So, Americans Aren't Just Ugly.
We're also stingy.
Though I would like to see our private charitable donations corrected for the parts of the country that have lower taxes--particularly if we're going to compare ourselves with the Western Europeans, who tend to have less disposable income because it all went to their governments.
The business of Obama and his half-brother, however, makes me sick. You'd think Big O would at least send him a stipend . . . or would that make him a target? It seems even a tiny amount of money could make a big difference in this man's life.
Of course, I'm sensitive about this: I still feel sorry for Julian Lennon, and I should have gotten over that years ago.
Not that I'm really comparing the elder Lennon son to Obama's half-brother. Or to David Cassidy's upbringing vis a vis Shawn's.
It's all relative, but the unfairness of life grates on me.
Anyway, in this particular context Obama's a pig. End of story.
1
Hey now that I live in Canada, I am missing the USA. I saw a comedian last night who pointed out that Americans spend half of their taxes in defense, an astronomical amount compared to Canada. Yet their taxes are lower. Now I am proud to get free health care, but I am not sure if it is worth it. After all more Canadians are dying in Afghanistan, fighting a war that they never asked for. And Americans are sending aid to Georgia, as if Iraq and Afghanistan could not possibly need re-building. I hope McCain does win, we need this pendulum to shift even more to the right, so that some of you who are asleep may wake up!
Posted by: azmat Hussain at August 25, 2008 04:46 PM (AfprS)
Posted by: yazoota at August 20, 2008 06:36 AM (ZET1q)
2
Aw, shit. I did it again.
I'm going to fix it, and then we will pretend it never happened.
It could be worse, though: the husband's brother's hair is now completely white, and he looks like a (balder, pointier-nosed version) of John McCain. So if John gets all the expected jokes because of the name thing, his brother has to cope with a similar last name and a terribly similar physical appearance.
I'm Joy McCann, and I approved this comment.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 20, 2008 03:22 PM (TpmQk)
Question for Hillary Voters:
So, if Obama doesn't put her on the ticket, what will you do?
1) Hold your nose and vote for Obama, but be on the lookout for any future blackballing of national-level female candidates—and maybe hope that the estrogen level will be at least as high among Obama's senior appointments as it has been among Bush 43's.
2) Vote for McCain; after all, he's a centrist's centrist, and he clearly has more experience than Obama. (Can he "think on his feet" better? Does he have a better sense of humor? You tell me.)
3) Write in "Hillary."
4) Stay at home.
5) Go to the polls so you can support all the other important people and issues important in your state and locality, but leave the spot for "President" blank—maybe even so the party knows you didn't just have the flu, and so that other issues and leaders do not suffer because of mistakes made by the national party and/or a few within Hillary's campaign.
1
I'm a Hillary supporter but don't believe she's the best VP choice for Obama. I would prefer he did not put her on the ticket.
But then again, I'm not planning on voting for Senator Obama.
I'm now leaning toward McCain but will have to see what happens with his VP choice.
I may end up staying home this election, something I've never done.
Posted by: Denise at August 20, 2008 04:54 AM (fb3wg)
2
Well, one thing about McCain is that one cannot accuse him of sucking up to the GOP party. He has been much more inclined to flip them the bird than anything else.
He simply isn't a conservative in the way that term is generally applied these days.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 20, 2008 03:44 PM (TpmQk)
3
I'm disqualified here. Early on, I was neither a Hillary or Barack supporter. But Obama is okay with me. Anyone but John McSame.
Posted by: SR23 at August 21, 2008 04:47 AM (kdHIe)
4
Also, you're a guy. There's a line of reasoning out there to the effect that guys are . . . guy-like. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 21, 2008 04:51 AM (TpmQk)
Four Things About the "Cross in the Sand" Story
1) It could only have happened once. Ever. If any captor ever expressed secret solidarity with a prisoner by drawing a cross, we need only track down the one time in human history that this ever occurred, and if it wasn't in front of John McCain during his time in the Hanoi Hilton, then he is lying about it having happened to him.
