Garry Reed (The Price of Liberty) gives ten reasons to love global warming. I found an eleventh reason in yesterday’s paper:
© Copyright 2007 King Features Syndicate.
P.S. Ten more reasons to love global warming.
Category: Humor – Satire – Wry Commentary
Election 2008: Bad News, Good News
The bad news about Super Tuesday II is the Clinton resurgence.
The good news is a veritable dead heat between Clinton and Obama, which probably guarantees a mud-fest between now and the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
The bad news is the amount of air time that will be devoted to Clinton and Obama.
The good news is that either Clinton’s or Obama’s “base” will be ticked off by what is said about their favorite candidate, and by the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary. The other good news: possible Obama-Clinton fatigue among all but die-hard Democrats.
The bad news is that Clinton and Obama might then quickly cut a deal, that is, Clinton for president, Obama for vice president.
The good news is that Obama’s “black base” will be ticked off by being pushed to the back of the bus by an uppity white woman.
The bad news is that John McCain will be almost invisible to swing voters until the GOP convention (September 1-4).
The good news is John McCain may seem like a fresh face to a lot of swing voters by the time he becomes the GOP’s official nominee.
Choices
It seems likely that, come November, voters will face with a choice between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (or suicide).
The last time voters faced such an abysmal choice in a presidential election was in 1996: Clinton (the other one) vs. Bob (tax collector for the welfare state) Dole. Before that, in 1992, there was G.H.W. (read my lips) Bush vs. the other Clinton and H. Ross Pee-rot (as it’s pronounced in Texas). Suicide was very appealing in those days.
How about 1972? Nixon vs. McGovern: sleaze vs. socialism. Don’t like that choice? Try 1968, with Nixon vs. Humphrey vs. Wallace: sleaze vs. socialism vs. state-enforced segregation.
That’s as far back as I care to go on this trip down memory lane. If I go back too far, I’ll remember that I voted for LBJ in 1964. Argh!
Mr. Laffer Speaks…
…and he is right:
Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and years until a new Harding, Kennedy or Reagan comes along.
Related post: “The Laffer Curve, ‘Fiscal Responsibility,’ and Economic Growth” (26 Oct 2007)
Drinking and Voting
Is it necessary to drink heavily before voting for a Democrat? The answer seems to be “yes,” based on the results of the 2004 presidential election:
Sources: Share of popular vote, by State, derived from this page at Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Index of alcohol consumption (total of beer, wine, and spirits) in 2005, by State, derived from “Per capita ethanol consumption for States, census regions, and the United States, 1970–2005” at the website of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health.
The four most bibulous (not Bible-reading) jurisdictions are Delaware (index of 2.59), Nevada (2.83), the District of Columbia (3.05), and New Hampshire (3.26). New Hampshirites should change their motto, “Live Free or Die,” to “Live Hard and Die Cold.”
The Power of a Woman’s Tears
It’s not hard to believe that Hillary Clinton won the Democrat primary in New Hampshire because of the tears she shed (or almost shed) the day before the primary. Her mediagenic emotional moment must have garnered sympathy from many a female voter — perhaps from many of them who hadn’t planned to vote, until the tears welled up.
It’s as if a goodly fraction of the women of New Hampshire rose up and said, “We are woman…we cry.” This is a qualification for office?
Why Popularity Is a Bad Thing
A popular phenomenon (a song, a political movement, a cliché, an item of merchandise, a TV show or movie) is one that a large fraction of the population enjoys, endorses, practices, purchases, or watches. The fans, followers, speakers, buyers, and watchers who make a phenomenon popular are of two types: those who find intrinsic merit in the thing; those who find merit in adhering to what is popular. On which half of the population do you suppose the popularity of a thing mainly depends: the more intelligent half or the less intelligent half?
Now, do you really think popularity is a good thing?
Racism among the Deracinated
John Ray points to a story at Telegraph.co.uk:
Student’s ‘English bash’ deemed racist
A student at a university that prides itself on being among the most multicultural in Britain has been branded “racist” after distributing invitations to an “English party”.
