tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65682152024-02-03T03:06:08.167-05:00INCITEIncite -- (v) 1: give an incentive; "This moved me to sacrifice my career" 2: provoke or stir up; "incite a riot"; "set off great unrest among the people" 3: urge on; cause to act
Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comBlogger1527125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-71291695880645139732009-11-24T22:32:00.000-05:002009-11-24T22:33:57.940-05:00In which a Nobel Peace Prize winner refuses to sign on to the landmine ban treaty<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.landmines/index.html">Yummy, yummy irony.</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-13805439342229853242009-10-30T23:42:00.001-04:002009-10-30T23:43:29.492-04:00Inescapable<a href="http://faustasblog.com/?p=16495">For shame.</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-14785307060510946962009-09-26T21:27:00.002-04:002009-09-26T21:27:58.973-04:00Obama diplomacy<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100010499/barack-obama-president-pantywaist-restores-the-satellite-states-to-their-former-owner/">Neither East Germany nor Ronald Reagan was available for comment</a>.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-41193481959094243902009-09-23T23:53:00.002-04:002009-09-24T00:06:49.470-04:00House approves bill extending jobless benefits<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/22/news/economy/extending_unemployment_benefits/index.htm?postversion=2009092219">But only to certain specific states</a>.<blockquote><br />The bill extends benefits for those living in states with jobless rates higher than 8.5%. Some 27 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, fall into this category. The national unemployment rate hit 9.7% in August, the highest in 26 years.</blockquote>Now, guess how those states tend to vote...<br /><br />Go on, take your time...<br /><br />OK, here's the list, in highly unformatted form:<br />Ranking | State | Unemployment Rate | 2008 Presidential Election Result<br />23 MAINE 8.6 Obama<br />24 PENNSYLVANIA 8.6 Obama<br />26 WISCONSIN 8.8 Obama<br />27 IDAHO 8.9 McCain<br />28 NEW YORK 9.0 Obama<br />28 WEST VIRGINIA 9.0 McCain<br />30 ARIZONA 9.1 McCain<br />30 MASSACHUSETTS 9.1 Obama<br />32 WASHINGTON 9.2 Obama<br />33 MISSISSIPPI 9.5 McCain<br />33 MISSOURI 9.5 McCain<br />35 NEW JERSEY 9.7 Obama<br />36 INDIANA 9.9 Obama<br />37 ILLINOIS 10.0 Obama<br />38 GEORGIA 10.2 McCain<br />39 ALABAMA 10.4 McCain<br />40 FLORIDA 10.7 Obama<br />41 NORTH CAROLINA 10.8 Obama<br />41 OHIO 10.8 Obama<br />41 TENNESSEE 10.8 McCain<br />44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11.1 Obama<br />44 KENTUCKY 11.1 McCain<br />46 SOUTH CAROLINA 11.5 McCain<br />47 CALIFORNIA 12.2 Obama<br />47 OREGON 12.2 Obama<br />49 RHODE ISLAND 12.8 Obama<br />50 NEVADA 13.2 Obama<br />51 MICHIGAN 15.2 Obama<br /><br />Ten out of twenty-nine voted for McCain. The rest all went to Obama. Yeah, there's no quid pro quo there.<br /><br />What's perhaps most galling, however, is the implication that some unemployed are less deserving of others--just because their state isn't suffering as dismally... which is generally a sign of a state under better fiscal management, which is, again, generally a sign of republican administration.<br /><br />So sorry all you unemployed in Texas, you're just going to have to make do as best you can. Try not to think about the fact that some fraction of the taxes you paid last year are going to be redistributed to unemployed in other states because, well, they had the good sense to vote Democratic.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-25607304963188440142009-08-01T13:02:00.001-04:002009-08-01T13:02:49.470-04:00Eat the RichHeadline: <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html">Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-72946060306232526482009-07-03T16:19:00.002-04:002009-07-03T16:22:58.856-04:00Textual AnalysisQ: How can you tell when <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/02/starobin.obama.russia/index.html">an opinion piece is nothing but hollow propaganda</a> with little to no factual heft? <br /><br />A: When it contains the following sentence.<br /><blockquote>The Russian people are probably not going to come away with a pronounced negative view of Obama -- <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">he is acutely sensitive to cultural protocol wherever he goes and has yet to make a wrong step.</span></span></blockquote>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-53157883309315219502009-06-06T00:37:00.002-04:002009-06-06T00:42:40.917-04:00Your homework assignmentFrom <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/05/us.cuba.spies/index.html">an article on CNN.com</a> about a married couple who, during thirty years of employment with the State Department, spied for Cuba:<br /><blockquote>The official also said it was unclear whether Myers acted for financial reasons, but a law enforcement official said <span style="font-weight:bold;">the couple's primary motive was not money. The couple were "true believers" in the Cuban system</span>, the official said.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">"The abuses of our system, the lack of decent medical system, the oil companies and their undisguised indifference to public needs, the complacency about the poor, the utter inability of those who are oppressed to recognize their own condition," Myers wrote in a diary quoted in the federal affidavit.</span></blockquote>Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to identify four false conclusions from that excerpt and realize just what sort of world view is required to arrive at those conclusions. You may turn in your homework at Monday's class. Thank you, please drive through.