Sunday, February 28, 2010

PIGs, Banksters and the Death of the Euro

The Old Ones

No, not that ancient race that's coming back to take vengeance on us someday (or something like that), and I'm not referring to the elderly either (though they have taken their revenge by bleeding the rest of us dry with their Social Security and Medicare trough-feeding); no, I'm talking about your old posts.

When I first starting reading blogs a few years ago and before I started blogging myself (if you can call what I do blogging) I came across a blog by a young woman who had just started making posts, and in the comments on one of them she expressed her regret that she had not started sooner. It seems she noticed that other blogs had a large number of archived posts and her blog looked terribly empty in comparison. Someone then left an encouraging comment about how it would take awhile, but she would build those archives with time. The thing is though, most new readers of a blog don't seem to bother much with investigating the older posts. If anybody at all reads them, it's people who find them through a search engine. Some of those will then look at the main page of the blog and maybe become a regular reader, but of those who find your blog through other means, very few care to read what you wrote even just last week, and if that's the case (and it seems to be) there shouldn't be any worries among new bloggers about the newness of their blogs, cause no one gives a you know what about the time and effort you put into those grand old posts anyway.

Of course, if you're looking to build traffic, you'll need a lot of old posts, because that's how many, if not most people will find your blog, through Google searches that take them to one of your older insightful articles or essays.

There are, however, methods to increase viewership of your archives, and some good ideas in the video below.

So, do you ever bother looking through the archives of a blog you've just discovered or one you really, really like? Or do you just read the new stuff? If the latter, I have to asked, why are you so prejudiced against the old ones?

How to Get People to Read Your Old Posts

Friday, February 26, 2010

US Will Start World War III by Attacking Iran

Michel Chossudovsky believes the United States is planning for war.

Alan Moore on Anarchism

"I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation- that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice"-Alan Moore

Alan Moore is the writer of V for Vendetta, Watchmen, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and many other graphic novels and comics. He's also written novels, poetry and screenplays.

An Anarchist FAQ

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

A Introduction to Israel’s Blockade of Gaza

The Gaza Strip is essentially a prison. That’s the best way to think of it. About two-thirds of Gaza is surrounded by a security fence that is patrolled by the Israeli Army. The rest of Gaza borders the Mediterranean Sea and is patrolled by the Israeli Navy. Israel destroyed the Strip’s only airport in 2001. So Israel, with the help of Egypt, completely controls who and what enters Gaza and who and what leaves Gaza.

After Hamas took control of Gaza in June 2007, Israel began to sharply restrict the flow of people and goods entering and leaving the Strip. Because Gaza, like most small economies, depends upon foreign trade for its survival, this proved to be devastating. Businesses went bankrupt, unemployment skyrocketed. By August 2008, 80% of the population had become dependent upon international aid.

And then last year Israel launched “Operation Cast Lead” and for three weeks subjected Gazans to what can only be described as Hell. When all was said and done, 1,400 people (most of them civilians) had been killed, 100,000 people displaced, 3,540 homes destroyed, 55,770 homes damaged, 268 businesses destroyed, 432 businesses damaged. Moreover, “Tanks and other military vehicles demolished 17% of Gaza’s cultivated land in the conflict, including 17.5% of olive, date and other fruit orchards and 9.2% of open fields.” [Sources: United Nations OCHA and Amnesty International, Oxfam, et al (h/t Norman Finkelstein and The Heathlander).]

Once the assault ended, foreign governments offered a total of $4 billion to help rebuild Gaza. But Israel has continued the blockade, rendering that offer all but meaningless. For the last twelve months, Israel has allowed just a trickle of humanitarian goods to enter the Strip. And to make matters worse, its definition of “humanitarian goods” keeps changing. Some weeks, this means that Gazans can receive things like pasta, school notebooks, and hearing aids. Other weeks, they’re not so lucky. All total, over the past year, Israel has allowed approximately 112 truckloads of goods to enter Gaza a day, down from 583 truckloads a day during the first five months of 2007.

And Israel has allowed almost no construction materials to enter Gaza. During the past twelve months, Israel has permitted less than four truckloads of such material to enter the Strip a month, down from approximately 7,400 truckloads a month during the first part of 2007. Needless to say, this means that Gazans have been unable to rebuild their homes and businesses.

This also means that Gazans cannot rebuild their medical facilities, 48% of which were damaged or destroyed in “Cast Lead.” And it means that Gazans have been unable to repair their electrical power system, which was heavily damaged in the assault. And it means that Gazans have been unable to repair their water sanitation system, which also suffered major damage. Because of this, the UN warns that the Strip’s “water supply is on the verge of collapse.”

As far as exports go, well, fuhghettaboutit. They’ve been almost nonexistent. Consequently, 40% of Gazans remain unemployed and 70% of Gazan families are forced to survive on less than one dollar a day per person.

I could keep going on and on. I could discuss all the medical patients who are prevented from leaving the Strip to receive treatment. I could discuss all the students who cannot leave to study abroad. I could tell you that most Gazan children have PTSD, that 10% of Gazan children under five suffer from malnutrition. I could describe how Israel recently imposed a 300 meter “buffer zone” along the border, cutting “Gazans off from 30 percent of the strip’s arable land.”

I could go on and on. But I think you get the idea.

Mother Rids Son of "Spirit of Rebellion"

The mother of a dead child testified Wednesday that she agreed to starve her toddler son, who refused to say “amen,” to rid him of a demonic spirit that was potentially placed there when her own mother offered the boy up to the devil.

Ria Ramkissoon, 23, also said she has faith that God will resurrect her son, Javon Thompson, and she’s not afraid to say so, even if it makes her sound crazy.

Is she any "crazier" than anyone else who believes God has and will resurrect dead people?

Mother says she agreed to starve son to rid him of demonic spirit

The Dinesh D'Souza / John W. Loftus Debate

On the question Does the Christian God Exist?, which is a narrower subject than just simply does any god exist. Though Cork recently posted the audio of the debate (thanks, Cork), I thought it would be nice to post the video as well.

