Well. I guess there you have it.

If you're a McCain voter, I suggest this quoted post at Ace's.

If you're an Obama voter, I suggest you spend my tax money wisely. You may not be recieving it for very long at all.

Check this shit out:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices....

...GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy...

...Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers....

...Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate....

...Update 4 - The scene on the floor is kind of crazy. Normally, members are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor galleries, or visitors are prohibited from cheering. But in this case, the members are walking up and down on the floor during their speeches, standing on cheers, the visitors are cheering loudly. Some members even brought in visitors, who are now sitting on the House floor in the seats normally filled by lawmakers, cheering and clapping. Very funny.

Democrats faced a choice here - should they leave the cameras on and let Republicans rip Pelosi & Co. on C-Span, or should they leave the cameras off and let the Republicans have their "tantrum," as one Democratic aide characterized it, with the cameras off. So the cameras are off, but Republicans, and the crowd, are clearly enjoying the scene...

I'm a little surprised that the Democrats have decided to die on this hill. This is something that a surprising majority (70-75%, depending on your poll of choice) of people support. Now they look like selfish, do-nothing's who won't represent their constituents. Hmm.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I find it irritating that the Democrats have basically walked out on the people. It shouldn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, when 70% of American's want a ban on offshore drilling lifted, it should get at least a voting opportunity. I mean, come the fuck on, people! I hope the Republicans make a huge scene about this. They're finally speaking for the vast majority of Americans, on an issue that is central to all of us.

Update, from the same article:

Update 6 - Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chaber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said "I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

I can't believe no one's getting this on video.

Nine. Percent.

Ron, come here buddy; it's time for a little man-to-man.

I just want to say a few things up front. First, we really like your style. You've got panache and you've got balls, two qualities that some politicians lack.

Now that we got that out of the way, let's get down to the nitty gritty. That is to say, why are you such a fuckin' fruit loop?

Seriously man, what is your damage? I mean, we really think it's cool that you've pretty much locked down the MySpace voting block. You've gotten the kiddies involved in politics, and that's a noble deed. Unfortunately, this just makes you look like the mayor of Kooksville. Once people realize that we're trying to elect the POTUS and not the President of the Lollipop Guild, they'll rejoin the rest of us on planet earth and vote for someone who can actually win. I know the truth hurts Ron, but do you really, honestly think the Ron Paul Magic Carpet Ride stands a chance against something like the Hillary Clinton Bonestripper or the Obama Second Coming of Christ? Campaigns like theirs take great, almost sexual, pleasure in dismantling moonbat parades like yours.

I feel for you Ron. I mean, here you are at your pinnacle; the zenith of your nutty, fucked up outlook on life. You lay your policies, ideas, and passion out for everyone to inspect, and all they can say is "Oh. Cracker off his meds."

I just want to say, it was nice meeting you. Well, it was entertaining anyways. We wish you luck in the future, even though you're probably never going to see public office again. But take heart, tiny dancer; because there's always reality TV.

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.

First off, how does a 'symbolic citywide ban' work? Does its symbolic status mean it creates an unpunishable offense? Or that it's just not going to be enforced? And furthermore, bitch has got to be the least offensive derogation in modern English, second only to something like 'dork'.

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”

Oh I get it now, she was using a 200-year-old dictionary when she developed this ridiculous, boondoggle-of-an-excuse for legislation. Sister, in the past two hundred years 'the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman' has come quite a long way. You may want to take this waste of taxpayers' money back to the drawing board, and try to target words like cunt, whore, jizz dumpster, or cum guzzling gutterslut.

I'm just saying, if you're going to throw time and money at a 'symbolic' gesture to restrain free speech, at least go after words that might get a modicum of support based on their shock value.

As she circulated her proposal, she said, “even council members are saying that they use it to their wives.”

And probably a certain one of their fellow counsel members...bitch.

The thing that really got me was that this woman gets a salary composed, I'd assume, of tax dollars. On the outside chance she doesn't get a tax funded salary, I'd imagine her office space and supplies are composed of tax dollars. Which, in either case, means she's spending someone else's hard earned money on a 'symbolic' project.

Personally, I thought it was a revolutionary way to look at work and compensation; so I tried to implement the tactic in my own workplace. In my weekly meeting with my VP, I told her I'd have to hand off some of my current tasks in order to work on a symbolic project for the organization. She said she applauded my symbolic initiative, and gave her full support of my pursuit of symbolic improvement for our division; as long as I was willing to accept a symbolic paycheck. Did you guys know that they actually make symbolic money? They call them foodstamps, but you can actually get real food for them! What a deal!

I'm not a big governmental buff, so could someone please explain to me how a bill that has 22% public approval gets passed by a majority of our Senators? I was made to understand that we're governed by a democracy - you know, for the people by the people - and I assume that means our wants are supposed to be at least approximated in congressional representation.

It just doesn't sound like democracy to me, more like maybe an oligarchy or just a straight up dictatorship. The motherfuckers are forgetting what happens when you piss off the masses.

So yet another kid popped up in the neighborhood who is lactose intolerant. And it got me thinking. No, not about how every other kid born in the last 15 years is either allergic, asthmatic, AD, AH, AHD, AHAD, DAHA, HAHA or in some other way socially and genetically inferior to kids from my generation. I was thinking about tolerance itself. Somebody who is lactose intolerant can like dairy products just fine but they just can't stand them physically. Except that this isn't usually how it goes. The real skinny is that people use "whatever intolerance" as a way to avoid things they don't like while casting themselves as sufferers.

If that doesn't have "PC gift from above to all politicians" written all over it then I don't know what does. Expect to see some of these in the soon to be inescapable campaign barrage:

* Senator Byrd's days in the KKK weren't really his fault. He had a bad case of blacktose intolerance.
* Hillary isn't frigid. She's just fuktose intolerant.
* Speaking of which...it's not Monica's fault that she didn't swallow. She is spunktose intolerant.
* Kennedy isn't a boozer. He's sobrose intolerant.
* Obama isn't myopic. He is cluetose intolerant.
* Jesse Jackson? As bad a case of truthtose intolerance as I've ever seen. Well...next to Bill Clinton anyway.

Yeah, I think I'm on to something here. Anybody else detect 'ose intolerance out there?

As an MBA, I'm always interested in new and creative ways to increase income, protect investments, and minimize expenses. However, I never ever thought I'd learn anything about that from Al Gore.

To recap: First, one of these Learjet Liberals has the gall to tell us all that we're all ruining the environment. Then we find out that he's actually one of the top offenders, gobbling up over 220,000kWh a year; about 20 times the national average. Such usage is defended by the claim that he purchases carbon offsets to counter the damaging effects of the coal burning plants that supply his power.

Well check this shit out, via Ecotality:

Frickin' genius! So not only does he get to run his fucking mouth about how we should all use less while he uses a metric shit ton more than average; but he gets to justify his position by boosting his investments, and maybe even garnering a wage as co-founder and chairman. The mind reels.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the discovery that a politician turned out to be an utter prick; but it just burns me up. Here I am using compact flourescents, burning approximately 30 gallons of gas (in total, for both of my automobiles) a month, keeping my thermostat at 68 degrees; right? Just cruising along, being mindful of what I use; and my efforts are completely negated by one person: the dicksmack who made a movie about how much I was consuming.

Al Gore can kiss my red state ass.

Lot's of people make the mistake of thinking tax day is in the middle of April. Not so. That's the day when the red hot poker gets inserted. It gets put in the fire tomorrow on voting day.