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-31103302268285540422009-04-21T02:06:00.002-04:002009-04-21T02:09:20.986-04:00Today's edition of: "Are You Fucking Kidding Me?"<a href="http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/04/18/the-us-may-oppose-solar-power/">Diane Feinstein opposes solar plant licensing in order to protect a turtle</a>:<br /><blockquote>The Bureau of Land Management may "protect" the environment by turning down permits to build solar power plants--in the desert.<br /><br />Have liberals been out in the sun too long?<br /><br />Solar energy plants in the desert are opposed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others to protect the tiny pupfish, the desert tortoise.</blockquote>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-39123169203502462532009-04-16T00:18:00.001-04:002009-04-16T00:19:51.034-04:00In which I deliver a lengthy and thought provoking message to the federal government in commemoration of tax day:Go fuck yourself.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-77694267156540464992009-03-31T23:24:00.002-04:002009-03-31T23:27:28.870-04:00WordsFrom <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzMyNzIwZGEzYmRmZDdhYWQ3NTBmNWZkZTdmMzhiYzU=">the inimitable Mark Steyn</a>:<br /><blockquote>The characteristically moronic behavior of the braindead British coppers transformed it from a family tragedy to a national metaphor. I have written recently in Canada of the disturbing passivity of the "citizenry", but Britain's nudged it on a stage: Even if you understand the obligation to act in such a situation, the state will forcibly prevent you and (if recent form is anything to go by) ensure that if you disobey them you'll be prosecuted - pour encourager les autres to remain obedient sheep to the government shepherd.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />New Hampshire's great motto, "Live free or die", is not just a bit of bloodcurdling stemwinding but a real choice that Britons, Canadians and, alas, Americans ought to ponder: You can live as free men, with all the rights and responsibilities and vicissitudes of fate that that entails. Or you can watch your society decay and die before your eyes - as England, once the crucible of freedom, dies a little with every day.</blockquote>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-25263008869386356392008-12-04T15:01:00.003-05:002008-12-04T15:03:50.786-05:00Yes, this was actually written in a California publication<blockquote>Those in power in the Capitol--as well as many local politicians--make skillful use of those who rely on government services to advance their spending agenda. They use children, the disabled, the elderly and others who appear vulnerable to justify increasing taxes. When reasonable arguments are made that higher taxes in an already high-tax state could lead to fiscal ruin and less for everyone, politicians and bureaucrats use these dependent classes as human shields.</blockquote>Granted, it was <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/limits-state-politicians-2245281-term-board">in the OC Register</a>, which I hadn't actually heard of before today, but still.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-75267700462869856682008-12-01T03:55:00.000-05:002008-12-01T03:56:27.475-05:00IndeedPolitics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.<br /><a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1324.html"> -- Ernest Benn</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-49304999996647949062008-11-29T21:33:00.002-05:002008-12-01T03:56:54.705-05:00The Danneskjold method"If the 21st Century nation-state can’t even fight pirates, what’s it good for, exactly? Collecting taxes? What happens when taxpayers decide they’d rather be pirates?"<br /><br />-- <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28586/">Glenn Reynolds</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-14495640777133774022008-11-11T19:39:00.001-05:002008-11-11T19:41:39.090-05:00Electioneering, reductioAnyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.<br /> - Douglas Adams<br /><br />When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.<br /> - Mark Twain<br /><br />Look for the ridiculous in everything and you will find it.<br /> - Jules RenardBeckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-33627446264186331912008-11-06T18:04:00.002-05:002008-11-06T18:16:56.414-05:00On PoliticiansImagine a conversation in November of 1976... imagine one person said to another, "A Deomcrat will not win a majority of the popular vote in a presidential race for another 32 years, but when one does, it will be a black man whose closest Democratic competitor was a woman, and also, the defeated Republican's running mate will be a woman." The speaker's grounding in reality--to say nothing of his sanity--would certainly have been called into question. <br /><br />I think, as I'm sure will come as no surprise, that Obama's policies will be harmful to the nation. But I'm also very proud to live in a country where discrimination really is fading into the shadows of history. It's certainly not gone. But things have come a hell of a long way since November of 1976.