Pot Wars

Over the past couple of years, the medical marijuana industry in Los Angeles has exploded. Estimates vary, but there may be as many as 800 dispensaries currently open for business in the city of angels. An ordinance recently passed by the LA city council, however, is about to change all that.

The new ordinance will force hundreds of dispensaries to close and all but a few to relocate. The goal was to bring clarity to the medical marijuana industry, but the only thing that's clear is that the transition process will be difficult.

Especially now that the DEA has begun raiding dispensaries again, despite the promises made by the Obama administration.

56 percent of Californians currently support pot legalization

Liar Obama Does It Again

On Thursday, a Denver news station interviewed Chris Bartkowicz about his medical-marijuana operation in the basement of his home. Bartkowicz, confident of his compliance with state laws, boasted of its size and profitability.

"I'm definitely living the dream now," he told 9News.

The following day, the dream was over.

Drug-enforcement agents raided his home, placed him under arrest, and carried off dozens of black bags of marijuana plants and growing lights.

The Obama administration promised in October that the federal government would respect state laws allowing the growing and selling of marijuana for medicinal use, but the Drug Enforcement Agency sent a loud message with the arrest of Bartkowicz.

Despite Obama admin’s promise, DEA continues raids on medical marijuana growers

So DEA thugs (they're from the GUNvernment, not a private gang, Ginx) arrested a man for providing a product and service in free exchange with people who want what he offers. So, Ginx, when the owner of a private firm has his freedom and livelihood taken away, who can stop the uniformed state thugs who committed the crime? They have "legal" authority, remember, unlike a gang under anarchy, which would have no such legitimacy. There is no law, there is no other authority to go to under the State, except the kangaroo court "justice" system with its pro-state black-robed tyrants sitting in judgment.

Isn't it nice to know that Barack "Hope and Change" Obama is "expanding the drug war and tilting its funds heavily toward law enforcement over treatment". What hope! Such change! So different from the evil Bush, right, "liberal" DemoRATS?

DEA thug Jeff Sweetin wants you to know that he's also going to go after the dispensaries that help sick people, and that "The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody. They're violating federal law; they're at risk of arrest and imprisonment..."

Anarchism: What It Really Stands For

ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.


Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
"Art thou, and war and murder's endless rage."
O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word's right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
I cannot tell--but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!


The strange phenomenon of the opposition to Anarchism is that it brings to light the relation between so-called intelligence and ignorance. And yet this is not so very strange when we consider the relativity of all things. The ignorant mass has in its favor that it makes no pretense of knowledge or tolerance. Acting, as it always does, by mere impulse, its reasons are like those of a child. "Why?" "Because." Yet the opposition of the uneducated to Anarchism deserves the same consideration as that of the intelligent man.

What, then, are the objections? First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal. Second, Anarchism stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous. Both the intelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of the subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays--ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR

People Are Evil... Except Those Who Serve in Government

Anyone of a libertarian mind-set has probably had a conversation similar to this:

You: Government sucks.

Bob: Yes, but it’s necessary. People are stupid and evil, and life without government would degenerate into a chaotic dictatorship of corporate mobs and gang warfare.

Another common variant is the more succinct:

Bob: Humanity can’t be trusted with that much freedom.

The obvious problem with this line of reasoning is a heaping dose of self-defeat. If people are, as a rule, stupid, evil and predisposed to chaos and gang-based war, then the most irrational action one might take in pursuit of minimizing these consequences is the deliberate formation of such a gang. After all, those who would serve in government are members of the same human race as the rest of us. It cannot be declared that government is necessary because people are evil, while simultaneously exempting the people in government from this inherent evil.

Of course, the inevitable response to this is the catch-all solution: democracy! We keep the undesirables out of office by simply not voting them in. Power to the people . . . right?

Oh, wait. People. Stupid, evil, chaos-loving, warmongering people — who will almost certainly elect stupid, evil, chaos-loving, warmongering politicians. It seems that democracy does not solve or even manage the problem.

Evil Humans

Libertarian Party finally issues a press release that's actually libertarian..

..instead of conservative. Good job. We can only hope that they're getting back to the radical roots and doing less of the "Republican lite" schtick.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Olbermann Invited

A.C. Grayling on "Teach the Controversy"

Don't Bring Me Muffins Anymore

"I brought muffins!"

Oh, the siren call! How can you turn down a muffin? Have you ever successfully done so? What if you find yourself staring at multiple varieties; chocolate chip, blueberry, banana nut and the unknown (because I can't remember what that fourth kind was)? Could you stand it for long? How long, I ask, could you hold out?

I had begun the day with one of those weight-loss shakes, the 200 calorie curb your hunger for 5 or 6 hours kind. It was going to be my only meal until lunch, when I would dine upon nothing but one apple. My apple sat on my desk, looking back at me with pure red goodness. Not only would I have just that apple, but I would bite into it and consume it while walking, a lunch time stroll up the nearby hillside. I was determined this time, and on my way to pound-shedding success. I could feel it!

Then someone brought those muffins to work. The back table is right behind my new desk by the window, and for twenty minutes the muffins sat there, while I watched my co-workers, their fat asses barely contained by their pants, line up to add even more meat to their already grotesquely obese bodies. But I wasn't like them, no, not anymore!

Their exclamations of muffin madness assaulted my ears, but failed to entice me to join them in the folly of muffin intemperance.

"These are really good muffins!"

"I love blueberry muffins"

"Wow! Chocolate chip? My favorite!"

"Thanks for the muffins! I can never get enough of anything banana nut."

Then the someone who'd brought the cursed demon-cakes approached me. "Have you had a muffin yet?" she asked.