Rugby captain Timothy McLellan has been forced to apologise after pinning up posters around the campus promising the event would have “no bongos, shisha pipes or Arabic music”.
The 20-year-old law student had intended the flyer to be a joke poking fun at parties held at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, which typically have an ethnic theme.
McLellan apologized, of course, saying (in part):
The choice of the word ‘English’, which I now regret, was not intended to mean that it was a party for white English students but was rather intended to express that the party’s vibe reflected England’s mainstream culture, which in itself is not racially exclusive.
Well, mainstream English culture may or may not be “racially exclusive,” but it is (as McLellan clearly implies) substantially different than the cultures celebrated at the School of Oriental and African Studies.
The incident reminds me of one that I witnessed 25 years ago, when I was, for a while, taking a bus to work. The regular bus driver was a white gentleman of Southern extraction. Most of the passengers were Asians and West Indian blacks who attended a community college located near a stop toward the end of the bus route. My stop was the last one on the route.
It was usual for everyone on the bus but me to disgorge at the stop located near the community college. One day, after the students has swarmed from the bus, the driver turned to me and said “I think I’ll go to Germany, where I can see some Americans.” (This was, of course, before the Muslim invasion of Western Europe.)
I understand what the bus driver felt, just as I sympathize with Timothy McLellan. There is — or was — a mainstream American culture,* just as there is — or was — a mainstream English culture. It is now de rigeur to deride those cultures and to say that their proponents and practitioners are insensitive racists. What does that make the proponents and practitioners of sub-cultures and imported cultures, especially those whose aim is the overthrow of the mainstream culture?
Mainstream Americans and Englishmen, arise. Shake off your apologetic airs. Assert your cultural pride. Illegitimi non carborundum.
_________
* The American mainstream was: upper lower-class (i.e., non-redneck) to upper middle-class; against welfare (charity was for the helpless and hopeless, and it began at home); for punishment (as opposed to excuses about poverty, etc.); overtly religious or respectful of religion (and, in either case, generally respectful of the last six of the Ten Commandments); personally responsible (stuff happens, and it’s rarely someone else’s fault); polite and helpful to strangers; patriotic (the U.S. was better than other countries and not beholden to international organizations, wars were to be fought to victory); and anti-socialist (being anti-communist was a given). Racist views, to the extent they were held, were expressed only to people one knew well (and who were of a like mind); such views were not acted upon violently or even impolitely. The “f” word and similar expletives were closeted, as well. Homosexuality and “shacking up” were disgraceful novelties, not “lifestyles” to be venerated.
Mainstream Americans might have been white or black, Christian or Jewish, rural or urban, college-educated or not, but the mainstream was wide. I knew mainstreamers well. They were to be found on main street, in side streets, and even in universities — often among the faculty. They abounded in public education, where they taught mainstream values.
The mainstream began to dry up when universities began to spew forth “educators” whose beliefs run contrary to those recited above (i.e., for welfare, against punishment, etc., etc., etc.). Those “educators” have long since done the bidding of anti-mainstream élites, in and out of academia. Thus the mainstream is now a relative trickle in an arid valley of Leftist sentiments, which have become so commonplace that they are parroted even by persons who do not consider themselves Leftists.
Austin: Not the Live Music Captial of the World
The City of Austin likes to claim that Austin is “The Live Music Capital of the World.” I suppose that’s a more palatable claim than the more apt description, “The People’s Republic of Austin.” That moniker is owed to the predilections of Austin’s all-Democrat city council, which dispenses taxpayers’ money like manna from city hall, itself a monstrous monument to Austin’s commissariat:
In any event, Austin is not the live music capital of the world. It isn’t even the live music capital of the U.S., according to a new study of the music industry in the nation’s 50 most populous metropolitan areas:
- Figure 4 of that study indicates that Austin ranks fourth in the number of musicians employed in the music industry per 1,000 residents. The top three: Nashville (first by a wide margin), New York, Los Angeles.