<br /><br />I even think this election will be good for the Republican party, and as a consequence, good for the country. The Republican dominated House and Senate, under the guidance of president Bush, enacted the greatest increases in government spending since FDR. That is not responsible government. Not by any definition of the word. If you look at the principles espoused in the Republican "Contract With American" from 1994, you'll find not one that the Republicans continued to embrace once Bush took office. I believe this reflects a deep flaw in the nature of politicians generally, and I despair at the type of person who is drawn to seek elected office. <br /><br />In China, government officials have received the death penalty for corruption. In America, politicians typically get off lighter than civilians for their crimes. If I rob a liquor store, the impact is limited to myself, the store's employees and owners, perhaps anyone else nearby if I was waving a gun around... if you really want to stretch it, you could add all of the liquor store's customers to the list of those impacted, if distantly. When a senator is corrupt, the impact is on every citizen of his home state, and if you really want to stretch it, every person in the United States. Yet who does more jail time? <br /><br />In a sense, a politician's character is far more important than a politician's politics. A person genuinely motivated out of a desire to give back to the community and serve the best interest of the citizenry is likely to make better decisions. And while individuals will certainly be wrong headed and mistaken at times, a congress of such men is likely to generally point in a positive direction. A politician motivated by the search for and retention of power cannot be trusted to make any decisions. They will be motivated by the fickle winds of public opinion and their pocket book. And yet public officialdom, from the smallest town council on up to the highest elected officials in the land, is entirely dominated by the latter type of person. <br /><br />Such people--as been demonstrated countless times in the more overtly despotic variety of regimes--run nations, economies, and peoples into the ground. The things standing in the way of American public officialdom are a combination of tradition and the Constitution. Traditions weaken, change, and eb over time, but it is defense of those traditions for reason of recognition of their value to both societal stability and governmental restraint that motivates true conservatives (people who are philosophically conservative I should say, so as to distinguish from "religious conservatives" or "social conservatives" who might be quite liberal or radical in other regards). <br /><br />The United States Constitution is an old document. It certainly shows its age, and its inflexibility certainly can be a hindrance in an era of high technology and rapid change the likes of which the Constitution's drafters could never have envisioned. Nonetheless, it's that very rigidity which makes it so valuable as a defense against the professional political class which I think most citizens would agree cannot be trusted with any more power than they already have. There are a great many people who seek to weaken the Constitution: to soften its provisions, to broaden its interpretation, to render it down into a list of malleable guidelines rather than fixed hard and fast rules which must be observed. To some, rigid adherence to the Constitution seems downright silly: a pointless worship of a piece of paper written in an era when bleeding sick patients still seemed like a good idea. But it is one of the few dams remaining holding back the flood tide of acquisition of power by politicians. Its continued defense by honest and idealistic people is essential to protection of our own individual rights.<br /><br />I don't know what kind of politician Barack Obama is. The weirdly skewed news cycle prevented a truly clear picture from emerging. We will now find out though, whether we want to or not. Let us hope the surprise is a pleasant one. But let us prepare for the obverse.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-15010464658086863232008-11-04T16:46:00.004-05:002008-11-05T16:28:57.145-05:00There And Back AgainWhen I asked Beck <a href="http://incite1.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-this-thing-on.html">if I could join INCITE a few months ago</a>, it was not without a bit of an ulterior motive. I'd had a couple post ideas brewing in my head. Since writing is a very time-intensive process for me, these never got off my internal back burner. But let me rummage through my mental file cabinet and blow the dust off 'em for a minute. These were the working titles:<br /><br /><b><i>Can I Really Pull The Lever For Bob Barr?<br />Top Ten (Thousand) Reasons I Can't Vote For John McCain<br />Dammit, I'm Writing In Rudy Guiliani: Why "Throwing My Vote Away" Really Isn't</i></b><br /><br />And I'm going to be shelving these permanently, which is fortunate because considering this is my Election Day essay and (if I hustle) I might almost publish it before the polls close on the West Coast, it would have taken me no less than two years to write all three of those posts. Exhaustive work.<br /><br />I quickly learned the answer to my interrogative first post idea would be "No" when I discovered two things. First, Indiana has optical scan ballots; second and more importantly, <a href="http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/14/tell-iraqis-no-permanent-bases-says-bob-barr/">Bob Barr's position on Iraq</a> is nearly indistinguishable from or even to the left of <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/">Barack Obama's</a>: Barr wants withdrawal from Iraq "as quickly as possible" whereas Obama settles at least for "responsible and phased." But both of them prefer easy words like "mistake" to difficult ones like "victory." Funny how that extra syllable seems to stick in the craw of people who believe that the American military is somehow currently a net negative. But hey, at this point withdrawal from Iraq is like leaving the game early when your team's winning handily. Best to get out now and beat the rush. Wouldn't want to get caught in traffic with all those refugees when the whole country backslides into the very civil war we're supposedly fomenting by our continued presence.