Those sad eyes and that sweet expression of concern over my lack of muffin nourishment were too much for me. I rolled my chair back to the muffin table and greedily grabbed the largest chocolate chip muffin I could lay my hands on. 45 seconds later it was gone, and I stared down at the crumbs my gluttony had left behind. The guilt was overwhelming, but I vowed then and there to resist all such temptations in the future. That would be my very last muffin! (and I wasn't just talking for the day, either; that was my last muffin for life).

As the day wore on and lunch approached, my throat began to feel sore. I'd left my cough drops in the car, and I was getting desperate for something to sooth my throat. I looked back at the remaining muffins. I was thinking maybe a really soft muffin would do my throat good. I slowly eased myself over to the muffin display, and to my delight I noticed that the blueberry ones were extremely moist looking and had sugar crystals on top. In fact, the sugar had melted a bit at the very top of the muffins. Didn't melted sugar have sore throat curing properties? I took one quickly and scarfed it down within the confines of my cubicle, keeping my head low while I let the sweet blueberry flavored moistness slide down my troubled throat.

Then I heard the one who'd brought the muffins say "I brought muffins instead of doughnuts because I think they're better than doughnuts. They're healthier for you."

When lunched arrived I looked forlornly at my apple. Then I got in my car and went to the Mexican take-out place nearby for a giant bean and cheese burrito (the soft beans and cheese would be good for my sore throat, I figured) and then added a couple of beef tacos for good measure. Why not? My diet plans for the day were shot to hell anyway.

Monday, February 22, 2010

John Loftus debates babbling fool

Here. Enjoy!

I'm actually listening to it right now. The consensus seems to be that D'Souza actually "won" (in the audience's eyes). Might have some thoughts when I'm done. D'Souza is a babbling fool regardless. ;)

UPDATE: Bah, D'Souza's arguments are so jaw-droppingly horrible that I don't think I can listen to this crap from beginning to end.

Has Obama really “bent over backwards” for Iran?

President Obama makes statement on Iran at White House
In a recent press conference, Barack Obama said:

“I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

“The most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide the conversion of some of the low-enriched uranium that they already have into the isotopes that they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to a million Iranian citizens. They rejected it—although one of the difficulties in dealing with Iran over the last several months is it’s not always clear who’s speaking on behalf of the government, and we get a lot of different, mixed signals. But what’s clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal, and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

“That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization.”

The president’s narrative here is partially true. Just as he claims, the West made Iran an offer regarding its supply of low-enriched uranium. But by no means did the West “bend over backwards” or show its willingness to have a “constructive conversation.” Yes, there was a deal, but no, it wasn’t a good deal, at least not from Iran’s perspective; it certainly wasn’t a deal that anyone should have expected Iran to accept.

The two sides first met in Geneva last October. At issue was what to do about Iran’s supply of low-enriched uranium. At the time, Iran had been enriching its uranium to 5%. It had long made it known that, in order to continue operating a reactor that produces medical isotopes, it would need to start enriching to 20%. (Iran is running out of its existing supply of isotopes, which it purchased from Argentina in 1993. Sanctions prevent it from purchasing any more uranium from abroad.)

But the West didn’t want Iran enriching at all. So it proposed that Iran send three-fourths of its uranium to Russia and France, where it would then be enriched to 20% and finally sent back to Iran. The Obama administration told reporters that “forestalling Iran would allow time to negotiate a more comprehensive and difficult agreement, one intended to end all of Iran’s production of new nuclear material.” Iran said it would accept the deal, and the two sides planned to meet in Vienna later in the month to work out the details.

But the devil proved to be in the details, and to date the two sides have still not reached a deal. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, who headed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until November 30, Iran wants a simultaneous swap. In other words, instead of having to wait around a year to receive back its uranium, it wants to receive a batch of 20% uranium as soon as it ships out its own stock. According to ElBaradei, Iran doesn’t believe that France can be trusted to return the uranium.

Iran’s lack of trust is certainly well-founded. As Muhammad Sahimi explains, in the 1970s Iran, under the rule of the Shah, paid France over $1 billion for enriched uranium. But then the 1979 Revolution occurred, and ever since then, France has refused to hand over the uranium or refund the money Iran had paid for it. Sahimi explains that Iran has even more reasons to distrust Russia.

Although Iran refuses to send out the bulk of its uranium all at once, it continues affirming that it’s willing to send out its uranium to be further enriched by another country. It’s simply insisting upon a simultaneous swap.

Not an unreasonable demand, if you ask me. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) [.pdf], Iran is entitled to keep and enrich its uranium to 20%. And lest anyone fear that Iran might try to make a nuclear weapon, it should be remembered that, in accordance with the NPT, Iran has established a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Which means that Iran cannot produce weapons-grade uranium (that is, uranium enriched to over 90%) without the Agency, and thus the entire world, knowing about it.

But none of this matters to President Obama. He wants Iran to get rid of its uranium supply pronto, and that’s all there is to it. And if Iran doesn’t comply, he’s made it clear that it will face a “significant regime of sanctions.” “Bending over backwards”? Trying to have a “constructive conversation”? Only in Obamaland.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Palin responds to "Family Guy"

Yeah, the joke was in bad taste, but so is everything on Family Guy. Aren't there more important things to worry about than an animated sitcom?

Glenn Greenwald: the "tea party" fraud

There's a major political fraud underway: the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the "tea party" movement. The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views. Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be -- recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America's conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism -- yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, "small government" political movement.

The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth. Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll. Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul's son in the Kentucky Senate race. National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter "felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy -- a statement met with cheers." Glenn Beck -- who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bush's endlessly expanding surveillance state -- now parades around as though he shares the libertarians' contempt for them. Red State's Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative "manifesto," touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws -- from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life state court proceeding -- nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause. With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.

This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles." The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton's Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted -- both before they were empowered and again now -- that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

Read the rest here.

"I Wish Joe Stack Had Not Killed Himself"

An interesting article by Chuck Baldwin.

Yes, Joe Stack was a homicidal douchebag who stupidly believed that killing could solve problems (the same mentality of the government he hated so much). But let's face it: he was dead on in most of his letter. The system we live under is bullshit.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Nat Hentoff On America Under Obama

"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff

In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.