- Figure 6 indicates that Austin ranks fourth in the total number of persons directly employed in the music industry per 1,000 residents. The top three: Nashville (first by a wide margin), Los Angeles, New York.
- Austin is among the laggards in absolute numbers of musicians, other industry employees, number of establishments, payrolls, and revenues (figures 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11).
It’s evident that Austin is not the capital of anything, when it comes to music. It may be the capital of smugness, though San Francisco, Manhattan, and a few other places are probably in Austin’s class (and I don’t mean “classy”).
Austin is the capital of Texas. Well, more precisely, the Capitol of Texas is in Austin. But that’s a historical accident. Austin is to the rest of Texas (Houston excepted) as George W. Bush is to MoveOn.org.
The U.S. Postal "Service": Inaction
The following is actual correspondence between me and USPS.
UPDATED, BELOW
From me to USPS – 07/25/2007 05:36 PM:
On Tuesday, July 17, I handed a hold mail authorization form to a letter carrier as he delivered mail to my address. In that form, I authorized the holding of my mail beginning Thursday, July 19, and the delivery of all held mail on Wednesday, July 25.
[My local post office] failed to comply with my request. A neighbor checked my mail box on Saturday, July 21, and found it full of mail, which she kindly collected and held for me. When I returned late in the day on Tuesday, July 24, I checked my mailbox and found mail in it. All I received today, July 25, when all of my held mail was to be delivered, was three pieces of junk mail.
It is evident that the mail collected by my neighbor on July 21 and by me on July 24 comprised all of the mail that was delivered from July 19 through July 24, when [my local post office] was supposed to be holding my mail.
It is possible, of course, that some of the mail delivered from July 19 through July 24 was stolen. Why? Because [my local post office] failed to hold my mail from July 19 through July 24 as I had requested in writing on July 17.
From USPS to me – 07/26/2007 12:06 AM
Thank you for contacting us regarding your Hold Mail Request.
I apologize your request was not honored, and thank you for taking the time to let us know about your situation.
I will be happy to document this complaint. However, I need some additional information so this can be sent to the correct office and you can be contacted. Please reply to this email with the following information:
– Your home telephone number
– Whether you would like to receive a call regarding this issue (There is no guarantee that further information can be provided via email.)If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®.
Regards,
Patricia S
(Dig that part about “choosing” USPS.)
From me to USPS – 07/26/2007 8:25 PM
My home telephone number is xxx-xxx-xxxx.
I may be contacted by phone, if necessary.
The purpose of my complaint is not to place blame on anyone, for I do not know precisely where the fault lies. But I would like to know what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem. It is unacceptable for mail to be delivered when I have requested a hold. This is not the first such failure. I have not logged previous failures, but I have begun to keep a log, beginning with the events of July 19-24.
From USPS to me – 7/26/2007 08:34 PM
Thank you for responding with the requested information.
I am sending this information to your Post Office™ for immediate attention. You should receive a call by the end of the next business day. If you need to contact me again regarding this issue, please refer to the following confirmation number: xxxxxxxxxx.
If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®.
Regards,
Patricia S
(There’s that “choosing” bit again. Note, also, that “Patricia S” replied to me at 12:06 a.m. and 8:34 p.m. of the same day. “Patty” sure does work long hours — hah! If there is really a “Patricia S,” she probably works the night shift, shoveling the s____ that rains on USPS at the end of each day from the many “satisfied” customers who “chose” USPS.)
From me to USPS – 08/01/07 03:58 PM
Four business days have elapsed since your most recent missive, in which you said that I “should receive a call by the end of the next business day.” As I said in an earlier e-mail, I would like to know what steps will be taken to prevent the delivery of my mail after I have requested a hold. I really would.
From USPS to me – 08/01/07 03:58 PM [How’s that for “responsiveness”?]