<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2008/10/06/News/Leaders.Must.Understand.Liberty.Barr.Says-3471408.shtml">Barr spoke at my alma mater</a>, and even though the house wasn't exactly packed, I was turned away because I wasn't a student. I'd think that the Libertarian Party nominee isn't exactly in a position to be spurning any potential voters, but given that I'm evidently not going to be a Libertarian, I probably shouldn't be so presumptuous about their GOTV efforts.<br /><br />But I'd still like an answer from Barr or the LP about how to survive a post-9/11 world when the LP platform on "Foreign Policy" is one plank: Cut off all foreign aid. <a href="http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy">Seriously</a>.<br /><br /><br />As for the other two, I'm not kidding about my disgust with John McCain. Of course, he's a damn fine American and I respect his service, but I said the latter half of that caveat four years ago about another senator named John, and I wasn't exactly giddy about voting for him, either. I'm still scratching my head on how we wound up with McCain in the first place. Rudy Guiliani seemed like the obvious and perfect choice, but his campaign was done in by his pro-choice views and his disinclination to actually campaign anywhere. So the Iowa caucuses were won by Mike Huckabee, who is basically <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ3_2A5x53I">Jim Nabors without the singing voice</a>. Faced with the horrifying spectacle of nominating Gomer Pyle, John McCain was floated as a compromise candidate to unite the GOP's hawk and values wings, and in that role he's perfect, since John McCain has compromised on damn near everything in his political career. I suppose he made a better Republican candidate than Mike <i>Hyukhyukhyuk</i>abee and Ron Paul (oh, <b>snap</b>; I <b>so</b> went there, and brought back souvenirs). But not by much.<br /><br />I didn't feel like gagging on that <a href="http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=29500">shit sandwich</a>, so I was thinking of ways to weasel out of it. Maybe I could write in Rudy Guiliani. Or Fred! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqFSBk-CwOE">Fred Thompson rocks</a>. I think it says something about my long-held maxim that I love politics but not politicians when my two favorite candidates this year were ex-politicians who thought they could be nominated for president without actually trying to attract votes.<br /><br />And that was pretty much my philosophy until a few game-changers sprang up. This is where <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzM3ZWNhZmVhMDY2MDcxOGYzMWFmNWFkNGE2YTI4MGI">Bill Whittle comes in and says it was the selection of Sarah Palin as VP</a>, and while I totally <3 Sarah Palin, that's not it. McCain could have picked Romney or Pawlenty or Lieberman and it wouldn't have shaken my ambivelent inertia one jot, considering nobody goes with Plan A because they're really excited about Plan B. If I'm interested in leasing a car today, I don't care about the car I'm going to get in four or eight years.<br /><br />At <a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=2067">Protein Wisdom Pub, I argued that Joe The Plumber had the power to be a turning-point issue</a>, but that wasn't for <b>me</b> specifically. I didn't need convincing about how few layers of Barack Obama needed to be peeled before the socialist in him came out; you don't win Most Liberal Senator awards by being a titan of rugged individualism and fiscal restraint.<br /><br />Pointing out the attempted destruction by the Left of both Palin and Joe is getting warmer a bit, but again, the incivility of the Left comes as no surprise to me. You want to see a riot? Go to a peace march.<br /><br />Joe Biden's gaffe? Please. If the fact that electing someone whose <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU">first instinct is negotiation</a> will be considered by hostile nations to be an act of weakness actually surprises you, then I'm not sure how you can take a shower without drowning.<br /><br />No, actually, the reason is a lot more petty and small: I live in Indiana, and suddenly Indiana this year is a toss-up state.<br /><br />Suddenly, My Vote Matters.<br /><br />I'd like to be able to stick to my principles, but considering My Vote Matters, it's tough to hang on to something so abstract when the consequences are so stark and concrete, just as many an environmentalist sang a different tune when the price of gas doubled, and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" has gone flat now that it's halved.<br /><br />When My Vote Matters, it feels silly to burn it by writing in a candidate who didn't attempt to earn it when he had a chance, like Rudy or Fred. It also seems like folly to spend it on a third party that's nowhere close to me on the most important issue a government can have, or fourth/eighth/tenth parties that might but are light years away from anything even approaching relevance.<br /><br />But that still doesn't mean I feel comfortable voting for John McCain, my friends.