America Under Barack Obama
An Interview with Nat Hentoff

CPAC speaker bashes gays

CPAC: the gift that just keeps on giving. And friends still ask me why I refuse to be associated with the Republican Party.

I Dream of Cheney

It's amazing what pro-state, pro-militarist garbage passes for conservatism today. Yesterday I caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity radio program (with some guest host sitting in for Rush, Jr.) during my lunch break and heard Ann Coulter on who she would like to see as the 2012 Republican nominee for President.

When she revealed her preference, the host seemed a bit surprised, but Ann replied "Why not Dick Cheney?". When the host pointed out that it was unlikely Cheney would run, she said that "doesn't stop a girl from dreaming".

Didn't Cheney have an approval rating in the low teens when he left office (an approval rating even lower than W's)? Wasn't the American public fed up with the establishment regime in 2008 and ready for real change (which they sadly didn't get with liar Obama)? Why the desire to return to and embrace someone so thoroughly rejected and discredited? Why are "conservatives" still so enthusiastic about the big government, big spending Bush administration? Simple. They aren't really conservatives. They're pro-state neocons who now feel threatened by the genuine revolutionary stirrings in the air, symbolized most prominently by people like Ron Paul and the movement for liberty he inspires.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney gets a standing ovation at CPAC 2010

All the rich warmongers, who are careful to stay away from any army recruiting office, yelled for working class guys to die for Cheney’s portfolio, merchants of death, Middle Eastern wars, and dreams of global dominion. Hoorahs for Cheney from bloodthirsty non-combatants: there is conservatism in a nutshell.-Lew Rockwell

Friday, February 19, 2010

Bob Barr booed for stating the obvious

Call waterboarding torture in front of a mob of brownshirts (aka CPAC), get shouted down.

The very first entry at defines torture as the inflicting of severe pain to force information or confession, get revenge, etc.. Hmmm, that doesn't sound similar to waterboarding (or the other so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques) at all, does it?

Back when I first learned about the holocaust and Nazi regime in 6th grade, I wondered how it was possible for regular, ordinary German people to have gone along with it. How sheepish would they have had to be to tolerate a totalitarian government throwing folks in concentration camps, torturing, slaughtering at will...?

Today's conservatives are yesterday's compliant Germans (replace "scary Jews" with "scary Muslims" and there you have it). They're the kind of idiots that gave the Milgram experiment its notoriety. They are boorish, loud-mouthed, thoughtless, anti-intellectual buffoons who are so terrified of brown people that they're willing to implement a literal fascist dictatorship. Sad.

The Parking Jerk

So I made a stop the other morning on my way to work, hoping to be in and out quickly and back on the road to another day of drudgery. But what did I discover when I came back out to my car? Some jackass had parked so close to me that I could not get in by way of the driver's side door. There wasn't even enough room to squeeze into the space between his car and mine by turning sideways.

I was irritated, though not steaming mad, and went around to the passenger door. I contemplated entering on that side and climbing over to the drivers seat, but I had some stuff on the front passenger seat that would make it difficult. A few minutes went by during which I found myself starting to get really angry at Mr. Can't Park A Car to Save His Life, when I see some older guy (though not what you'd call truly elderly or decrepit) walking to the brand new Acura that was blocking me from getting into my 10 year old Corolla.

I walked to the back of my car and thanked him for parking so close that I couldn't open my door. He had gray hair and a beard and a fat pot belly, and after my comment he walked around to where I stood and looked at the space between our cars.

"Hey, buddy," he said, "I'm parked in the lines". He didn't for one moment offer even the hint of an apology, he just stood there attempting to justify his assholiness. I pointed out to him that common courtesy demands one not park so as to block someone's driver's side, and pointed out further that the parking spots, though not huge, were roomy enough that he could have pulled in just a few more inches to the left. Not only that, but the two parking spaces on the other side of his car were empty! He didn't even have to park right next to me!

Then he says to me, "Look at how you're parked". I looked and I saw that although I was close to the line, my tires were within my own space, with the front tire turned so that only part of it was just barely on the line. I also pointed this out to him and that I'd also wanted to avoid doing to the car on the other side of me what he'd done to me, so instead of being a complete jerk, I'd pulled in so as to make room for that other driver to get into their car.

That's when he called me a prick and went back to get into his new Acura. Yeah, I'm a prick for telling him he parked too close! As he pulled out and drove away he gave me the finger and I found myself shouting a profanity back at him. Then I noticed the American flag decal and the "Support the Troops" ribbon on the rear of his car.

Maybe I should have just climbed over the stuff on my seat and forgotten the whole thing, because I was a little depressed for the rest of the day.

Oh, and later, when I was back home, I found this blog about bad parking, Next time, use valet parking...

Park well, my friends.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Cool Bookstores

If you love bookstores and browsing in bookstores like I do, you'll be interested in this.

The World’s 6 Coolest-Looking Bookstores

Looking them over, the one I'd most like to visit is Shakespeare & Co. Antiquarian Books.

The photo directly above reminds me of all the used bookstores I so often frequented on wondrous weekends of literary exploration. I could spent hours in one small section of a book-crammed aisle like that, lost in the land of paper and ink, and forgetful of everything going on in the outside world. What I wouldn't have given to spent every spare moment in such places. I sometimes still fantasize of owning such a store, and with my own collection, purchased over many years, I would probably have a good beginning to an inventory. If, that is, I could bear to part with any of my precious volumes.

The Doctrine of Hell

TSA Tyranny

"You know why we're doing this"

Yes, we know why. Because you're good little Gestapo agents just "doing your job" and "following orders", right, you Nazi pigs? If a revolution comes I wonder what people will think of those who were "just doing their job" and "following orders"? Perhaps they'll feel that real criminal acts should be punished.