Thank you for contacting the United States Postal Service. We have received your inquiry and will be sending a detailed response to you within 1-2 business days.
I’m not holding my breath. Updates may or may not follow.
UPDATE (08/02/07, 3:50 p.m.): I was finally contacted, today, by someone from my local post office. The short of it is this: There is a system (something called “notification cards”) for informing carriers (substitutes as well as regulars) about hold-mail requests. But…surprise, surprise…notification cards aren’t always used or, if used, heeded by all the carriers who might be assigned to cover a route.
What will be done about the problem? “We’ll try to do better in the future and give you the service you deserve,” saith the representative of my local post office.
I bet there’s mail in my mailbox the next time I return from a trip. Anyone want to take that bet?
Wordplay
There is laughter in slaughter, but there ought to be naught.
When rain is naught there is a drought, the thirst of which can be quenched by a draught.
Enough is enough, especially when it’s a cough that comes with a cold caught by sitting in a draught.
When the wind soughs the boughs wave gently.
He bends before her in a deep bow before sloughing his coat and bending his bow to take aim at a bough on a tree that stands in a distant slough.
A daughter’s laughter softens even a rough, tough crofter.
What I Said . . .
. . . here, Mallard Fillmore underscores:
How "24" Should Have Ended
Here’s how “24” ended:
- Jack Bauer and the treacherous Christopher Henderson take out the terrorists who had captured a Russian missile sub (moored conveniently in Los Angeles harbor), from which the terrorists were planning to shoot missiles at major American cities. (San Francisco, presumably wasn’t a target because it’s not a major American city.)
- Henderson volunteers to shut down the missle launch sequence (doesn’t that phrase ring authoritatively?), in exchange for immunity (stupid, stupid), but demands that Jack give him a gun because he doesn’t trust Jack. Jack agrees to the immunity (talk is free) and gives Henderson a gun. Henderson starts shutting down the missile launch sequence (wow!) — and it’s up to him because the Navy can’t launch (there’s that word, again) an attack on the sub before the missiles launch (and again).
- Henderson shuts down the missile launch sequence (I love it!) and tries to bushwack Jack, but (click) Henderson’s gun isn’t loaded. Jack shoots him — dead — because Henderson had accepted an unloaded gun from Jack. (First mistake Henderson makes all day, but it’s a doozy.)
- Next, Jack has to get the reptilian President Logan to confess his involvement in the whole megillah. How can Jack do that? By taking command of the presidential helicopter (see below) and by making Logan believe that he (Jack) is going to shoot him (Logan) if he (Logan) doesn’t confess. Jack almost pulls the trigger, then relents. Logan thinks he (Logan) is off the hook. But the real plan is for Logan to carry a micro-transmitter that Jack has cunningly placed into a Mont Blanc ballpoint pen that’s a replica of the one Logan usually carries. (Jack, of course, manages to switch pens during the aforementioned confrontation.) Now, how is Jack going to get Logan to speak into the Mont Blanc pen?
- That’s where Mrs. (Ms. ?) Logan comes in (so to speak). Earlier she had tricked Pres. Reptile into believing that she still had the hots for him. Her real purpose being to delay the helicopter flight long enough for Jack to trick his way into commandeering it. (She succeeds because, Pres. Reptile is — after only — only human.) After Jack pulls the pen switch and releases Pres. Reptile, Ms. L. confronts him (Pres. Reptile) and gets him to talk into the gimmicked up pen.
- Chloe O’Brien, of course, records Pres. R’s confession, and plays it for the attorney general. The AG then tells federal marshals to arrest Pres. R. The presidential Secret Service detail goes along with this. Call it professional courtesy.
- Jack is ready to fade into the sunset — after a smooch or two with Audrey — but he’s tricked into answering a phone call from his estranged daughter, Kim, who had gone off in a huff several hours earlier because Jack had failed to tell her that he was really alive. (See, when this season began, Jack was pretending to be dead because the Chinese were after him for something he had done last season. And everyone in the world, except Kim, knew that Jack was alive — and she was so angry that Jack hadn’t clued her in that she quit speaking to him. That’ll teach him to play dead.)