<br /><br />That's when all the other small things began kicking in, and if you're like me and are only excited to vote for John McCain for (<u>__insert_your_reason_here__</u>), then welcome. As for me, I'm not excited for any one reason, but the combination of whatever reasons you have that have suddenly made this election something other than a <i>fait accompli</i>. I had believed that Indiana was such a reliably red state that if it were to possibly be considered a toss-up in the general election this year, then the entire electorate necessarily would have shifted to the left and thus Barack Obama would win by a landslide. I'm still not sure how Indiana can be within spitting distance of flipping blue but McCain still has a chance. (I have a theory, and should McCain lose I'll dash off an invective-filled diatribe that, with the speed I generally write at, should be posted just before the midterms.) (Oh, and if you think McCain has no chance, well, stay tuned.)<br /><br />So count me in as someone voting against Barack Obama instead of for John McCain. That may be an immature and stupid reason to cast a vote, to which I say: They started it. In the one-word slogan of "Change," Barack Obama made himself the not-George-W.-Bush candidate. But in speeches, he generally doesn't mention the President by name, but only talks about "the last eight years," which is so vague that it's brilliant. If the last eight years sucked for you, even on a personal level, then <a href="http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/">Barack Obama is your new bicycle</a>. "Well, I lost my job 'cause I showed up to work drunk. Then I burned my house down trying to kill spiders with a can of hairspray and a Bic lighter. Then I ran over my dog driving away from the flames. Then a cop pulled me over and gave me a DUI. So yeah, I need a change from the last eight years!"<br /><br />Change could mean — and in Barack Obama's case it certainly does — that we're going to fix what ain't broke (at this moment, Iraq) and utterly destroy what's broken (the economy). Change, by itself, is not a political philosophy, but it works. Which is probably why all but one of the men who were elected president in the last four decades rode the idea of "change," at least in part, to their victories.<br /><br />But with Barack Obama, it's different, because that powerful tonic is mixed with the perfect gin: an intoxicating confidence that's completely spun up. And I hate gin and tonics. (I do like a good <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tan">Black And Tan</a>, but the Democratic ticket ain't it.) The confidence in Obama is based on nothing, or as Obama supporters prefer to call it: <a href="http://incite1.blogspot.com/2008/01/got-any-spare-change.html">"Hope."</a> Hope is easier than action. (Again, it's that extra syllable that must be bothersome.) Why actually introduce <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjk0N2RkYzY0NTI2MzI3YzYxNzc2YWY2NWVkM2RiNTY">bills in the Senate</a> when you can just talk about them on the campaign stump and pretend that's what you were for all along? Telling people what they want to hear isn't nearly as difficult as doing what they want. <a href="http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-132995">Hillary was right.</a><br /><br />The effect of this confidence borders on narcotic. People are so willing to believe that He Is The One We've Been Waiting For that they drop all pretense of common sense. In the Asia Times Online, <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html">a writer known only as Spengler</a> talked about a group called "Veterans for Obama" who earnestly seemed to believe that Bush's Iraq policy was too <i>weak</i>, and Obama would redouble the efforts for victory. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/undecided.voters/index.html">CNN's iReport found a voter</a> who considers himself "definitely pro-life," but was still "trying to decide whether Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain is more in line with his views." And in perhaps the saddest case, Christopher Buckley, son of <i>National Review</i> founder and godfather of the modern conservative movement William F. Buckley, <a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=2094">broke with those who stood athwart history yelling "Stop!" to stand athwart <b>them</b> yelling "Stop!"</a> The basis on which he proclaimed his defection to Barack Obama? That Obama isn't dumb enough to enact left-wing policies at this crucial juncture, because "he is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for." (I shouldn't have to provide any evidence, I hope, of the creepy ways that the more rank-and-file Obama supporters show their enthusiasm. Lest there be any doubt, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=obama+zombie+cult">Google it</a>.)<br /><br />Buckley, in addition, wrote about Obama's "first-class temperament," especially when compared to McCain, about whom Christo had once thought the same way but now he calls him "irascible and snarly," as if McCain's volcanic temper hasn't always been the major knock on his presidential electability for the last eight-plus years. This became a major theme during the late stages of the campaign; Obama was "cool" and "confident" while McCain was "erratic."<br /><br />Since I met Beck because of poker, I don't think it's totally inappropriate if I talk a little cards here. Let me give you the number-one "tell" that poker players look for in their opponents when faced with a significant decision: <i>Strong means weak, and weak means strong.</i><br /><br />When CNN's Anderson Cooper questioned Barack Obama on the relative similarity between his legislative experience and Sarah Palin's executive experience, Obama actually answered — are you sitting down? — that part of his experience includes <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/02/obamas-answer-on-experience-but-im-such-a-great-campaigner/">running his own presidential campaign</a>. This is nothing less than astonishing; it's the desperate tautology of the mega-bluffer. <i>I'm making a big bet because I have a good hand. I have a good hand because I made a big bet.