Before you pull the lever, consider your candidates. Picture them reading the poem below. Decide if they would smile knowingly, laugh maniacally or withdraw their nomination. Vote for the ones that would withdraw.

Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he's fed.

Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.

Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, then Tax his tears.

Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to Tax his ass

Tax all he has, then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.

Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone, do not relax,
Its time to apply the inheritance tax.

And I'm speaking specifically of those other than Jenelle (BURN!).

I saw Michael J. Fox on TV the other day promoting the advancement of stem cell research and the congressional candidates supporting it. My first thought was "It's a good thing you're not behind the wheel of that DeLorean these days Marty, because it would take more than 1.21 gigawatts and Doc Brown's kooky ass to get the mangled wreckage back to the future." Which was immediately follwed by "Oh, Parkinson's. That explains the shaking," and "Note to shank: get buried in Bermuda shorts, because it's going to be hot down there." I was surprised by how much he was shaking, but then I figured that's Parkinson's for ya.

Then today on CNN or something they were talking about Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Fox was off his meds for the spot to exaggerate the tremors that result from Parkinson's. Now, I know I'm a crass individual; and I can be downright rude on occassion; but you've got to have a real pair of brass nuts to accuse a guy with an incurable disease of putting a shine on. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you man? That's something you say to your friend when he calls in sick on a perfect day. Hell, even if he was off his meds it wouldn't matter, because the issue isn't Fox or Parkinson's or even congressional elections. It's stem cell research stupid.

They went on to mention that after the ads aired, public approval of stem cell research jumped up 5%. Which is kind of sad if you think about it, because Fox didn't say anything that hasn't been said a million times.

"He walks like John Wayne." - Hugo Chavez

As opposed to, say, walking like you've got the fist of your Islamofascist puppeteer up your ass?

"[T]hose who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. … Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!"
-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Wow, that's nice; real nice. How very 12th century of you, sir. Quite the, shall we say, pre-Renaissance man you are. It must be for this reason that TIME Magazine chose to distinguish yourself as one of the 100 Most Remarkable People of the last century.

I do have one question though, if I may. When we get down to it, are a bunch of raisins really worth all the effort? I mean, let's be honest: raisins really aren't all that tasty, nor are they rare. So I ask you; is a jihad really a jihad if, instead of becoming your holy warrior and recieving a just reward in paradise, any old infidel can buy the very same rewards for $1.49 a box at Food Lion? And that being said, does that make the uncovered woman on the SunMaid box just another one of the Great Satan's whores?

The Pope recently quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor when he spoke of Islam's tendency, to say the very least, to walk a fine line between religious zeal and incendiary violence. Several Muslim communities and nations around the world were pretty pissed at his insinuation and responded with, of course, rage. Hm. Fancy that!

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." - Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Tasnim Aslam.

Black shirt - $13.50
Green Karate Kid bandanna - $5.00
Raging in the streets to prove you're nonviolent? Priceless.

For me, the damning thing about all these 9/11 consipracies is that they make no allowances for coincidence.

A light spot on the bottom of an airplane in a blurrily zoomed image is a missle - not a blurry reflection.
The manor in which the towers collapsed proves it was demo, not just a building falling in on itself. I mean, how else do you expect a building that's barely leaning over to fall? It's not a tree being chopped down fellas, it's a building whose core has been partially gutted and substantially weakened.
The fact that a man had a conversation about death with his child the day before he boarded a doomed flight is proof that he was in on the plan - not just happenstance. How often do we all have such coincidental conversations? Seriously.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that more often than not minor details are minor details; even when there's a lot of them. I mean, take for instance the appearance of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, or a bagel, or a potato. Is it some kind of conspiracy? Or might it just be an odd little coincidence.

The real flaw in it all, however, is something that every well devised plan (as the attacks of 9/11 were a major undertaking) always requires. Motive. In the late nineties and early 21st century, the US government had nothing to gain by attacking it's own nation and fingering a terrorist organization that was virtually (at that time) unkown to the public. Al Qaeda on the other hand, a group who (still) operates under a transformational ideology supported by a violently twisted religious belief; not only had motive, but has since claimed responsibility and pride over the events of that day and many similar events since. Motive bitches. Motive.

See, these consipracy buffs are searching for something that will complete the picture for them, tie up every little loose end. But as the Virgin Mary might tell you, sometimes a grilled cheese sandwich is just a grilled cheese sandwich. For something to make sense it has to work on a macro level as well as an operational level. Because if it doesn't, it's just a bunch of Loose Change. And as we all know, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

As an aside, I'd have to be pretty damn desperate and lonely to cash in your fifteen minutes on something that makes 2/3rds of the US population think I'm an assbag.

I was working on this longwinded post regarding geopolitical strategy that cited recent global developments and intelligence reports from StratFor.com; but halfway through it I figured "Fuck that. It's Friday."

Goldstein, in true form, brings the front lines into our living rooms. Interstingly enough, though, was a quote in the page he links to at Hot Air that I disagree with:

A friend of mine just e-mailed to say he’s been discussing the situation with an Israeli analyst, who told him the problem with attacking Iran is that “you can’t scare a prostitute with a penis.�
To which I replied, “You can if it’s big enough.�

I humbly offer my correction: "You can if you put it in the right place. Hard."

*And by free we mean, you can say whatever you want as long as a violence veto is not in place against said speech. Oh, and if We define it as intolerant, well, We'll just gather a mob together and destroy it. Because that's what America is all about.

Bumper sticker seen on the I-85:

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than drive home with Ted Kennedy.

Okay, let's clear the air here: The guy accidentally shot his hunting buddy. Big fuckin' deal! Could happen to anyone; especially if your the sixty five year old survivor of four heart attacks and your hunting buddy is seventy eight. I mean, let's get real here, neither of these guys could see well enough to shoot, nor could they hear or move well enough to get out of the way. Can you imagine being a secret service agent on this trip? "Hey 007, your assignment is to accompany the Vice-President and the only man on this Earth who probably has less business being out in the woods than he does. Oh, and they'll be carrying around loaded shotguns. Presumably shooting them. Might want to bring your vest."

Seriously though, I don't understand why it's such a big deal. If I went hunting with a friend of mine, and got sprayed with a little birdshot, I mean; as long as everyone survives it's a funny goddamn story. "Hey Tom, 'member that time you tried to blow my fucking face off? You shoot like a schoolgirl!"

So, as much as I hate to say it - they should let Tookie Williams live. Yes, he killed four people, yes he was a bad motherMM-MM back in the day. He's completely given up that life though, and has committed himself to destroying the glorified gangster image. Who knows how many people he could positively effect. He's certainly made an impact on many already. Yes, he will never be able to erase gang life or the Crips from the urban environment. But you know, maybe that's his real punishment. Knowing what he created, trying to destroy it, and knowing he'll never succeed.

The Miami Airport bomb incident - Lessons Learned:
1. Don't travel anywhere with a loved one who's off their meds - unless they're bound and gagged in the backseat and you're on the way to the doctor's office.
2. Don't yell "I have a bomb", unless you're looking for a permanent solution.
3. The only way to get blood off of the carpeting in a jetway is cold water, an oxidizing detergent, and light scrubbing with a bristle brush.

Additionally, any man who wouldn't sleep with Ann Coulter lives a life FAR too driven by prinicple, and not enough penis representation on the conscience committee.