2) The story is from Ben Hur. So, given that it only happened once, and that the time that it happened was fictitious, McCain is lying. Lying!
3) The account from another prisoner who heard the story directly from McCain when they were both POWs is clearly addled. You know how POWs get: it's very stressful, and it plays tricks with their minds. Next thing you know, they're taking sleeping pills. I would never vote for a former POW for C-in-C: You just can't trust those guys.
4) The fact that it didn't happen to Alexander Solzhenitsyn only proves that the only time in human history that such a thing was done was in Ben Hur, and that means it only happened in the world of fiction, and that means McCain was lying! Or maybe he can't remember. He probably has PTSD, and he's really, really old. Totally unreliable. And lying! And high on Ambien. And old.
Also, he can't make gestures with his arms as well as Obama can. Probably a sign of having a bad temper. Or being old. Or taking too much Ambien.
Furthermore, he can't match Obama's record of bridging the party divide, reaching across the aisle to . . . wait. Didn't Obama do something bipartisan during his ten minutes in the U.S. Senate? I could have sworn . . .
1
it's in A Canticle for Liebowitz too, though there it's the Christian "fish" symbol instead of a cross.
Posted by: Rin at August 19, 2008 01:49 PM (bSHZa)
2
Obama once knelt down and drew a circle on the floor of the East Bank Club, thereby averting a fight among competing spinners for the use of an open machine. Some say it was a picture of Che. But who can tell when you're drawing without chalk or a marker?
Posted by: Darrell at August 19, 2008 02:33 PM (z26zU)
Live by identity politics, die by identity politics. Meanwhile, rank-and-file Democrats who are uncomfortable with a candidate who has precious little experience in anything and worrisome personal connections will have some real soul-searching to do on November 4.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
Was Obama Referring to God on Abortion Issue?Taranto (last item):
On the Other Hand, He Plans to Raise God's Taxes Through the Roof
Barack Obama is getting a bum rap for one comment he made during the Rick Warren forum:
Warren: Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
Obama: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
This brought the Republican Attack Machine out in full force. "Insulting and mendacious," says The New Criterion's Roger Kimball. "Evasive and unsatisfying," adds Commentary's Jennifer Rubin. National Review's Mark Hemingway calls it a "spectacularly inept metaphor" and writes, "News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States."
It is left to blogress Ann Althouse to come to Obama's defense:
I'm pretty sure he meant to refer to God.
"Above my pay grade" is an expression of humility and submission to God: I don't purport to answer the question that belongs to God.
Obama just can't win with these right-wingers, can he? For months they've been blasting him for acting like the Messiah. Now they're attacking him for acknowledging he's not God.
Well, not yet, anyway.
I've never heard the expression used that way, as an allusion to the Divine. I know it isn't always purely literal: an engineer might say that about literary analysis, and a fiction writer might say that about the mechanics of building a bridge. But I've never heard it used by, say, a member of the clergy or another person of faith, in alluding to the Creator of the Universe of the Monotheistic Traditions.
1
Item the first: Blogress? WTF is that? Blog Progress? Why not Bloggist? Or Blogotrix? I didn't even know blogger was a maasculine noun. Geez. (Taranto was high, I just know it)
Item the second: I've used 'above my pay grade' to say something is not my decision to make, but someone 'higher up'. So, maybe.
Then again, I always thought 'We the People' trumped POTUS anyday, so maybe Body Odour was in fact referring to overturning Roe vs Wade and letting the states decide. Which would be the first intelligent thing he's said or done this entire campaign.
/yeah, right
Posted by: Gregory at August 18, 2008 11:16 PM (cjwF0)
2
The explanation is "right" only if that word is defined as "defends Democrats."
And it was BS of the highest degree for Obama to make the claim in question, because he has never failed to let the destroyer come after the unborn. With every vote he has made as a legislator, he has voted that the destroyer may never be stopped. Looks to me like he thinks the call is rightfully his.