</i> Or, in this context: <i>I'm running because I have experience. My experience is that I'm running.</i> Or: <i>I will bring "hope" and "change" because I say so.</i><br /><br />The Obama campaign has tried very hard to conceal that the emperor has no clothes. <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/">They all but attached a TelePrompTer to his head</a> because when the words aren't in front of him, he tends to say something dumb. And when he does ("cling to guns and religion," "spread the wealth"), the instant comeback to the criticism is that it's a "distraction." <i>We're an unbeatable juggernaut. The only way we lose is if you "distract" the voters, and we won't let that happen. YOU CAN'T WIN.</i><br /><br />And when the Obama campaign stays on point, that's generally the unified message, as <a href="http://www.redstate.com/diaries/anonymous_14/2008/oct/30/what-you-were-never-intended-to-know-in-this/">this pro-Hillary Obama staffer leaked</a>:<br /><blockquote>This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it.</blockquote>But have they? Barack Obama has <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/2377c939-9020-4a09-b343-bc6131b9ba79">certainly made the kind of gaffes you would expect of a campaign where the wheels are coming off</a>. Remind us where <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJL-M3kcHk8">Jacksonville</a> is again, Senator? And where's John McCain? On "Saturday Night Live" acting like he's <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/">out of money</a> and <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/">out of strategies</a>. Who looks stronger to you? Who looks like they're merely <b>trying</b> to look stronger?<br /><br />And what of this massive groundswell of inspired new voters Obama is bringing to the polls? Even though I generally frown on the amateur armchair psychology that passes for voter analysis, let me provide some. If you tell me that you thought <i>The Dark Knight</i> was a really good movie, I may agree or not, but even if I don't, you probably won't get too upset. But what if <i>The Dark Knight</i> is your <b>favorite</b> movie? What if it has made you appreciate film in a way no other movie has? What if you see in <i>The Dark Knight</i> a metaphor for all your hopes and dreams? Then if I tell you I thought it sucked and that <i>Iron Man</i> was much better, you might just get mad, like I was insulting all that you hold dear. But even then, you could probably compose yourself; after all, <i>The Dark Knight</i> has a whopping <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/">94% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing</a>, so all the people who don't like it are obviously in a clueless minority, one you can easily dismiss.<br /><br />So, if you're an Obama supporter . . . <b><i>why so serious?</i></b> (And you probably thought <i>The Dark Knight</i> was a racial reference. Suckers.) Your guy is going to win, right? So why the visceral hatred of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPHCPFvwwY">John McCain and Sarah Palin</a>? Why steal <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-busse/confessions-of-a-lawn-sig_b_139179.html">all the McCain yard signs you can find</a>? I don't remember seeing such invective toward insignificant candidates. Has anyone hated on Tommy Thompson recently? Mike Gravel?<br /><br /><i>But what about the polls?</i>, you might ask. A fair question; <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html">RealClearPolitics has Obama up by more than 7 points</a>, which would seem to be an insurmountable lead.<br /><br />But if that's the case . . . <i><b>why is McCain still trying to win?</b></i> John McCain is a great many things, not all of which I like, but one thing he isn't is someone who shirks his duty. If he is really putting "Country First," then if he were doomed to lose he would try his damndest to limit the damage of the downticket races. If the GOP can hold the Democrats to under 60 Senate seats, then they still have some political pull for the next two years. McCain, as a Senator, surely knows this, and he knows that to abdicate that effort in a vainglorious quixotic holdout for the brass ring would be too mavericky even for the consummate maverick.<br /><br />Furthermore . . . <i><b>why is Obama still trying to win?</b></i> If RCP is right on its projection, why isn't he trying to assemble a filibuster-proof majority? Or, why isn't he parking the bus in Pennsylvania and Ohio to make sure McCain doesn't establish traction (see for yourself at <a href="http://www.mapthecandidates.com/">mapthecandidates.com</a>)? In the month of November he hasn't been to Pennsylvania at all, but he has been to (in order) Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, proclaiming, <a href="http://www.gazette.com/articles/obama_42733___article.html/mccain_three.html">"We have a righteous wind at our backs."</a><br /><br /><b><i>We are unstoppable.<br /><br />Give up.<br /><br />Don't vote. It's futile.</i></b><br /><br />Maybe, just maybe, the world doesn't revolve around the polls. Maybe if you're reading this and you haven't voted yet, you should. And maybe it's not a foregone conclusion after all.<br /><br />Your Vote Matters, Too.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-52714283010831143212008-09-11T08:39:00.006-04:002008-10-05T19:22:50.746-04:00The New World (and the ones left behind)The thing I remember most about 9/11 is never being more aware of <i>reality</i>. Shock does that to you. Every single person in America, whether they were a stockbroker in Manhattan or a plumber in Spokane, had to face and admit something they don't ordinarily think of: <i>This is really happening.