And Iran's new president, whose name I won't waste the time trying to correctly spell, believes not only that Israel is a "tumor" on the middle eastern map, but further alludes to the idea that the Holocaust never happened. How do these people get into leadership positions? Muslim nations want to be taken seriously in the modern world, but they elect leaders with this kind of twisted worldview?

Also, hit CNN, some plane just crashed the shit out of an intersection in Chi-town. Relish this, because events don't usually get that current here at SBD.

Furthermore - has anyone noticed the duality of SBD? Silent But Deadly? Snooze Button Dreams? Oh yeah, you're thinkin' it, I know ya are.

Jeff Goldstein's Pinocchio, identity politics and the importance of rhetoric, has just turned into a real boy thanks to a few Democrats. Some serious background here on Jeff's views of identity politics and rhetoric, and a post that really wraps a lot of these issues up into a nice little package. It's an issue that Jeff's been floating for quite a while that deals with everything from affirmative action, to how a person's language can be hyjacked by those who never spoke it. Of course, until recently it was sort of an idea, a logical underpinning of certain views or positions that was never openly addressed. Whether it was because proponents of issues like affirmative action didn't realize it, or do realize it and think no one notices, is up for grabs I suppose.

I swear, he's the only person that speaks on the issue of identity politics, and how some people are allowing external conditions, nee forcing them, to define everything from who we are to what we say - regardless of who we are or what we're saying.

For instance, Goldstein asserts that what Lisa Gladden means when she says "party trumps race" and what Steve Gilliard is saying when he throws racial epithets at someone is that:

Please, lavish compliments upon my graphic arts skills. Really though. I don't own Photoshop, so that image was a pain in the ass.

Sometimes, I wish she'd open her mouth a little more often. No Bane, not for that. You sick bastard. And if you ever even remotely hit on my sister again, I will ekick you in the enuts.

This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.

This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:

Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.

Her opinion is valid because her son died there.

Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.

Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.

Lets boil that down:

The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.

Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.

That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.

UPDATE: Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"

Well, HE DID TOO:

Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.

Bob Owens, the Confederate Yankee, hits the nail square on the head regarding Mrs. Sheehan and her crusade to, well, to act like a whackjob and do the equivalent of the naked hokie-pokie all over her son's grave.

Look, I'm sorry your son died in battle, war is a tragedy. But you don't go around propping up his dead body for every liberal that appeals to your feelings of loss, anger and mourning. Your son was a brave man, braver than most. Bush didn't kill him, the administration didn't kill him; war killed his ass just like it kills millions of people every year.

The woman is in mourning, the angry part of mourning where you try to explain what happened. When you realize that there's this big fuckin hole in you and you're like 'Why?' I think that's something we all understand. But you shouldn't go around turning one of the greatest contributions of the human experience into your own little quest.

But I don't blame her only. She's being manipulated by politicians and soapboxers. They don't give two shits about her or her son, they just care that it gets people (specifically, the handful of trolls in Yankee's comment section) riled up about something completely idiotic so that people will vote for them or go see their shittyass 'documentaries'.

It's fucking sad. The politicians don't even pay attention to the issues or the logic of the controversy they create. Hey, if it gets people pissed off, sure we'll just go ahead and parade this persons carcass all over the media; eventually people will start paying attention. It's just sad, that I have to share a country with some people.

via the emmer effing man J. Goldstein.

I spend some time each day surfing through Protein Wisdom, Daily Kos, Instapundit, and a few others just seeing what there is to see. A lot of the stuff is mildly interesting, and tends to bring things to the surface that I otherwise wouldn't know about. Sometimes I save the link so I can tracback to it and make a post of my own.

However, usually by the time I get home and have the spare time to write about whatever it was, I just don't give a shit anymore. I mean, it's probably just about some useless tactic some politician used to grab the spotlight for his issue, or make someone else look dumber than he did, or whip people into a sensational frenzy. So much of that stuff is complete bullshit anyways.

Then the goddamn bloggers get a hold of it and the issue is everywhere.

I mean, everyone and their mom has an opinion on it, everyone's fucking shouting over the din of the other 50 or 60 people on the thread, there's like six different arguments going on, three complete lunatics spouting shit just to get a rise, and I'm like fuck it. I can't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said, because there are 348 replies to that thread. Never mind that I think they're all fucktards, because one of those lunatics already tried that approach and got lambasted. They really are though. Fucktards I mean.

I hope what these politically oriented blogs are teaching us is that everyone has an opinion, even if they're a fucktard. You don't have to join a specific line of political argument, you can just vote how you want based on the issues, not just pick one guy because he's who the media likes. There's all kinds of information on the web out there. Just don't be a big enough fucktard to believe it all without researching it at least a little before acting on or voicing your opinion. And it's that right, nay privilege, to go on someone's website and act like a fucktard that makes America great!

Glen Reynolds gets his first Shankalanche. He'll thank me later I'm sure.

In an effort to clean our country of all this unsightly native culture, why don't we burn it to the ground and leave the rubble as a reminder to all indigenous peoples to assimilate or else? I mean, who wants to come to a country to see the culture that's been present there for thousands of years, when they can come gaze upon the newly razed homes and social flotsam created by the ignorance of a few leaders? Hey, you know what they say; nothing draws tourists like homeless beggars and smoldering foundations. Before you know it, we'll be on the cover of Conde-fucking-Nast.

So the runaway bride was on the Today show this morning. My girlfriend puts it on while we get ready for work in the morning. Anyways, the runaway girl is talking about why she made up all this stuff about being kidnapped by Mexicans. Her pathetic, ill thought out, sham of an excuse was something about how she only had Friday off, and that wasn't nearly enough time to get a manicure, a pedicure, pack for her honeymoon and be one time to her perfect wedding. I swear to you, that was the literal translation.

What the fuck is with that? If I have problems like that one day, I'll be glad. But seeing how that'll probably never happen, I'll just cut to the chase and go fuck myself.

The Governator is apparently in the shit-house with California Democrats because he can't get them to actually work on fixing the state's many problems and he is readying himself to *GASP* take the issues to the voters.

To me this seems eminently logical. I have two paths to completing my job. The preferred path isn't working. I take the other path.

This is not logical to the Democrat led state legislature. They feel that they cannot work with the Governator now since he has basically said he is willing to take things up with their bosses. Ummmm...wasn't it the not working with the Governator part that is forcing him to take things up with their bosses in the first place? So what's the loss here?

Dems: We're sorry. We know you mean well but we simply can't work with you on these initiatives to solve the massive financial problems that our programs have caused.

Governator: Ah you sure? Ah would really lahk to work dis out wit you.

Dems: Yeah, we're sure. There's simply no way we are going to give up the ability to draw our own districts or limit spending in any way whatsoever and we feel very strongly that job security should be a reflection of time served, not some mythical ability to do a job. We are especially against the very concept that union leaders might need permission of union members in order to give us our kickbacks.

Governator: Dat's too bad. Ah will have to go to de voters den.

Dems: If you do that we won't work with you!

Governator: Vatever, little girly men.

No, I was wrong. I'm not really surprised at the Dems being pissed at him. He's trying to give workers a say on where their money goes, make job performance more important, limit spending and eliminate a politician's ability to decide who votes for him. Those things are the lifeblood of the liberal elite.

Worst of all, he's going to let actual voters decide on these things.

