In the meantime, Barry has numerous questionable alliances, and yet, he gets incredible support from among the left. This tends to support Michael Savage's assertion of liberalism being a mental disease. How could anyone support a guy like Obama with the track record he has? It boggles the mind, and apparently it boggles the minds of the lefties if they can't state why they want to vote for him. Time for a change? (We hear this every election cycle) Change to what? They have no idea. The right has a far better idea of what that change will look like than do Obama supporters.

What Obama is, is any guy off the street, as in, they'll take any guy off the street and make him president. He's got nothing in terms of experience, smarts, ideas or the character to be our next president.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Just A Few Thoughts


I hear today that the California Supreme Court, or whatever they call them there, has rendered a 4-3 decision allowing for homosexual marriage. This, after they the people, had just a few years ago voted overwhelmingly in support of traditional marriage. Dan Trabue must be hacked big time to see "we the people" ignored and overruled by four unelected people. For the next 30 days, California has no definition for marriage. Only an amendment to their constitution will stop this judicial activism. May God have mercy on California and the four judges who abused their power.


John McCain has unveiled his plan for dealing with global climate change. Between this and his amnesty plans, I'll really have to pinch my nose closed when I punch his number in November. It's a good thing he insists on keeping taxes low and attacking earmarks. The tax dollars that will be flushed on such stupid legislation have to come from somewhere. He speaks of all those scientists concerned with GW, but doesn't speak at all about all those who know that the Gore version of events is crap.


Of all the wacky things Dan likes to actually say he believes in, and I give him props for sticking with it despite its wackiness, there is one thing I had to think about for a few seconds. That would be his belief that we should be spending money on education opportunities for those in prison. He has some research that claims the recidivism rate is lower for those convicts given training or education while incarcerated. Well, here's my problem with this: They already were given a free education in our fantastic public school system. What did they do with it? So this is how I would tweak Dan's idea. I would charge the con for the schooling. They would pay for the education with their income from the job they get as a result of their training. Non-payment would put their asses back in the slammer for theft of services. Personal responsibility requires this alteration.


Though I defend him often, mostly because he deserves such defense when I do, George Bush has not been the president I thought he would be. Oh, he was far and away the better choice in both 2000 and 2004. Of that there's no doubt. But for all his good points, he has made some bad moves. Harriet Myers, amnesty for illegals, and stuff like that. But against the three left standing (and I don't count the candidates out there who have no chance of winning anything), I would vote for George in a heartbeat. Without question.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

An Illustration

This from
is a fine illustration of the difference between right and left. It also gives a fair look at the lib thought process. Like ER, the author prefers to remain anonymous for career reasons, and that's too bad. But it doesn't diminish the soundness of his perspective.

Friday, May 09, 2008

Here's A Bit O Fun!

This offering from Real Clear Politics addresses a silly statement, make that a "stupid" statement, made by Barry O. recently. The statement...

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

...gave me pause. About what was he talking? To which despot did any of these guys speak before war? Turns out, as I believed, there were none. So the question becomes, did he knowingly say something that wasn't true, or is he simply that stupid to speak of what he doesn't know and do so as if no one at all is paying attention? I hope he didn't get too jacked over Hillary's "sniper fire" comments. is a routine stop for me, as I find their contributors to be astute observers of what's going on politically. It was through this site that I came across the above RCP piece. Naturally, as a conservative site, there are a lot of columns regarding Obama and what a profound chucklehead he really is. I could link to a lot of articles and create posts around them as I've done now and then, but there are just so many for that to be practical. What I'd like to encourage, however, is for anyone interested, particularly my left-leaning readers, to visit there and peruse a handful of Obama related articles and then come here and defend Obama against the author. Right-wingers can expound on why they agree if they so choose. Provide either a link to the article, or the title and date when it was published. I'll assume that should no lefty take me up on the challenge, that AmericanThinker's contributors have opined on what is indefensible regarding Barry O. The more I read, the more I feel he is the most terrible choice for any really thinking individual to support. Some conservatives have said something to the effect that, "I'm sure he's a nice guy, but..." I don't think that's the case at all.

Monday, May 05, 2008

Another "No Duh!" Commentary

This opinion piece re-iterates what should be a slam dunk for everyone with a mind. I particularly like the faux sign posted along with it. It speaks volumes on the stupidity of gun control and gun-free zones. I think that if any school or business wants to consider their property a gun-free zone, they should require that all who must be there must wear a tee shirt with targets on the front and back.

There are so many stupid, and I mean REALLY stupid, arguments against concealed carry. A couple of favorites include: "It'll turn into the wild west!" and "So if someone wants to carry a bazooka, you think it's OK?" I usually laugh when I hear people say stupid things like these, but it's really not funny any more. For the first lame quote, a simple examination of all states allowing concealed carry would show just how stupid the comment is. It just hasn't happened. The second quote, far more stupid than the first, doesn't need a response. It's that stupid.

The whole notion that there is no way to decipher the 2nd Amendment properly in order to allow for self-defense is probably the most stupid suggestion of all. The founders were prolific writers and speakers. We know for certain that the amendment meant self-defense, period. I commit to searching through my dusty and cobwebbed archives of stuff saved over the years for a gun magazine that spent about a half dozen pages supporting this very point. Wish me luck. If I'm not out in two weeks, send for help.