</i> Reality generally doesn't grab us by the throat like that.<br /><br />There is little I can add, especially seven years later. I've already emptied my mental thesaurus, and besides words seem so petty and small when compared to such an unbelievable but horrible reality.<br /><br />Today we mark the time again, as the events of that awful day have creep ever further away from the immediacy of <i>This is really happening</i> — they are now imprinted on our history books and our hearts: <i>This happened.</i> Whatever argument you want to propose on where we go from here, we can at least agree on that.<br /><br />Well, most of us.<br /><br /><br />Not long ago I was filling my tank when I saw a bumper sticker affixed to the bottom of the gas pump: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. And in the days after that I saw the same bumper stickers all over the place in my hometown, plastered on stop signs and lampposts.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4332/bs3ht9.jpg"></center><br /><br />I could spend hours, days or weeks painstakingly refuting every plank in the theory that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, but to what end? It's been done, over and over again. Stubborn people who think crazy things are seldom swayed by reality. So instead, I'd like to send a message to the person who committed PVC graffiti all over my neighborhood, and everyone else who believes the sentiment expressed upon it:<br /><br /><center><img src="http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6159/bs1rm1.jpg"></center><br /><br />Fuck you.<br /><br />You read that right: fuck you so very, very hard.<br /><br />Fuck you for casually, blithely accusing fellow Americans of the murder of three thousand of their fellow citizens for some vague ambitions of greed or power.<br /><br />Fuck you for ignoring the thousands upon thousands of pieces of data and evidence that make lies of your theories, only to seize the one that you agree with, then seriously argue that that one speck invalidates everything else.<br /><br />Fuck you for lying about the attack on the Pentagon so baldly, egregiously, and stupidly that even <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp">Snopes</a> busted you on it.<br /><br />And for attempting to cheat the <a href="http://www.honorflight93.org/story/passengers-crew.cfm">new American heroes of Flight 93</a> out of their sacred honor: fuck you <i>with a chainsaw</i>. You dare to suggest that the phone calls they made were faked — insinuating that the recipients of those calls couldn't even tell the difference between their loved ones and impostors? God damn you all.<br /><br />Fuck you for hiding your true feelings in the guise of skepticism: "We're just asking questions." They've been answered, in many cases by the smartest minds in architecture, aviation, construction, demolition, and mechanical and structural engineering. Fuck you for your arrogance in declaring that you are right and all of the experts are wrong.<br /><br />And a boldfaced <b>fuck you</b> for co-opting the word "Truth," automatically alleging that everyone who disagrees are liars, either bought and paid-for agents of the conspiracy or ignorant "sheeple" who believe everything they see, hear and read (unless, of course, you wrote or produced it; you want them to believe then). Reality is not an episode of "The X-Files." Fuck you. <br /><br />(Oh, a preemptive fuck you if you think my issues with the 9/11 conspiracy movement are politically-based because I'm one of those "sheeple" who voted for George W. Bush twice. Not at all: if you believe ex-Naval Secretary Franklin Delano Roosevelt allowed nearly the entire Pacific fleet to be destroyed to backdoor the United States into war with Nazi Germany, fuck you. If you passed out the <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp">Clinton Body Count</a> list at work, fuck you. And if you keep sending me <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp">bullshit</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp">e-mails</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp">about</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp">Barack</a> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp">Obama</a>, fuck you some more.)<br /><br />And finally, a statement with a little more meaning:<br /><br /><center><img src="http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1649/bs2hx9.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5696/bs4qx9.jpg"></center><br /><br />I have more patience than you have bumper stickers. Also, I'm pretty sure I can outlast you financially, because even though I lost my job recently, I still have a <b>car</b> to put bumper stickers on. (Was that a cheap shot? I don't care. Fuck you.)<br /><br />And even if not, those were the last two bumper stickers I could find, and I remember seeing at least half a dozen in total. Looks like I'm not the only one in town who says "Fuck you."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-79050473002881980572008-09-10T16:15:00.009-04:002008-10-05T19:25:55.835-04:00Is This Thing On?<i>What you are about to read is <b>absolutely, 100% true.</b></i><br /><br /><br /><br />"Vegas, baby!"<br /><br />That's what John Beck and I were yelling at the top of our lungs as we cruised down Las Vegas Boulevard in a stretch utility vehicle on a hot July night.