Well, maybe not my kingdom but I am awarding points to the best slogans from the Slogan Challenge. Here are the long awaited results:

Serious slogans

Third place (1 pt): "More Talk, Less Action" - Dafyd

Second place (2 pts): "Working to create your children's nation." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "We the people." - Garret

Irreverent slogans

Third place (1 pt): "Slogans are way tough to come up with." - Ilyka

Second place (2 pts): "85 percent less wacky than the Libertarians." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "The party for real people. Whiney socialists and religious zealots need not apply." - Clancy

Coming soon:

Another contest to come up with a new name for the party, since this one reminds Ilyka of Barbara Boxer.

I need a motto for the Nationalist Party of America. This is the political party I started up back in December to make a home for all of us who are either too right for the Dems, too left for the Reps, plain sick of partisan politics or think government needs to get its nose out of our personal areas.

It sort of fizzled out due to lack of participation and a very busy Jim but Michele's cry for help and a well timed comment by Ilyka have revived my fighting spirit. As everybody knows, the key to success in politics is to have a catchy slogan so that's my next order of business.

Here are a couple I thought of:

"Yes Virginia, there is a viable third party."
"Don't settle for the lesser of two evils, pick the least of three."

But they sort of don't really ring out too well. So I'm throwing open the floor to y'all. Come up with party slogans. There will be two categories: serious and seriously funny. Points will be awarded to the top three in each category.

Congress is investigating the Major League Baseball steroid abuse scandal. Say what?

Just what the hell gives Congress the power to investigate a private enterprise in this manner? Does steroids in baseball compromise national security? Is a drug free baseball league some sort of little known right of the American people?

Lemme check...

Nope. Nothing at all in the Constitution says that Congress is the regulatory body for private sports organizations. Understandably, the League has an opinion similar to my own.

Stanley Brand, a lawyer for the baseball commissioner's office, said the committee had no jurisdiction, was trying to violate baseball's first amendment privacy rights, and was attempting to "satisfy their prurient interest into who may and may not have engaged in this activity."

This isn't just any Congressional panel either. It's the "Government Reform Committee". What is the purpose of the Government Reform Committee? According to their website, they don't have one. There is no overall guiding focus noted for this committee anywhere in their literature. Isn't that wonderful?

The subcommittees are a bit more forthcoming. The subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources has this little "About us" blurb:

The Subcommittee is responsible for authorizing legislation for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs as well as general oversight for all U.S. government drug control efforts (including international and interdiction programs, law enforcement, and prevention and treatment initiatives). It also has oversight jurisdiction for several cabinet departments, including the Department of Justice, certain activities of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies including the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and the federal court system. In addition to its ongoing work on drug policy matters, the Subcommittee has most recently completed an intensive review of U.S. border agencies and policies and the impact of enhanced homeland security requirements on federal law enforcement.

So it sets and authorizes legislation on drugs and has oversight power over a bunch of government departments. This would seem to give them the power to subpoena and question people in those departments. Where in this mass of gobbledygook do they invent an authorization to directly investigate a private enterprise? According to the Committee this sweeping power comes from "House Rules":

Reacting to Brand's comments, committee spokesman David Marin said: "Mr. Brand has his facts wrong. He failed to recognize that House rules give this committee the authority to investigate any matter at any time, and we are authorized to request or compel testimony and document production related to any investigation. It's a shame that Major League Baseball has resorted to hiding behind 'legalese' -- and inaccurate 'legalese' at that."

Hiding behind 'legalese'? How about improper use of unregulated and illegally appropriated power?

These people make me ill. I sincerely hope we see Major League Baseball v. Associated Congressional Fucktards in the courts soon.

It started innocuously enough. On an ostensibly cooperative "humanitarian" mission to the tsunami ravaged Far East, the senior George Bush connived to get ex-President Bill Clinton, a post-operative heart surgery patient, to sleep on the cold, hard floor.

The next morning, Bush said he peeked in and saw Clinton sound asleep on the plane's floor. [The article does not mention how Bill then slept through Bush's cackling, maniacal laughter. - ed]

Now we learn that Clinton must undergo another round of surgery to attempt to repair damage to his lungs.

Former President Clinton will undergo a medical procedure this week to remove an unusual buildup of fluid and scar tissue from his chest, six months after he underwent quadruple bypass surgery [And just a few weeks after being forced to sleep on the cold, hard floor. - ed], his office said Tuesday.

You don't have to take your tin foil hat off to connect the dots here, people. You can almost taste the taint of Karl Rove on this plot. This is obviously an attempt by the Bush Monarchy to head off the Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2008. If they succeed in killing off Mr.Clinton they will send poor Hillary into a trough of despair from which her broken heart will never recover. Even if they have a near miss and only turn Bill into a bed-ridden differently-abled individual they know that Hillary will immediately resign her Senate seat and forgo all political ambitions to nurse him and be constantly by his side.

Now the truth is revealed. Who has the guts to brave the stormtroopers of Halliburton to do something about it? The first step is obvious. Everybody needs to link to this post and spread news of the plot. Eventually, if we all do our part, somebody at Reuters who isn't compromised by the jackbooted government thugs will pick it up and spread the truth to the world.

Only the truth, shouted loud and proud, can save Hillary and Bill from this diabolical threat. And as we all know, only Hillary can end the neocon threat, restore us to a life of liberty, and deliver the holy grail of free medical.

RP is having some fun with taxes ( <-- note: very heavy sarcasm) and asked if there are any volunteers to re-write the Tax Code and Regs.

I am the man.

First, let me state that the ultimate goal would be to eliminate income taxes altogether. Yes, it would too work just fine. It worked wonderfully before the Constitution was ammended to make this government theft legal. Restricting the government's access to money and the carrot/stick of monetary levies and gifts keeps government small and efficient. We have a bloated monster precisely because the government has given itself the power to take as much as the public will bear.

Anywho...that's not going to happen without open rebellion so I've come up with a simple and effective tax system that will work, will be perfectly simple and will be fair to all.

10% of income over $20,000 is paid as income tax. As many people as want to may form a household and file together. A family of five would pay 10% of any collective income over $100,000. There are no other taxes on income and there are no other exemptions. There are no loopholes.

Oh, yeah - almost forgot. As a corollary to promote fiscal responsibility, any politician submitting or approving a deficit spending budget gets a toe cut off. See the comments in RP's post for a bit more in-depth look at the toe-ectomy issue.

Get Syria out of Lebanon!

I still find it odd that the Arab states have no problem with Syria conquering Lebanon, holding them in thrall as a puppet state, killing their prime ministers, etc. I thought the Arabs were all about (opportunistically defined) ancient sovereign lands.

Oh, right. That's only when it's the Jews who are kicking Arab ass.

Sign the petition to revoke this terrorist group's tax exempt status.

(Hat tip to DCeit)

...or does anybody else find it odd that Senator Byrd is stressing that Dr.Rice's qualifications for Secretary of State should be judged primarily by her actions as National Security Advisor? I just think it is a bit hypocritical that the only KKK alumni in the Senate is calling for somebody to be judged strictly by their history instead of their current qualifications.

I'm not calling Byrd a klansman. He was a prominent one over fifty years ago, sure. He's worked against equal opportunity, women's rights and desegregation, sure. But, he said he was sorry that he'd said and done all of those hurtful and evil things while he was running his branch of the KKK and if that's good enough for his apologists then it's good enough for me.

Lovely Wife got one of those anti-Bush spam emails the other day. Part of it explained how Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather had business dealings with a bank that raised money for the Nazi party. I'd be a hypocrite myself if I said that accusing somebody of being a Nazi because of the actions of his grandfather was a load of shit but I still thought of Byrd as a bigoted racist simply because he was instrumental in the reappearance of the Klan in his more mobile years.