Posted by: John at August 19, 2008 03:46 AM (v0aIU)
3
No. They way you express that is via this expresssion:
That's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay above my paygrade. Talk to the Big Man upstairs.
It comes down this:
With a straight face, Obama chastised others for not abiding by the precepts of Matthew 25, when he had a chance to do the same and failed. For example, instead of choosing to protect and care for the least of his brothers, the unborn, by supporting a bill that would protect those born alive after failed abortion attempts, he voted against the bill.
Source La Shawn Barber.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 19, 2008 06:05 AM (1hM1d)
4
HIs vote in Illinois on the "born alive during a botched abortion" business was indeed and extreme act, and he has been prevaricating about it ever since.
He was IN THE COMMITTEE that added language to that statewide bill (similar in wording to the later Federal bill) that specified that, should it become law, it would not redefine an UNBORN fetus as a person and become a threat to Roe v. Wade.
But he voted against it anyway, and later said that this was because the "protective language" was absent.
Full disclosure: I'm technically pro-choice, but I believe the numbers of abortions performed in this country annually are an obscenity, and that the extreme peer-group pressure placed on girls and women to have abortions often leads to a lot of heartache later on in their lives.
The reason no girl or woman with an unplanned pregnancy is given real counseling is that neither side trusts the other to counsel in an unbiased way--and they are right.
The ideal counseling would include the sort of statement that Western European girls were made to sign (and, as far as I know, still are): that they understand the gravity of the decision they are making. It would include a summary of what the adoption process works like these days, and a small warning that the girl/woman might regret her actions, years or decades later. It would not include the word "murder," but upon request it might include the fact that scientists and theologians concur: life begins at conception.
I remain pro-choice. But there is no getting around the fact that abortion is the taking of a human life.
Let the buyer beware.
(And, BTW: whenever I go to a feminist blog and explain that I was QUITE CERTAIN in my 20s and 30s that I would never "succomb to sentimentality" and begin to have mixed feelings about my abortion at the age of 20, I'm invariably called a "troll."
That is why I am only a feminist, rather than a Feminist. Small f only--no mau-mauing women into abortions, for me. And no defending the sexually predatory habits of whathisface--that guy I voted for twice, to my everlasting regret.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 19, 2008 11:26 AM (TpmQk)
5
Althouse was almost right--he was deferring to Satan, the "Capo de Capos" of the Left.
Obama knows no directionality.
People expect leaders to have opinions on every issue that affects their life. When asked for that opinion, Obama chose the coward's way out. He had no opinion as a lawmaker when he was actually deciding the issue? Or at least facilitating it?
Posted by: Darrell at August 19, 2008 12:08 PM (z26zU)
6
I figured he was saying he wasn't a theologian or biologist and wasn't qualified to comment. I suppose he picked up the lingo during his long service in the armed services. I'd like a list of other topics he isn't qualified to comment on, I'm sure it would be lengthy but informative.
Posted by: Sejanus at August 19, 2008 03:27 PM (y3IBO)
7
Well, the reason it struck me as odd is that he was campaigning for the most powerful position in the world, so to say "that's above my pay grade" sounds wimpy and dishonest, unless one is, in fact, alluding to the Divine, a thought that did not cross my idea at the time. But surely in a venue of that type if he had meant God, he should have said "God," or use one of His many nicknames? Why be shy in a venue of that type? Why be ambiguous, on such an important, resonant issue?
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 19, 2008 04:14 PM (TpmQk)
Pelosi and Reid:
"When you thought we said we were anti-drillin', we really meant that we were anti-illin'. We thought we were discussing health care—not energy."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
Ace is probably right on this one: there are segments along the beaches of California that have remarkable potential, and we do have a bit of an infrastructure here, as well.
Bottom line: We can't take the Pacific coast off the table, and we shouldn't be taking ANWR off, either: it's got production potential similar to that of the Gulf, and with a smaller footprint in terms of acreage that would be affected.