<br /><br />We'd both won several hundred dollars at Mirage's poker room, then dined at Bouchon, the French bistro inside Venetian. We were dressed to the nines, had money to burn, and were in the mood to party like rockstars. The limo dropped us off at one of the hottest nightclubs in town, and we ordered enough drinks to intoxicate the 82nd Airborne. But we were still a little bored. Around the pulsating music and gyrating dancers, I nodded to Beck and said, "Hey, I've got an idea." He perked up.<br /><br />"I wanna write for INCITE," I said. This blog has a rich tradition, being a Weblog Award Finalist four years ago. Yeah, I know, 2004 might as well be four light-years away in cyberspace for how far back that was, but it really wasn't that long ago. Michael Phelps won six gold medals instead of eight. Big deal; "American Idol" is still the #1 show on TV, and the Cubs still can't win games down the stretch. It wasn't the Pre-Cambrian Era.<br /><br />Beck was stunned. "You know I've only made about a dozen posts this year." I nodded. What am I going to do, complain? The posting rate on <a href="http://marchandchronicles.blogspot.com">my personal blog</a> could best be described as "glacial." I say that makes us a perfect match.<br /><br />So with an enthusiastic vote of confidence — "yeah, sure, I guess" — Beck decided to let me guest-post here. And I immediately lived up to INCITE's recent breakneck pace by posting nothing for two months as I lost my job and my computer fried itself. Oh well; not like I missed anything.<br /><br />But now that I'm here, I intend to drive INCITE's output to the dizzying heights of twenty, perhaps even thirty posts in 2008. It'll be a tough task to accomplish, but I'm confident that nobody really cares. <br /><br />In the meantime, you can send me an e-mail. I generally reply to correspondence within about six weeks or so. But don't rush me.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Okay, not all of the above is true. I lost $500 playing poker in Las Vegas.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-964921330469247372008-05-24T12:22:00.002-04:002008-05-24T12:28:09.906-04:00In which I quote the chorus from a 60's protest song with maximum ironic intentAnd it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for<br />don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Viet Nam.<br />And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates<br />ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5btZWbViPA">What's that spell?!</a>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-26253517205695760852008-04-28T09:55:00.002-04:002008-04-28T09:58:33.681-04:00Fascism WatchWhen <a href="http://www.reason.tv/video/show/392.html">bacon wrapped hot dogs become illegal</a>, America ceases to be a country I can recognize any longer.<br /><br />Bacon. Wrapped. Hot. Dogs. You should win an award for selling that. Not jail time.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-75596489855225309322008-03-14T11:57:00.002-04:002008-03-14T12:01:22.342-04:00The law of unintended consequences has its way with red light camerasThe biggest argument in favor of red light cameras is that they increase safety. Opponents always argue that there won't be an appreciable increase in safety, and that the cameras are all about revenue generation. It turns out they were both wrong. <a href="http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C1702850-8716-4C2D-8EEB-15A2A741061A/0/2008pp001008OrbanetalRedLightPaperMarch72008formatted.pdf">Red light cameras actually lead do a decrease in safety</a>, with increased accidents in areas that have installed them. From the research abstract:<blockquote><br />Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of another. Red light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.</blockquote>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-56740392937094730922008-02-13T12:00:00.001-05:002008-02-13T12:00:39.929-05:00Things to look forward toSay hello to the <a href="http://dailypundit.com/?p=29428">future of health care</a>!Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-43973775110370666152008-02-07T13:57:00.000-05:002008-02-07T13:59:39.904-05:00Compare. Contrast<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm">Insane:</a><blockquote>The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".<br /><br />Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.<br /><br />Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.<br /><br />For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.<br /><br />He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".</blockquote><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233335.stm">Sane:</a><blockquote>Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".<br /><br />The Tories called the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful" and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law. </blockquote>Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-84158369984248139342008-02-04T17:25:00.001-05:002008-02-04T17:26:45.138-05:00Definitely not at all worriesomeRemember, only criminals need to fear the consequences of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html">systemic destruction of privacy rights</a>. But just to be on the safe side, be sure to enjoy the hell out of whatever it is you're doing right now. You know, just in case.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6568215.post-5112416831832815312008-01-24T13:40:00.000-05:002008-01-24T13:41:46.080-05:00Two linerHeadline: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/clinton.obama/index.html">Obama backer accuses Bill Clinton of suppressing vote</a><br /><br />Beck: I love it when the Democrats eat their own.Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11367987948230866609noreply@blogger.com