Incidentally, Byrd has said he was sorry for his Klan activities but I've been unable to find any mention of him ever actually saying that those actions were wrong. Does anybody have knowledge of him ever saying so?

Anybody?

Bueller?

In a hostage situation the victims will tend to become appreciative of their captor. He is God-like in his ability to take life away and the hostage is grateful that their life is being spared. The hostage comes to see it, emotionally, as the captor granting them life and is appreciative of this gift. I see this very same mentality in our society today. America has Stockholm Syndrome with our government playing the part of the captor.

It boils down to one statement. This is the truth: The Government Does Not Grant You Rights

How often do you hear or read phrases about rights granted by the Constitution or Bill of Rights? How many times have you heard somebody say that this or that country should grant their citizens certain rights like our government grants us? These sentiments are exactly wrong and directly contrary to the documents and ideals that founded our country. Just as the hostage taker is not granting life by not taking it, neither is our government granting us the rights that it does not remove.

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

In simple language this is saying that you are born with the right to do anything and that the purpose of government is to protect your rights. This is a powerful and often forgotten sentiment. Government is not here to grant you rights. You already have them. Government is here to stop other people from taking away your rights.

The core concepts to remember are that you begin with every right, the Constitution protects certain of your rights, and laws restrict or remove your rights. This is a heady concept, and frightening as well for many people. Taken literally this means that a critical component of the job of every Congressman and Senator is to pare away your rights.

This mistaken groupthink is pervasive. In the Presidential debates one of Bush's criticisms of Kerry was the relatively low number of laws he has authored during his tenure as Senator. Kerry disputed this, claiming to have been instrumental in a very large number of bills. I was horrified by this exchange. Both men were making it clear that they considered the removal of my rights to be not only a just goal but the lack of such efforts to be a considerable failing. They were both saying that a good Senator is one who makes a lot of laws.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. A good Senator or Congressman should be a terrible legislator. A good Senator should be primarily concerned with protecting the Constitution, not increasing the bulk of the Code of Law. Anything else is a direct contradiction of their oath of office.

Oath of Office, Congress:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the oath regarding the crafting of laws. The entire focus of the oath that every Senator and Congressman takes is that they will protect the Constitution.

The same thing goes for the President.

Oath of Office, President:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The documents are so clear. The sentiments are impossible to misunderstand. Even so, later today George Bush will repeat that oath of office. A short time later in a speech he will completely ignore it as he talks about forming a cooperative coalition of legislators to craft new laws and further snip away at the Constitution he has just sworn to protect.

It is frightening that this Stockholm Syndrome is so widespread that even the President of the United States is a victim of it. It is absolutely terrifying that it is so pervasive that this perfidy is not only accepted but actually lauded by the populace at large.

Why did the Founding Fathers (tm) use the phrase "several states" in the Constitution? Why "several"?

The term is used all over the document. It appears in the sections on formation and powers of the Congress, powers of the President, and the powers and responsibilities of the states themselves. It also appears in the 5th (amending the Constitution), 6th (supremacy of the Constitution), 14th (Citizenship rights), 16th (income tax), 18th (prohibition), 20th (Presidential, Congressional terms), 21st (prohibition repealed), and 22nd (Presidential term limit) amendments.

What does "several states" mean? It isn't hard to find out. The first definition of "several" at Miriam-Webster is this:

separate or distinct from one another : individually owned or controlled

Separate. Distinct. A union of individual entities.

The balance between Federal and State powers has shifted grotesquely since the Constitution was written. It is both sad and dangerous that the states have traded their riding crops for a federal yoke.

Update: Trey has a related post about the general welfare clause in the preamble.

This started out as a comment at Random Pensees but got too big. As a rule of thumb, if your comment goes past 3 paragraphs you should consider making a post out of it.

RP gives a brief recap of how we ended up with our Constitution, pointing out that our country was not set up with a strong central government. Even when the Constitution was adopted the federal government was severely limited in scope and power. The Constitution specifically grants the states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government or not specifically prohibited to them.

RP uses the example of unfunded mandates to point out the failure of this protection of states' rights. I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could and do agree more. Y'all probably expected that, knowing me for the radical reactionary that I am.

The Federal government has been systematically reducing the rights of the several states since the adoption of the Constitution. Well, maybe not right after the adoption but definitely within a generation. There was one very notable pushback (the Civil War) but since then the Fed's stripping of State powers has been a legislative steamroller.

Like RP, I have a serious problem with unfunded mandates. I'll go further than that though. I have a serious problem with all mandates. The founding fathers were familiar with the idea - it's essentially the same as taxation without representation. We make the rules, you follow them and shut up about it.

The vast majority of federal laws could not pass a true constitutional litmus test. Oh, I know that they all have a line or two saying that they are crafted to address a concern of interstate commerce but that's just political hogwash for the most part. Federal laws are not crafted with the intent to regulate interstate commerce, they are crafted for agendas and then adjusted to give lip service to the interstate commerce requirement.

The most visible proof of the loss of state power is the election just past. Think about the television coverage you endured. How much of that was devoted to your state legislature, local mayor or even your governor? Not a drop in the bucket compared to the attention given to federal congressional and senate races. There is no attention given to state races because the balance of power is so far to the federal side that even the most powerful state position is just an also-ran.

UPDATE: The wacky date on this post is intentional. It's going to stay at the top of the first page for a while.

It's starting right now. Current membership: Me, Pylorns, Peekah

I touched on it last week and the idea just won't leave me alone. You see, I want a political identity. I want to be a part of a group of like-minded folk. I know they're out there but they're in the same boat as I am - unable to fully identify with either of the majors or stubbornly claiming independence.

Here are the issues that need to be addressed, the forces that are making this party not only welcome but needed:

It's hard not being a member of a political party. Hard and inefficient. When people talk politics they first establish their stances. This is very easy for a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green or Communist. When you know what party they support you immediately have a general idea of their political beliefs. You have an established starting point.

Now it's true that next to nobody embraces all of the party line but when you have that known starting point it is very easy to clarify your positions. "I'm a Republican but I support freedom of choice" or "I'm a Democrat but I think socialized medical care is the wrong way to go" or even "I'm a Libertarian but I have a sneaking suspicion that the complete elimination of government would be a bad move".

For those of us who can't identify enough with a party to claim membership it is very difficult to even get to a conversational starting point. Before our debate can begin we need to essentially outline our complete political viewpoint. How do you feel about abortion? How do you feel about welfare? How do you feel about progressive taxation? How do you feel about government subsidies, social security, proactive national defense, deficit spending, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras. It can take fifteen minutes of this before you're even at a point where you can start discussing issues.

Dopple-G here, everyone. I'm the source of much of Jim's inanity, but today I bring you a political rant all my own.

For the many who claimed that they were leaving the country if the challenger didn’t win the presidential election, I’d like to extend this opportunity to encourage them to follow through with that promise.

Ilyka is exploring the age old question of what makes a person decide to be a Republican. For me it was pretty simple. When I was a young idealist (making no money) I was very much a Democrat, and proud of it. I thought that it was absolutely wonderful that the Democrats wanted to take care of all of my problems and fix all of the ills of the world. That was a concept I could really get behind!

But as I started to make more money I realized something. First, the Democrats didn't take care of my problems. Not a one. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I did it by myself. I realized something else. They didn't fix all of the ills of the world either. They really weren't fixing any of the world's ills.

But the government was taking my money. In larger and larger amounts. And the Democrats wanted to take even more to fund all of these wonderful problems that never helped me or mine and these other huge programs that never fixed the world's ills.