Little Ryan (4 years old) was heading to Walt Disney World for his birthday, when he encountered a nasty piece of human refuse called a TSA screener at the airport:

The boy is developmentally delayed, one of the effects of being born 16 weeks prematurely. His ankles are malformed and his legs have low muscle tone. In March he was just starting to walk.

Mid-morning on March 19, his parents wheeled his stroller to the TSA security point, a couple of hours before their Southwest Airlines flight was to depart.

The boy's father broke down the stroller and put it on the conveyor belt as Leona Thomas walked Ryan through the metal detector.

The alarm went off.

The screener told them to take off the boy's braces.

The Thomases were dumbfounded. "I told them he can't walk without them on his own," Bob Thomas said.

"He said, 'He'll need to take them off.' "

Ryan's mother offered to walk him through the detector after they removed the braces, which are custom-made of metal and hardened plastic.

No, the screener replied. The boy had to walk on his own.

Naturally, Bob Thomas, the boy's father and a police officer, was angry. When he spoke to a supervisor about the incident he was told "You know why we're doing this".

On Friday, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said the boy never should have been told to remove his braces.

TSA policy should have allowed the parents to help the boy to a private screening area where he could have been swabbed for traces of explosive materials.

She said she wished Thomas had reported the matter to TSA immediately. "If screening is not properly done, we need to go back to that officer and offer retraining so it's corrected."

Let's see if I understand this right. Forcing 4 year olds to remove their leg braces and then making them walk through a metal detector on their own is not something that a TSA agent would know is wrong without getting more "training"?

These are the idiots "protecting" us from "terrorists"?

And of course no sane person could object to the "proper" procedure of examining a 4 year old for "traces of explosive materials", when obviously it was the metal braces that set off the detector in the first place.

What's next, TSA anal examiners? Oh wait, they've already got those.

Fascist America has arrived, and most of the sheeple don't even realize it, and those that do have an inkling of the situation actually support it.

h/t to The Rogue Jew

The most moronic theist story I've ever heard

Some girl posted this on my Facebook wall. I think it's the most laughably ridiculous (not to mention torturously long) piece of theist propaganda I've ever seen.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

In and Out with the First Couples

In and Out of Office

Mr. and Mrs. Carter

Mr. and Mrs. Reagan

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton

Mr. and Mrs. Bush

Mr. and Mrs. Obama

h/t to Offbeat Emails

The State Is Just A Gigantic Feudal Landlord

Presidents Day Dream

Why did I have to work yesterday? It was a holiday, wasn't it? Children were off from school, the banksters had locked their doors along with their allies, the government offices of the land, and people everywhere were frolicking about in great joy over not having to deal with the evil parasites (no, I don't mean to include the children in that designation).

I dreamed I asked the higher ups (well, the assistant higher up, the only one who was there and not taking the day off as a paid holiday) if it made sense to stay open on a day when most everyone was having Presidents Day barbecues and picnics, exchanging Presidents Day presents, and eating hollow chocolate Washingtons and Lincolns.

And then I had another dream, a dream of a President who actually promised hope and change, and guess what? He was chocolate, just like those little Georges and Abes that the kids find in their baskets on Presidents Day morning. We believed he would end two wars and bring all the troops home and fulfill the dreams of the anti-war movement. But then the chocolate President was really in the White House, and as I watched in horror his outer chocolate coating began to crack, which might not have proved fatal to our hopes, if, that is, we hadn't discovered that beneath that crack he was hollow inside.

And then the true horror of the dream revealed itself, as the chocolate of the new President's head also began to crack and fall away. Would we have a headless President? But no, it was far more terrible than that. Underneath the smiling chocolate face was another one, a grinning, stupid looking face made of white chocolate, and as the last of the real chocolate dropped to the ground, I stared in horror and disbelief. It was George W. Bush!

I woke up screaming.

No more hollow chocolate bunnies for me before bedtime.

Monday, February 15, 2010

The Economics of the Coming Crash

Interview with Marc Faber, who writes the monthly investment newsletter The Gloom Boom & Doom Report

Kevin Smith kicked off airplane for being too fat

Funny stuff.

I've got to be honest here: I hate it when I'm seated next to a really fat guy on a plane--the seats are small and uncomfortable enough as is. At what point does it become necessary to boot a fatty? I'm not sure, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Maybe the solution is to make plus-sized people pay for larger seats in a different section of the plane.


Another sickening "holiday"

President's Day is perhaps the most disgusting "holiday" of the year--even worse than Memorial Day and Flag Day. Yes, yes, let's honor all the power-hungry tyrants, warmongers, thieves and mass murderers who usurped power in the US and dismantled its Constitution (not that I'm pro-Constitution, but following it would be preferable to the current dictatorship).

A "president" is simply the head of the criminal gang we call "government" (the band of thugs that has arbitrarily monopolized power over a certain geographical area). Screw the presidency and its boot-licking apologists.

So you really want another revolution in Iran?

Anti-government Protests in Tehran

Many neoconservatives are beginning to realize that there’s not going to be a war with Iran, at least not anytime soon. Give the neocons a couple years to replace the evil but rational Barack Obama with an evil but not so rational Republican, and they might get their wish. But until then, they’re being forced to look for different, less violent ways to topple the Islamic regime.

Along with pressuring Obama to impose “harsh sanctions” on Iran, many continue insisting that the president needs to do more to show his support for the Green Movement. Bill Kristol, for example, writes that Obama should support “The Iran Democratic Transition Act.” Recently introduced in the Senate by John Coryn (R-Texas) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), the bill which would authorize the president “to support a transition to democracy in Iran by providing non-military assistance to Iranian democratic opposition organizations.” The Iranian people, Kristol believes, might be able to prevail without “a champion in the White House. But it would be easier if they had a champion.”

The assumption here is that a democratic Iran would be an American-like, American-friendly Iran. Just get rid of the ruling regime, Kristol believes, and the United States, and by extension Israel, will gain an ally in the Middle East.