- Anyway, there isn’t a phone call from Kim — just a bunch of Chinese persons (hah, you thought I was going to say “Chinks”) who jumped on Jack, beat him to a bloody pulp, and put him on . . . a slow boat to China.
- End of season. (Of course I left out a lot, including the re-appearance of Morris O’Brien, Chloe’s ex-husband, who in fact had never before appeared in the series, and who was in such putative disgrace that he had gone from being a member of CTU to selling shoes in Beverly Hills. It looks like he and Chloe may get back together. Perhaps there will be more O’Briens next season. I also left out the mysterious, bald geek who spent a lot of time on phone with Pres. R during the last several hours of the series. What’s with him? No one knows, perhaps all will be revealed next season.)
Here’s how it should have ended:
- Jack saves time by shooting Henderson at the outset. He is then able to call in an air strike to blow up the sub — terrorists, missiles, and all — before the missiles are launched.
- Jack shoots Pres. R, after getting him to divulge the name, location, and function of the bald geek.
- Jack shoots the bald geek and the other weirdos who have been hanging out with him (the bald geek).
- Jack shoots Audrey because she should be dead anyway, having lost 15 million pints of blood after Henderson had cut one of her arteries several hours earlier.
- Jack shoots everyone else, including the Chinese persons who try to kidnap him. No witnesses, no laundry.
- Jack commandeers the Chinese persons’ boat, and he and Ms. Logan sail off . . . on a slow boat to Tahiti.
The Media . . . in the Beginning
AP/Reuters/NY Times News Service/Washington Post New Service/etc., etc.
SOMEWHERE IN SPACE-TIME – A massive explosion rocked the Universe earlier today. Gaseous matter, carried by intense shock waves, promptly began moving outward from the source of the explosion, quickly reaching the speed of light. This unparalleled phenomenon threatens to fill the void with mysterious and probably poisonous pollutants. Experts say that in a matter of days the Universe will be transformed unless the government takes immediate steps to locate those responsible for the explosion and negotiate a peaceful settlement of their grievances. A clamp-down on Big Bang emissions is also being considered.
Slogans for Our Time
UPDATED BELOW
Republican James G. Blaine probably lost the presidential election of 1884 to Democrat Grover Cleveland because Blaine failed to repudiate a Protestant minister who characterized the Democrat Party as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.” (If the significance of that phrase isn’t obvious to you, read this.) The backlash among Irish Catholics apparently tipped New York’s electoral votes, and the election, to Cleveland.
All of that is by way of introduction to these updated versions of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion”:
“Buggery, Baby-killing, and Bush-bashing”
“Taxes, Terrorism, and Timidity”
Give me a week and I might come up with something equally offensive to Republicans.
UPDATE: It didn’t take a week, though I do have to change the rhetorical style. The Republican Party is the party of
“Mirthless, Mediocre Milquetoasts”
For good measure, the Libertarian Party is the party of
“Pot, Puerility, and Powerlessness”
O(kay) Canada!
With apologies to my Canadian friends for some cheap jokes at the expense of Canada.
Okay, so Canada’s Conservative Party will succeed the Liberal Party as the largest minority in Parliament. It looks like the Conservatives have picked up about 25 seats in Parliament while the Liberals may have lost 30 seats. That’s a big swing. It was made possible, in large part, by the financial scandals* surrounding the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. But I think it also reflects some degree of discontent with Canada’s politically correct, anti-American, anti-defense, socialistic policies.
I suppose there were many Canadian celebrities (an oxymoron?) and other Leftists who vowed — like their Hollywood counterparts — to leave Canada should Conservatives gain control of the government. But where will those Leftists go? Not to Bush country, that’s for sure. Britain’s not a good bet, either, given Tony Blair’s “unseemly” determination to defeat terrorism. France is out, now that Chirac has vowed to nuke a terrorist-sponsoring state if terrorists attack France.