The more I made, the more they took. But no matter how much of my money they took they still weren't taking care of me and they still weren't fixing the world's ills.

I got pissed. I got Republican. They had loads of bogus promises too but the big one was that they didn't want to keep taking more and more of my money. They wanted a smaller government without so many useless programs that required less money out of my pocket to throw into the great bureaucratic black hole of incompetence. That rocked!

I've toned back quite a bit since then. By this time in my life I'm more of a lower case "l" libertarian than anything else. Perhaps a good description would be "moderate disestablishmentarianist". If the government was completely scaled back to the point where they didn't screw with my life at all unless I was in the process of screwing with somebody else, and vice versa, I'd be perfectly happy.

So long as they stopped taking my money of course.

Everybody has seen the map of America with the red states and the blue states and it makes it look like the coasts versus everybody else. Get a bit more granular and a whole different picture emerges. We're all just shades of purple.

(Hat tip to Dopple-G)

While waiting for the elevator in the front lobby I overheard this conversation:

Old (very old) Lady: ...but he's NOT on the side of good. He's on the side of EVIL!

Security Guard: But he's...

Old (very old) Lady: (Interrupting) He's evil! You can't support something that's evil!

Security Guard: I don't think...

Old (very old) Lady: (Interrupting) I don't care if he did win the election. He'll never be my president!

Security Guard: It's not like you have a whole lot of choice at this point.

Old (very old) Lady: The hell I don't! I'm fighting for the side of good. I'll fight everything he does! And so will every other good Democrat!

Security Guard: (mutters)

I don't know what the muttering was but I can guess that it was along the lines of "Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of, you crazy old bat."

Thankfully this isn't a person I work with. From the looks of her she wandered in for a captive ear, knowing that the security guard couldn't leave the front desk area. My elevator got there at this point so I don't know how the security guard managed to end the conversation. They are armed with tasers and batons though so we can always hope...

(Credit for "Overheard" theme goes to Flibby. Here's a recent example of his handiwork in the arena.)

(Click for supah-size)

Sorry, y'all. I couldn't resist.

(Hat tip to Lovely Wife)

"We are not going to give up until the last vote is counted."

"We give up."

Okay, it was a cheap shot but I couldn't resist. Kerry could have protracted things and extended the exceptional division that has marked this election. After some time to look things over and examine the options and probable repercussions he chose not to do so. Now lets see if they can put those thousands of lawyers back into Pandora's box.

We at the Flying Pig party would like to thank all of our supporters for the hard work they did during this exciting presidential campaign. It was a good run, hard fought, and dearly paid for.

The contest was close but our analysts tell us that it is statistically impossible for us to pull in Ohio. To avoid the trials and tribulations of a protracted and divisive struggle we are conceding the Presidential race. We will not contest ballots in heavily Piggish districts nor will we file lawsuit after lawsuit in a pathetic attempt to escape the inevitable.

This is a time for healing the self-inflicted wounds that split our country during this highly charged election. A time to make rational thought and cooperation our goals. A time to erase the tri-partisan nature of our politics and make our government simply partisan.

Don't lose heart my friends. The Flying Pig party is still strong and dedicated. We will be back again in 2008 when next these elections come around. In the meantime we fully intend to support President Nader in any way possible and encourage all Piggies to do the same.

Thank you for your support,
Jim Peacock
Former Vice Presidential Candidate, Flying Pig Party

Waiting time to vote this morning was close to two hours. Later in the day it was still an hour plus. I left work at 4:30 and got to my polling location at 5:15 (did I tell you that I'm a commuter now? Yay).

No line. None. I was in and out in just a couple of minutes. The handful of people there with me were laughing and joking, their fear of a lengthy wait dissipated and leaving them lighthearted and lightheaded.

I'm assuming there was a lot of lightheadedness in the 4th Congressional district where they elected the shame of Georgia Cynthia McKinney again.

The moral of the story? Procrastination pays.

Got a minute? Why not stop by the Flying Space Monkey's totally unscientific but still relatively impartial exit poll?

At least they are in the hands of a talented animator.

Political Bohemian Rhapsody

So the veep candidates debated. Overall impression? A much better debate than the first Presidential one. Cheney is a fantastic speaker and Edwards is pretty decent too. Both seemed generally comfortable although Edwards did get rattled several times as the debate progressed.

Cheney gets points for speaking well and actually answering the debate questions for the most part. He loses points for looking like that pervy guy down the street that talks to the paper boy just a bit too long when he comes collecting.

Edwards gets points for fantastic hair and getting rid of the herpes sore on his lip from last Thursday. Miracles of modern medicine, I tell you what. Seriously though he speaks well but he's boring as hell. He never stops emoting and that is very wearying to watch. Check the clips - he does not ever stop moving for more than a second or two and he blinks at about 100 frames per second. This guy is too jumpy to be one anthrax laden letter away from the Oval Office.

Did anybody else look at Edwards and think "Dan Quayle as a Democrat"?

The big thing about the debates is if they will sway opinions. So did this one sway mine? Yes, a bit. I am more comfortable with Cheney as a second in command than I am with Edwards. If these two were going for the big chair Edwards would just have removed himself from serious consideration. As a result Edwards ends up as a negative in the Dem column while Cheney is a plus in the Rep column.

Not that it matters at all since we'll all be voting "Flying Pig" this go-round. Right?

How much does the debate matter though? It's pretty much the same for us no matter who's in the penthouse.

Nicky is very inexperienced and somewhat at a loss about how to go about things, especially without the generally required equipment. He ends up 'mounting' whatever end of Kota that he happens to be located nearest.

It gives new meaning to the term "Fucked in the head".

As you know, Kota (aka Scarface) is in her first heat. She's a bit 'off' in the head but seems to be handling things okay. Nicky on the other hand, is not. Nicky is nutless in a literal sense but he is still responding to the pheromones/hormones/whatever that Kota is putting out.

He keeps trying to hump her.

It's such a sad and pathetic scene. He has as much experience with female dogs in heat as Kota has being one. That is, none. He can't do anything productive since he has no balls. She's so much bigger than he is (labrador vs. terrier) that it's almost comical to watch. Perhaps the funniest thing is that Kota doesn't even pay attention to him. He'll try to grab on and go to town and she'll just lie there playing with a toy or whatever she was doing until she gets up and walks away leaving him with a sad and bewildered look on his face.

I was laughing (quietly, so as not to further humiliate the dog) at this yesterday when I had a disturbing thought. Nicky is incapable of doing what he wants to do. He is following deep rooted commands that are a part of his very being, he has no option not to keep trying to do what he can never do correctly. He is acting and reacting based solely on how he has been conditioned and bred to act and react. No matter how stupid he looks or how much people laugh at him or what an ass he makes of himself he will not stop until the conditions that are prompting him are removed.

Nicky is John Kerry, Kota is the USA and her heat is the election cycle. Is that spooky or what?

The Scene: A cook-out at the Peacock house (slow cooked beef ribs, chicken breasts and bun length hot dogs). Sounds of bad karaoke float over the hills from a neighbor's house.

Dopple-G: What is that noise? Is somebody else having a party?

Lovely Wife: It's some karaoke or wedding singer or something. He was doing Dido last night.

Jim: There's nothing quite so sad as an off-key tenor singing Dido.

Dopple-G: The problem with wedding singers is they all sing the exact same songs. They need to expand their repertoire, put in some songs that rock. You know what they really need? They need to sing some...