On the other hand, aggressive nuclear development and mandated flex-fuel cars are also super-important. It could be that the difference is in the fine print: could the Pacific Coast and/or ANWR be re-debated at a later point, or is the language in the GoT version (and the DontGo version, for that matter), iron-clad?
1
On the one hand, of course I'm against aggression and invasion and kerfluffle of all sorts.
On the other hand, nations and tribes have been taking territory from each other for thousands of years, and it's hard to imagine that suddenly, at the beginning of the 21st century, that's all going to stop and the maps will remain unchanged forever.
This doesn't justify any individual act of incursion, for whatever motives. I'm just trying to take the long view.
Posted by: Rin at August 14, 2008 09:23 AM (EW30v)
The NYT Attempts to "Swift Boat" the Obamessiah.
Shame on them. Roger Kimball takes them to task for the smear:
That’s one of many questions the public should be asking about Barack Hussein Obama. Today’s piece in the Times veritably weeps with anxiety. Corsi’s book has dwarfed a similar effort to discredit John McCain (35,000 in print): is there no justice in the world? The Times was in a tough spot with this book. The paper’s usual procedure with books it dislikes is to ignore them. Someone must have made the calculation that it was better to try to head off Corsi’s book at the pass, to strangle it in the crib as it were. I think they will rue the decision. Most people who read the Times would probably have been only dimly aware of The Obama Nation had the Times not brought it to their attention. Now they have had it rubbed in their faces. The paper did its best to dismiss the book, but questions and doubts will linger–not so much about Jerome Corsi but about Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
So, Um.
Is Senator Clinton like, annoyed at Edwards for lying about his affair? 'Cause I can see how she would find his conduct outrageous. Not just the "crime," of course, but especially the "cover-up."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
Just Curious.
Has the McCain campaign produced any non-racist ads whatsoever?
Via Ace, who delineates the mental hoops the lefties had to jump through in order to interpret the ad as racist, and remarks, "Is anyone else becoming rather annoyed at the left's insistence that white conservative men do nothing but sit around all goddamned day worrying that some black guy is going to take our womenfolk away from us?"
UPDATE: Well, if the Obama supporters weren't so fucking sexist, they might realize that women of any race aren't property to be "taken" by blacks or Asian dudes or Klingons, or anyone else. Get those people to a consciousness-raising session, stat!
1
I hear you can still buy a woman in Saudi Arabia, to this day. (That would be "our friends, the Saudis.")
Of course, any human being can be considered "property," once his or her will has been broken. When white settlers reached North America, some actually attempted to enslave the Native Americans. But to strip someone of his/her humanity takes a bit more than just capturing him or her, physically. Generally, it takes a lot to dehumanize large groups of people: with Africans, it was done by transporting them to a different continent, where they did not speak the language. With Jews, it was done through propaganda, special markings on their clothes, and eventually the shaving of their heads. (I'm painting with a broad brush, but you get the idea.)
With women, the burqa can serve the same function of erasing individuality. I'm not against head scarves for women (which are still used by some traditional Catholics at mass, and are required by many Orthodox Jews), but the covering of a woman's face starts to get into the territory of deliberate dehumanization.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 12, 2008 09:28 AM (TpmQk)
2
McCain could run an ad consisting of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, add "I'm John McCain, and I approve of this message," and the Obama campaign would still call it racist.
'Sides, if a black man marrying a white woman really honked us off that much, Clarence Thomas would not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
They call McCain a racist for the same reason that middle-school bullies call weaker boys faggots: Because they think it's something bad, and therefore hurtful.
As for "owning" women, the Saudis (and Muslims in general) are most certainly guilty of believing that they "own" their women: It is perfectly legal in any Islamic nation for a non-Muslim woman, or widow of a non-Muslim, to marry an Islamic man, and in fact they approve of the latter situation, so much so that they will help out by making her a widow. But it is utterly forbidden for any Muslim woman (or widow of a Muslim) to marry any non-Muslim.
Posted by: John at August 13, 2008 03:41 AM (Dmae3)