As you might remember, Kristol gave us this exact argument in the months preceding the Iraq invasion. Echoing Dick Cheney’s prediction that Iraqis would greet American forces as “liberators,” Kristol claimed that removing Saddam Hussein would cause the United States to be “respected in the Arab world,” that it “could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East,” starting “a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy.”

Of course, none of these predictions came to pass. While Iraqis were happy to be rid of Saddam, most of them viewed American troops as occupiers. A 2006 poll showed that the vast majority of Iraqis wanted U.S. forces to leave their country within the year; more than 60% supported insurgent attacks against U.S. forces. At the same time, America’s popularity throughout the Muslim world plummeted [.pdf]. And none of those other “terrifically good effects” ever ensued. What did ensue was a new police state in Iraq, one that, unlike Saddam’s regime, is closely allied with Iran.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe that regime change in Iran would serve America’s interests. Although there was certainly some vote-rigging in last summer’s presidential election, polls conducted before and after the election reveal that a majority of voters did in fact support Ahmadinejad. Moreover, 87% of Iranians are satisfied with the current “system of government” (41% are very satisfied, 46% somewhat satisfied), and “[l]arge majorities, including majorities of Mousavi supporters, endorse the Islamist character of the regime such as having a body of Islamic scholars with the power to veto laws they see as contrary to sharia.”

According to a 2009 poll, only 29% of Iranians hold a favorable view of the United States. Another poll shows that less than 5% [.pdf] hold a favorable view of Israel. The same poll found that 62% oppose a peace treaty with Israel and favor “all Muslims fighting until there is no State of Israel in the Middle East.” Similar numbers believe Iran should continue arming Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.

And it’s not as though removing Khamenei and company will put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The vast majority of Iranians share the ruling regime’s view that Iran has the right to a nuclear program, a full 91% believing it’s important to have a “full-fuel-cycle nuclear program.”

I don’t write any of this to justify the Iranian government or to downplay the grievances of the reformists. I just think it’s important to better understand what the Iranian people believe and the probable consequences of a new revolution. Their anger against the United States is real and deep, and if we really want to gain a new friend in the Middle East, then we need to change our foreign policy. Ending our current (harsh) sanctions against Iran and recognizing the nation’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes would be a good start.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable

The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler,
Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the
Rogue’s Gallery of American Society

Fearlessly, and with logic and trenchant wit, Professor Block rehabilitates and demonstrates the considerable economic merits of such scapegoat occupations as the pimp, the blackmailer, and the slumlord.

In this way, in addition to redeeming the stature of these much
reviled occupations, Defending the Undefendable performs the service of highlighting, in the fullest and starkest terms, the essential nature of the productive services performed by all people in the free market. By taking the most extreme examples and showing how the Smithian principles work even in these cases, the book does far more to demonstrate the workability and morality of the free market than a dozen sober tomes on more respectable industries and activities. By testing and proving the extreme cases, he all the more illustrates and vindicates the theory.- From the forward by Murray Rothbard.

Defending the Undefendable

Block is now preparing a follow-up volume, and he's taking suggestions for new "undefendables”.

War on Drugs a Complete Failure

Former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda urges drug legalization.

Jorge Castaneda, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, said marijuana "should be legalized in both countries," and said it is ridiculous for Mexico to try to stop marijuana from entering the United States when it's legally sold for medical purposes in California.

"The Drug Enforcement Administration says that 60 percent of the Mexican (drug) cartels' profits come from marijuana. If we start with that, it's a big chunk," he added.

"We can't do everything overnight ... and we can't do it in Mexico if the U.S. doesn't do it at the same time."-Former Mexican official urges legalizing marijuana

Naturally, violence and deaths escalated in Mexico after President Calderon declared his own war on drugs and the drug cartels, with at least 17,000 killed since 2006.

In fact, the so-called war-on–drugs declared by President Felipe Calderon was brought upon the country as a way to legitimize his power after a fiercely contested presidential election. Lacking clear goals or an exit strategy the war has completely failed.

These are the controversial arguments put forth in a book called “Narco: The failed war,” coauthored by two close collaborators of former president Vicente Fox; his former spokesperson Rubén Aguilar and political analyst and former foreign minister Jorge Castañeda.

The book is only 140 pages long and its divided into six chapters, using a lot of statistics, both from governmental sources and international organizations; the authors paint a picture where the frontal war against drug cartels and the resulting militarization of the country has been an absolute disaster.

The authors analyze the statistics and find the number of murders per capita show a sharp increase only after Calderon declared war on drug trafficking on December 11th in 2006, not before.-The So-Called War on Drugs a Complete Failure

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Curse of the Chocolate Cupcake

Did you know that it's really hard to find good cupcake jokes? I tried, I really tried. And what did I come up with?

Q: Why did the cupcake buy Rogaine?
A: He thought he was losing his sprinkles.

Since I failed with cupcake jokes, it should come as no surprise that I'm a miserable failure in other ways with cupcakes. For instance, the other day at work I was confronted with the question When is your birthday? Innocuous enough, you might think. But not when it means free super moist cupcakes with super chocolate taste and extra super chocolate frosting! That frosting alone was almost as big as the rest of the cupcake, like a cupcake beehive do, you might say. Though it wasn't my birthday, it was someone else's, and the party consisted of dozens of cupcakes. Chocolate and white cake cupcakes took over the back table, but my willpower held. Until I saw everyone around me biting into them, with comments about how they'd never tasted any cupcakes that were so moist before.

I was feeling a little low, and though I'd built up my resistance to donuts over the last few weeks, cupcakes were still, as I soon discovered, a temptation I could not resist. A few chocolate cupcakes later (I avoided the white ones) and I was feeling much better. For a few hours anyway.

Hopefully I'll be able to wean myself off cupcakes (as I did with donuts), and if successful, I know I'll have a good chance of sticking with my cupcake-free pledge. At least until my birthday rolls around.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Canadian "Health Care" So Good Newfoundland Premier Has Surgery In U.S.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is scheduled for heart surgery in the United States, a move that throws into question his province's and his nation's health-care system.