Trey and Jim: (Interjecting simultaneously) Metallica.

Dopple-G: ...Metallica.

The spooky part here is that to the best of my recollection Trey and I hadn't ever gotten* into a discussion about music in general or Metallica in particular. Are we just both warped in the same fashion or did we both just read Dopple-G that well?

Either way I think we've successfully addressed two things here. First, we're obviously a natural team so the Flying Pig party isn't going to be subject to the divisive inter-party sniping that plagues the big parties. Second, Bread Fan will make an excellent replacement for Hail to the Chief.

* I really hate "gotten". Yes I know it's a real word and yes it is used correctly here but I really, really don't like that word. I use it now in self flaggelation just in case I've got some karmic debt that I don't know about.

D-D-Did I say Cam-Cam-C-C-C-C-Cambodia?

I-I served in Viet-Viet-V-V-V-Vietnam!

UPDATE: This one has suddenly become topical too so I'm topping it.

Some folks have been giving Helen some guff because she's a strong supporter of a certain right-wing weblog. Right off the bat I have a low opinion of them. You get to the point where you think you should be telling other people how to think and you are past the point of rational discourse in my book. What really burns my butt here is the weblog these people are complaining about. You're all familiar with it to some extent because you're reading it right now.

Yeah, isn't that a kick and a half for your ass? Snooze Button Dreams viewed as a right-wing blog?

I ended up at 0,0 on the Political Compass. I voted for Al "Watch Me Implode" Gore, y'all. That's how right-wing I am.

If I had to be pigeon holed into a major party I'd have to pick "fuck you, no I don't either". I am one of those rare breed of citizens who looks at issues instead of parties. All politicians are scum to one extent or another. I firmly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with anybody who would run for public office. There's a mental disjoin required for anybody to want to be a politician. I am most certainly not going to align myself with any group of fundamentally unsound persons.

There are some parts of a traditional Republican agenda that I agree with. There are some parts of a traditional Democratic agenda that I agree with. Same with Libertarians, Reformists and even a bit of Green. I do not fall neatly (or even sloppily) into any of these groups.

So why do casual viewers think I'm a conservative? There are a couple of reasons that I can think of:

1. I think that Michael Moore is a bag of puss.


2. I absolutely despise the Clintons.


3. I am hawkish on actions in Afghaniraq.


4. I have an American flag in my sidebar. (I've got one on my van too. And two on my house.)


5. I believe that the War on Terror is a real war that we need to pursue vigilantly and mercilessly.


6. I believe that it is wrong to slaughter Jews.

These items have become associated with the Republican party and therefore these people are painting me with the conservative brush. That happens when you rush to a snap decision or when you are small-minded enough that you must stick people into your own preconceived categories. People who have taken the time to know me have discovered why I think that Michael Moore is a bag of puss (because he's a lying bastard), why I despise the Clintons (because they are lying bastards; also, Hillary is one shade light of Stalin), why I'm hawkish on actions in the Middle East (because that is where the terrorists come from), why I have American flags all over (because I love my country; I love being a part of the greatest nation in the world and I am proud to show everybody how much I support her), why I'm so pro-War on Terror (because these people are wrong and evil and won't ever stop until we kill all of them; think mini-Terminators only not so tough), and why I am against killing Jews (do I really need something in the parenthesis for this one?).

Add to that my dislike of waste and big government, my intolerance of idiocy and my perfect willingness to write off any person, group, country or continent that does not agree with the last two items on that list and that probably explains why these people have jumped to the wrong conclusion about my politics.

Who are these people anyway? I don't know them and I doubt I ever will. The reason why is probably another reason that they've incorrectly assumed I'm a right-wing type. If you look at my blogroll you won't see many political blogs but most of the ones you see are right leaning. There is a very good reason for this. I have found leftish blogs to be increasingly strident and angry over the past year. I have lost a few blogs from my blogroll, written by people I liked, because it became painful to read them. I honestly can't hear any more from the Bush Lied crowd. I can't stand hearing explanations of moral equivalence, bashing against America, and hysterical hyperbole about the government any longer. People that polarize and publish to the left just seem to be getting bitchier and bitchier and I'm sick of listening to it.

Besides, I read political blogs mainly for the news perspectives. I can get the lefty slant on news items through Reuters and AP feeds or any number of regular newspapers.

To sum up, if you happen to be one of the people giving Helen a hard time please knock it the hell off. First, you are a jackass for doing it. Second, you are wrong. Third, I really mean it - you are a jackass.

I'm happy to say that yesterday was primary voting here in Georgia and nobody took in more votes for the Flying Pig party than Trey and I did!

Can I get a hallelujiah?

* Alternate title: Making the primaries our bitch

"To vilify a great man is the readiest way in which a little man can himself attain greatness" - Edgar Allan Poe

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." - H. G. Wells

"I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"A narrow mind and a fat head invariably come on the same person." - Zig Ziglar

"He steps on stage and draws the sword of rhetoric, and when he is through, someone is lying wounded and thousands of others are either angry or consoled." - Pete Hamill

"If one is to be called a liar, one may as well make an effort to deserve the name." - A. A. Milne

"Ill deeds are doubled with an evil word." - William Shakespeare

"The liberal soul shall be made fat." - Bible

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." - Adolf Hitler

Can you think of any other quotes that could have been written about Michael Moore?

Seems like I'm posting a lot about politics lately, doesn't it? It's probably because with the election coming up the stupid factor is increasing to near astronomic proportions. Take this bullshit for instance. The Feds have made it illegal for US citizens to buy cheap drugs from outside of America. Ostensibly this is to guarantee quality through Federal controls on pharmaceutical companies. That by itself is total horse shit but I'm not going to get into the reasons why in this particular rant. No, this particular rant deals with the exceptionally warm and deep pile of horse shit that our politicians are currently attempting to spread.

They are now trying to pass legislation to allow people to purchase from foreign drug markets and their reasoning is just as bad as it was for the current embargo - they say that we can save money by buying drugs from Canada. They are using this as a sop to the masses. "We feel your pain! We'll let you buy cheap drugs, that's how much we care! All your problems will go away with cross-border pharmaceuticals!"

Bullshit.

Who can name the only government handout program where millions can be given to a single individual with absolutely no consideration of his/her need for the money? Here are a couple of hints:

WIC: Nope. The income of the parents is the deciding factor.
Welfare: Nope. Again, income is the key.
Medicaide/Medicaire: Nope. Money again. If they don't think you need the program you don't get it.

There's only one government program (hint: it's a Federal one) where up to 75 million dollars is given to a person no matter how much money he/she earns and regardless of their assets or any realistic need for the money.

The answer is in the extended entry.

Why vote for Bush? What is there to support about Kerry? Let the candidates tell you themselves. In song.

(Hat tip to Simon)

Leahy and Cheney went at it, trading some fairly rude cuts. Cheney lost it and dropped a "fuck" on Leahy. So? This wasn't a speech on the open floor. It was two antagonistic partisans sparring in a private conversation.

Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is [in] session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.

Did you see that up there? I corrected the grammar in a CNN article. I do so totally kick ass. Back to the issue at hand:

Why do they do things like this? Why the "technically" not in session? It was picture day and the Senate was not not in session in any fashion, period and end of story. Why do they have to add in the unnecessary qualifier of "technically"? It's so the reader will think that Cheney is taking advantage of a loophole to escape his just punishment for his potty mouth.