The resurgence of Canada’s Conservative Party also puts the damper on loose talk among American Leftists about moving to Canada. (Talk that is quickly quelled by the reality of actually living in Canada.)
I think all of that points to the only viable option for Canadian and American Leftists: They must walk toward the Great Lakes and meet each other halfway (in the middle of the lakes, that is).
__________
* I didn’t actually follow the financial scandals that plagued Paul Martin. It’s hard to take Canada seriously when it comes to money: Canada’s $1 coin is known as the Loonie 🙂
Too Many Shots
No, not too many shots of bourbon. Too many injections of vaccine in one day: tetanus/diptheria/pertussis, pneumococcal conjugate, and inactivated influenza. That was yesterday morning. By last night I began to experience the side effects: fever, aches, tiredness. They’re still with me today.
Well, getting all three shots in one office visit does mean fewer trips to the doc and less money out of pocket for co-payments. And it’s not like I have a real job to slog through. And a shot or two of bourbon in the evening does help to alleviate the aches. Thanks, doc.
An Insensitive Proposal, or Two
A recent post at Wizbang led me to these observations about parking for handicapped persons:
Unused handicapped parking spaces should be converted to planters for attractive, environmentally correct trees and shrubs (preferably of flowering varieties). Alternatively, all of those unused parking spaces could be metered for general use at, say, $5 an hour. I have no doubt that the spaces would be in almost constant use non-handicapped drivers, most of whom would actually put money in the meters. The proceeds could then be used to provide taxi rides for handicapped drivers, most of whom (in my experience) are a menace to other drivers.
All’s Fair in Love and Cycling
Tom Smith of The Right Coast — a bicyclist himself — suggests the following antidote for drivers who like to “swoosh” close to cyclists:
If every one in 10 cyclists or so was packing, maybe another little part of the brain-like organ in the driver would think, “Uhnn. He has a gun. Mebbee I shouldn’t sceer him.”
I’ll go along with that, if Smith will go concede the right of motorists to shoot those cyclists who (a) cross intersections against the light, (b) insist on traveling in the traffic lane when there’s a clear shoulder or parking lane available, and (c) insist on riding two (or more) abreast in a bicycle lane, thus intruding on the traffic lane.
While I’m on the subject: Walkers on hike-bike trails (usually clearly marked to indicate that pedestrians take precedence) should be able to shoot cyclists who insist on making known their disdain for walkers by veering close to them in passing.
Let he who is without blame fire the first bullet.
DWI
DWI usually means “driving while intoxicated.” The more common offense, however, is “driving while incompetent.” I’ve just returned from a quick round of errands, during which I observed a young female driver who:
- Pulled up to a drive-by mailbox and then had to fumble for her mail. (Old female drivers are usually the ones who have to fumble for their mail when they pull up to a drive-by mailbox.)
- Threw her mail in a slot and only then looked to see that she had used an “Express Mail” box.
- Pulled forward and paused for a moment as if she were thinking about backing up (and into my car) in order to reach into the mailbox for her miscast mail.
- Made an “Austin stop” (that is, slowed down) before pulling onto the street.
- Proceeded to make an illegal U-turn and looped out into the traffic lane in order to do so, instead of staying in the turning lane. (“Well, officer, how was I supposed to make an illegal U-turn without making a illegal turning maneuver?”)
- Capped her performance by sporting an opaque “Kerry-Edwards” bumper sticker in her rear window (illegally, I’m sure).
Not counting her gender and relative youth against her (no sexist or agist am I), the young woman is at least a six-time loser. But I saw her in action for only a few minutes. Think what the rest of her life must be like.
Perhaps she is kind to her mother. But I have no reason to believe that, given her evident disregard for other persons.
Related posts:
Pet Peeves (04/06/04)
You’re Driving Me Crazy (Revised Version) (06/21/04)
Politics and Prosperity 