Newfoundland Premier travels to U.S. for heart surgery

Airport Body Scanners and Islamic Law

A number of years ago during my research into Islam and Islamic belief (a part of my then general investigation of religion, a result of which is my large collection of Islamic literature) I discovered the Muslim view on modesty; even men when they are together have to keep certain parts of their bodies covered so that other men can't see them, unlike in our "Christian" culture, where even children are forced to traipse around nude in front of members of the same sex (remember gym class?).

In fact the issue of school PE comes up in Islamic online forums. One individual stated "Getting exempted from PE is not an option. They wouldn't even let me do that temporarily for my first Ramadan". Which brings up the question of why anyone puts up with public school tyranny in the first place. Are we slaves or free?

In Islam Awrah is the term for parts of the body that must remain covered except when in private. Well, now a group of Islamic scholars have ruled that those intrusive (and possibly dangerous to your health-though I found one pro-state troll's typical sheeple response amusing: The scanners could not possibly be as hazardous as having your plane blow up) airport scanners violate Islamic law:

The Fiqh Council of North America – a body of Islamic scholars that includes some from Michigan – issued a fatwa this week that says going through the airport scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty.

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

Now, in my opinion you don't have to be a Muslim to object to having the drooling TSA idiots in their Nazi uniforms invading your privacy and glaring at your body. Have the Security State-worshiping "conservatives" no shame, at long last, have they no shame at all?

Public Miseducation and the Shame of History

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

No, I don't!

So, it is finally learned, a group of "small business owners and individuals who just felt like Washington was against them" are responsible for forcing us to look once again at the face of the Decider, a criminal bankster puppet and mass murderer. Which is maybe why they've chosen to remain anonymous. All the usual suspects naturally think it's jim-dandy.

Which is curious, or maybe not so curious. If those business owners are only now feeling like Washington is against them, did they feel that Washington was for them before? Or maybe they only feel that Washington is more against them now that one of those no-good Democrats occupies the White House. But that certainly isn't what their statement or their sign implies. Perhaps I'm being too literal in some way, but if they're the honest individuals I'm sure they want us to suppose they are, they must have had similar feelings about the Federal Government before Obama took office.

But if they did, where was their Bill Clinton billboard during Bush's two terms? I'm sure a lot of people were missing Slick Willie many times over during W's reign of fascism rising. I even had a few reluctant but nevertheless fond memories of him myself at times between 2001 and 2008. And I was no Bill Clinton fan.

Perhaps the part of the puzzle I'm missing now is that Bush's fascism was Red State Fascism which is Christian and military-worshiping and therefore "good", while Obama and the Democrats Blue State Fascism is "socialistic" and therefore "bad".

The other strange thing is that Obama is only giving us more of what Bush gave us; more bailouts, more spending, more war. If it was good before, why is it suddenly bad now? Strange, very strange.

What we really have are two big government parties that want to continue with the welfare/warfare state until the end of time (or in the case of the ironically colored "red" party, at least until Jesus returns). They have a symbiotic relationship, and are two parts of a greater ruling class whole. Real change never arrives, and all we get is more of the same.

I've said for some time now that all the right-wing talk show hosts and bloggers and other "conservatives" that are howling about "socialism" and big government now, don't want a revolution, they want a restoration, a return to power of the same people that were holding the reigns just a little over a year ago. They'd rather see Dick Cheney as President than Ron Paul, and that gives their phony game away.

Don't believe it? Here's one of the billboard's supporters in his own words:

At this time we still don’t know the names of the people who put up the money for the sign to be posted in that little town of Wyoming, Minnesota, but whoever they are, they should come forward and proudly admit they support President Bush – as should the rest of us. It’s time to stop being afraid to come right out and say how we really feel.

We do miss President Bush, and we will never forget what he did for America and the world; not now, not ever.

Meanwhile, the rest of us that really do still dream of liberty should make sure we don't get fooled again.

At the Store

I have thoughts and observations, and not just when I'm forced to have them. For example, I have them when I'm pushing a shopping cart around the supermarket.

People bring their children to the market, and that's perfectly acceptable, but I'm really sick of seeing kids past the age of 5 or 6 sitting not in the cart seat at the front, but in the main basket itself with their filthy shoes all over the surface where others place the items they're purchasing. I mean, I know the inside of a shopper cart isn't sanitary to begin with, but why make it worse?

So there I am, rolling down the aisles gathering my consumables, when what happens? Some kid, a little girl, is pushing an extra (and very empty) cart behind her mother. Carts are not playthings, but I've seen parents more than once let their darlings treat them as such. In this instance the mother said something in Spanish and the girl left the cart right where it stood, blocking my path. I was irritated, even slightly angry for a moment. But then I heard more Spanish from Mom, a gentle but admonishing tone in her voice, and the child retrieved the cart and moved it out of my way. Good parents are all around us, but there are still too many of the irresponsible and incompetent ones.

Well, that's it. Those are my thoughts and observations for this trip. Shall I make At the Store a regular feature?

Your thoughts and observations are welcome.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

For just about everything...


Why, Sarah?

I like it that Sarah Palin talks about smaller government, and that her very existence makes the lying incumbents in Washington nervous. I like that she cultivates a persona of simple straight talk – even innocence.

But the problem with Sarah is that, like so many Americans, she’s never really thought too deeply about the State. In actual fact, her life, rogue or not, is the story of state subsidy, state employment, state redistribution of wealth, state corruption and state centralizing power.

Why Does Sarah Palin Want More War?