In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

All of this hullabaloo over a profanity and nobody even knows which profanity was used? Color me unimpressed. Leahy was interviewed about it and they didn't ask him what the profanity was? Rightsuretheydidn't. Leahy doesn't remember what Cheney said because they were in the midst of an argument and the profanity didn't register. Pat's got to be pretty used to people telling him to fuck off, fuck himself, stick things in his fucking ass, etc.

No, what happened is that somebody close enough to eavesdrop heard part of a profanity. When Cheney and Leahy were done he went up to Leahy and said something like "Pat, did he just tell you to go fuck yourself?" and Leahy responded with something like "Fuck off, go fuck myself, yeah - something like that. Why?" Then the eavesdropper said "Do you know that profanity is against the rules of the Senate?" and Pat said "Fuckin A? Son of a bitch that's fucking awesome! We got that cocksucker now!"

But when they went to rat on Cheney they were told that the profanity rule (like all of the rules of order) is only in effect when the Senate is in session and today was picture day and the Senate was not in session. No crime, no foul. So Leahy probably dropped it with a little moue on his face but the eavesdropper decided he'd give it to the press and let them run with it.

I pledge that when I am Vice President I will refrain from ever using profanity on the floor of the Senate, whether it's in session or not, unless the brainless mother fuckers totally deserve it or I'm really angry. In either of those cases all bets are off.

It's important to stay the course but if the course you're on is the wrong course and it's heading for the shoals, it's pretty smart to turn the rudder and change course. Staying the course is one thing, but if it's the wrong course, it's not a sign of strength, it's a sign of reckless stubbornness. --John Kerry

If you aren't achieving your goals you should reevaluate your plan and make changes as necessary. --Me

Givens/Peacock in 2004!

The first Flying Pig Party item is finished and loaded into the Snooze Button Dreams store. Be the first kid on your block with a Flying Pig Mouse Pad:

Cost for Flying Pig memorabilia will be whatever Cafe Press is charging. I believe that getting the message out there is more important than making a profit. That's why the first item is something that'll sit on your desk and nobody will ever see. Brilliant, Jim. Just brilliant.

Let me know what other item types you'd like to see.

UPDATE: Almost forgot! The motto on this mousepad, which will be one of two main mottos for the party, was thought up by SpaceMonkey.

Moderator: First Candidate, allegations have been raised that in your youth you behaved in an erratic, some might say "youthful" manner. Please respond.

First Candidate: I'm so glad you brought that up, Moderator. Youth today is in crisis. If elected president I will see to it that the problems with today's youth are thoroughly investigated and addressed to the satisfaction of everybody and their mother.

Moderator: Other Candidate, your detractors blame the recent increase in inflation on the massive government spending plans you have initiated. How do you reply?

Other Candidate: I've been waiting for the chance to address that exact question. A tax return is just that - a return of tax money to the taxpayers. We should not be taking more money that we need to and if we do, we need to give that money back. That's why I am pledging to pursue a taxation plan that more closely matches our actual budgetary needs.

Moderator: Flying Pig Candidate, you are a relative unknown in this race. We're not sure exactly how you made it into the debates at all, seeing as you're basically a political nonentity. Do you have any qualification for the office?

Flying Pig Candidate: I can answer a question. I can stand here, listen to the words coming out of your mouth, form a reply in my mind that adequately addresses the concerns you have raised and then form words to that effect.

Moderator: First Candidate, there is some question on your committment to ... hold on a moment here. Flying Pig Candidate, did you just reply to my question with an answer to the actual question that I asked?

Flying Pig Candidate: Why yes. Yes I did.

Moderator: And did you just reply to a yes or no question with a yes or no?

Flying Pig Candidate: Yes, I did do that. Here, I've just done it again.

Moderator: Extraordinary...

Flying Pig Candidate: Indeed.

Our customized plates have turned out to be more popular than expected. The wenches dedicated supporters are absolutely frenzied over them! Ever one to want to please, I have created a few more plates along the lines of suggestions already made. First come, first served!

*

*Choice of some plates may require additional levels of support.

If anybody wants to play around and make their own plates just head on over to the ACME License Maker.

It's all about the soundbites, baby. With that in mind it's critical that our political party have a recognizeable and biteable motto. Thanks to Clancy and Helen I think I've figured it out. Check it:

If the lesser of two evils is common sense then the least of three evils should be a no brainer!

Vote Flying Pig. The least of three evils.

The regular literature would be "Flying Pig, the least of three evils". Does that just sing or what? Damn, I should have been in marketing.

Hey, a fan base is almost as critical in politics as it is in rock & roll. Helping to keep our peeps happy, the Flying Pig party is happy to present this custom plate to our loudest beggar most vocal supporter.

Got my vanity plates all lined up. That was the last thing on my checklist for things I had to do before being elected Vice President.

I got some for Trey, too.

(As seen at WizBang)

One thing that I couldn't believe during last night's question and answer session was how obnoxious the press questions were. They almost completely ignored a chance to ask the freaking President of the United States actual questions about what is going on right now and what our plans are. They abandoned actual journalism for attempts to squeeze some partisan soundbite out of Bush.

Related to that, I couldn't believe that Bush kept his cool under the onslaught. He maintained his decorum and kept trying to steer things back to topics of actual importance.

I've got news for you. This is going to be very different when the Flying Pig party takes the White House. Trey is most likely going to be way too busy vetoing things to entertain foolish questions from the press so I expect to be tapped for this particular task. Unlike Mr.Bush I will not be overly concerned with pressie feelings when they are obviously attacking me and mine. Oh, I won't come straight out and call them retards like my running mate might but I'll be answering their questions simply and brutally.

Let's review the questions that they unleashed on Bush last night with me at the podium instead of George:

Trey's an even better Photoshopper than I am. That's why he's the presidential candidate and I'm only the veep.

(Click for even more flying pigs.)

Methinks I'll replace my own sign with one of these. Since we don't need to worry about a primary we don't have to go for the shock factor anyway.

And more importantly, only YOU can get Trey Givens elected to Presidential office. By popular demand we proudly offer an official "Givens/Peacock 2004" election campaign decal:

Be the first blog on your server to display your allegiance to the only candidate team promoting sensible government based on the Constitution.

DATELINE - Atlanta

Trey Givens has become the first 2004 Presidential candidate to specifically declare his running mate. In the context of this news the word "mate" should be interpreted as "companion" and not "companion, know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge".

In a move that may have global implications the avowed libertarian has taken part time antidisestablishmentarianist Jim "Snoozey" Peacock onto his ticket. Givens explained his choice thusly: "Jim is a reasonable and even-handed person. He’s not likely to call you names like I would."

When reached this morning for comment Mr.Peacock confirmed that he had gladly accepted the offer and was "looking forward to the challenge" that they will face in this election. In popular polling given choices of Trey Givens, George Bush, and John Kerry, Givens came in behind the Republican and Democratic candidates. Jim Peacock aims "to change that". Strong words indeed.

Miscellaneous talking heads that only surface from their government pork fed think tanks for one of every four years like salmon returning to the fetid waters that birthed them were quick to comment. Said one "This choice will serve Givens well. 'The Snooze' is a married man with children and his inclusion will make Givens a more attractive choice for center-right voters. They will see Peacock's heterosexuality as a check against Givens' gay powers and will be more comfortable voting for him."

Another commented that "This may turn around and bite Trey in the ass. And not in the good way either! A lot of his homosexual voter base was hoping he would run with the Good Doctor. They're just such a cute couple. Seriously!"

Time, and massive advertising budgets, will tell how the Givens/Peacock ticket fares.