Jake Towne, Constitutional Candidate

h/t Liberty Pulse

Federal Prosecutor Targets Anarchists

“Everyone thinks we’re moving toward a greater recognition of civil rights under Obama. Instead we’re going backward – all the way back to the sedition laws, and the political inquisitions of Joseph McCarthy.”- Attorney Ben Rosenfeld

U.S. Attorney Clifford R. Cronk III is using his office’s investigation of an alleged 2004 animal rights-related break-in at the University of Iowa to harass and punish targets whom he claims identify as anarchists, a political ideology dating back to the early 19th Century. To date, neither his superiors in the Department of Justice, nor the federal courts, have done anything to curtail his abuse of power. In behavior reminiscent of the darkest days of the McCarthy witch hunts, Cronk argues in court documents that anarchists are domestic terrorists who should be locked up for posing a threat to civil society based on nothing but the prosecutor’s unfounded political bias.

Civil Liberties Monitors Charge That Federal Prosecutor Is On Personal Crusade Against Anarchist Ideology

Support Carrie and Scott!

Vincent Bugliosi on the Crimes of George W. Bush

The Former Liar-in-Chief should be prosecuted for his crimes. It would set a great precedent for later prosecuting the current Liar.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Military thug waterboards 4-year-old daughter

Because she couldn't recite the alphabet. Conservatism taken to its logical conclusion, folks.

Support the troops!!

Jon Stewart on Keith Olbermann

Joe Sobran: The Reluctant Anarchist

Hans [Hoppe] argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution “meant,” steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out.


As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, “We the People” create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.


Other things have helped change my mind. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 million of their own subjects. This figure doesn’t include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states “protecting” their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll. As for warfare, Paul Fussell’s book Wartime portrays battle with such horrifying vividness that, although this wasn’t its intention, I came to doubt whether any war could be justified.


For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism — things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn’t disturb them. Yet it’s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can’t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

“But what would you replace the state with?” The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be “replaced.”

The Reluctant Anarchist

Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex

Dwight Eisenhower was succeeded by a President who, in spite of his 1960 "missile gap" campaign rhetoric, may have been assassinated because of his turn toward peace. LBJ and every other warmongering President followed.

Sunday, February 7, 2010


It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt. You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt.

It Is Now Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt

h/t to Liberty Pulse

What Happened to My Plans for This Afternoon

In my last post I gave you a brief run down of my plans for today. Here's what actually happened. I did end up at Walmart after briefly flirting with a visit to the local version of Safeway. I got my bottled water. I also regrettably bought a few other items I should have resisted (Fritos Corn Chips and Bean Dip, for starters).

The BBQ idea? Out the window when I actually counted my cash. I decided to get some eats on the cheap and ended up at the Taco Bell drive-thru ordering two 99¢ bean "burritos". They weren't too bad after I squirted some hot sauce into them.

As for the Bud Light, it wasn't cold after all. It sat unrefrigerated off in a corner. I had some other cheaper beer, but I was barely able to consume two cans before throwing in the towel.

I was for some unknown reason rooting for the Colts, and they lost to the Saints, who did indeed go marching in. I can't agree that this means that New Orleans is "back", which is just silly. These kinds of wins are great for millionaire team owners and players (subsidized in most cases by the state, with publicly financed stadiums and other taxpayer funded perks) but they don't really mean much for anyone else. However, if the Colts had won I might be singing a different tune right now, but for no discernible reason. I don't even like the Colts and I don't dislike the Saints. I just don't care, I guess.

h/t to Liberty Pulse for the Jones video.

Here is the Mark Dice video mentioned by Alex Jones.

My Plans for This Afternoon

Go to Walmart or similar stuff store, buy some more politically incorrect and environmentally "unfriendly" bottled water as I'm down to my last 16.9 ouncer. This doesn't usually happen, but I've been away from my usual water buying venue this week, and have had a work schedule that departed from my accustomed days, which frankly threw everything off.

I'm eager for more bottled water as we had someone we had to listen to this week during some training who made a point of disparaging plastic bottles when he was offered one upon expressing to us his urgent need for hydration. So, he turned down a free bottle of cold water and asked instead where he could refill his aluminum water bottle. For the rest of the training I thought I noticed a disapproving glare every time anyone set a disposable plastic bottle of water on the table where he could see it.

While at the store, especially if it's Walmart, I'm thinking the temptation for a Fritos corn chips and bean dip purchase might be hard to resist.

After the store my plans are less certain. Maybe a quick stop at the BBQ for a couple of beef sandwiches. And then, Superbowl!

By the way, no need to stop anywhere for beer. I've got an eighteen pack of Bud Light waiting in the fridge.

Rand Paul, Neocon Totalitarian, Part Deux

Hat tip to Kn@ppster.

Super Sunday

During the Super Bowl, there was another football game of note between the big animals and the little animals. The big animals were crushing little animals and at half-time, the coach made a passionate speech to rally the little animals.

At the start of the second half the big animals had the ball. The first play, the elephant got stopped for no gain. The second play, the rhino was stopped for no gain. On third down, the hippo was thrown for a 5 yard loss.

The defense huddled around the coach and he asked excitedly, "Who stopped the elephant?"

"I did," said the centipede.

"Who stopped the rhino?"

"Uh, that was me too," said the centipede.

"And how about the hippo? Who hit him for a 5 yard loss?"

"Well, that was me as well," said the centipede.

"So where were you during the first half?" demanded the coach.

"Well," said the centipede, "I was having my ankles taped."

Super Bowl of poker

The Colts will win

How to Get Hollywood to Notice You

Make a robots attack short film for 300 bucks and put it on YouTube.

How did he do it for only $300? Maybe making it in Uruguay had something to do with it.

The film (Ataque de Panico!) was uploaded to YouTube last November, and Fede Alvarez started receiving offers from studios almost immediately. He's now going to make a science fiction feature with the help of a $30 million Hollywood contract and Sam Raimi.

Anti-Flag: One Trillion Dollars

The 789 Chevy

Yours for only around $135,000.

A blending of the 1957 Chevrolet, 1958 Chevrolet and 1959 Chevrolet classic designs.

From a company called n2a Motors (No 2 Alike), it's based on the Corvette.

Related Posts with Thumbnails