Category Archives: ugh

Not yet pining for the fjords

You know that feeling you get when suddenly there’s a big spike in visits to your blog but the most recent post is five weeks old?

uh oh

Well I have that feeling. Sorry visitors. I always tweet links to anything new here, so that’s the best way to find out about postings.

Advertisement

Meet the New Year

same as the old year.

In his remarks Tuesday, Obama issued a stern forewarning on the upcoming debates, and reiterated that he will not negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling.

“As I’ve demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise,” he said. “But we cannot simply cut our way to prosperity.”

“While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills they have already racked up,” Obama said. “We cannot not pay bills that we have already incurred.”

So… yeah.  Three points:

1. When your guy refuses to have a discussion, it’s “principle.”  When the other guy refuses, it’s “obstruction.”  He may as well stick to saying “DO IT MY WAY.”

2. Why can’t you cut your way to prosperity? If I save $2000 a year, does it matter if I’ve made $30K or $50K?  I’m still $2000 to the good in case of an emergency.

2½. OK, that $2000 won’t make me wealthy, but it will keep me solvent… and you have to be solvent before you can prosper.  So what’s wrong with a little solvency?  Can’t we just start there, and then see if we can take the step to prosperity when we’re sure we’re not just going bust?

3. :::facepalm:::

Not to troll or anything, but sometimes you just have to shout: WE KNOW YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS – THAT’S WHY WE DIDN’T WANT YOU TO SPEND SO DAMNED MUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You see, Obama is, as far as it goes, a child.  I don’t mean in the Gospel “lighthearted, trusting, teachable, open to joy” sense, either, but in the Epistolary “thinks like a child and acts like a child” sense.  He’s not a child at heart, but at mind.  An adult would realize the all-cap bolded part beforehand, and thus avoid racking up trillions in unpaid debts in four years. An adult would say, as Obama himself said in the presser, “The fact is, the deficit is still too high,” and then go on to consider any possible way to avoid incurring another one.  An adult would admit, at bare minimum to himself, that what has gone on when he was in charge of things was at least partly his fault, and he’s learned his lesson.  And above all, an adult would actually learn the lesson.

Obama, mentally, is not that adult.  When I hear what comes from his mouth, I can close my eyes and hear the same form of argument coming from a child trying to lie his way out of being caught raiding the cookie jar.

We gotta pay our bills… but we wanted it NOW.

The deficit is too high… but I won’t spend less to reduce it.

Yeah, well, see… it was Congress’ fault!

This last, in fact, is somewhat true, which is the mark of a skillful liar.  Toss in a true statement, and then cry foul when it is dismissed as either irrelevant to what’s under discussion or put into its real context.  This is especially effective for squeezing free a few drops of sympathy: But it IS true, you’re not fair! followed by some well-meaning dolt saying, “Aw, the poor kid, cut him a break.”

Congress HAS spent far too much.  But how?  Primarily by refusing to pass a budget of any kind for three years… and that failure originated in the Senate, controlled by Obama’s party, and not in the House, controlled by the GOP.  And why?  Whose vision were they seeing?  Whose policy were they enacting?  Whose example were they following?  Same answer each time: Obama.  He was the “Bush’s deficits are terrible” guy who promptly doubled and tripled them; the “shovel-ready projects” guy who found only after spending $800 billion or so that there weren’t any such projects; the guy whose party was actually in charge of the House for the first two years and the Senate the entire four.  Most importantly, he’s the guy who could have been saying “How about a balanced budget?” during this entire time – instead he was the guys whose budget proposals were so much worse than the stuff he’s complaining about that they couldn’t garner a single vote of support in either chamber of Congress for an entire term.

This isn’t a grown-up discussion – it’s a child who is running roughshod over his (at best) tween babysitter (namely, the Congress).  Gimme, the Kid President says, and the Congress says no – that’s what any babysitter is primarily paid to do, after all – and the Kid promptly goes off on a snit and threatens to tell his folks (us).  The sitter wavers, then caves… and then the Kid reports back that it wasn’t his fault, the sitter let him do it!*

A good parent would fire the sitter and punish the child.  The result ought to be a better and more reliable sitter in charge of a better-behaved kid.  We have just proven ourselves to be little better than reality-show parents, however, absently mumbling “You knock that off” and threatening dire conquences that never happen.  Obama’s contempt for the voting public and their livelihoods and freedoms ought to have been met with a resounding initial defeat in 2006, when he was first elected to the Senate – far less two Presidential terms.  At this point, I’m beginning to think that the Kid, irresponsible liar that he is, has a shrewd grasp of things from his own limited point of view: we deserve the contempt.  By our actions we’ve proven that we’re more than willing to give in to the Kid just to have a little peace and quiet to ourselves, instead of buckling down to our work.  So why should the Kid, or the sitters, bother with their own work?

The result is a spoiled Kid.  A child often innocently hurts his parents as a toddler, not understanding the connection between his tiny fists and nails and the adult’s pain.  It’s just fun.  But as anyone who’s seen a brat knows, once the connection is made, the toddler will often keep doing it, all with that giggly imp’s smile.  They quickly learn the fun of wrecking things and getting away with it.  (Heck, most modern revenge-fantasy movies and TV shows are just this impulse writ large.)  It has to be stopped at once or the child becomes a bully who comes to enjoy causing harm, and possibly ending up as someone who can’t enjoy anything else BUT others’ pain.

* Adding to this problem is the snot-nosed crowd that the Kid hangs with, whom we call The Media.  We like to think that they’re a terrible influence on him, when in he’s really the ringleader and they’re the toadies; and their terrible influence is over US.

(tip of the wings to Ace.)

Will you still govern me tomorrow?

Via Twitter, the Masters sent word to the Minions of a new Obama campaign ad.  It’s…. well, it’s really creepy.  Even here in the Supersonic Rocket Ship, we’re unsettled – and remember, we let unbalanced people use toxic substances to test practical jokes on each other.

There are so many objections to this, it’s hard to know exactly where to begin.  I will start with what a lot of others are noticing: it’s a conceit used first by Vladimir Putin, the “freely elected” “President” of Russia.  It’s not the only resemblance that Obama hopes for, no doubt – he’s done end-arounds of Congress and statutory requirements via executive order and agency regulation, part and parcel of the idea that he should just be in charge all the time.

From there, the observations come very easily.  It’s very conceited to think that someone who wants you to be president just “wants you,” full stop.  Likening that vote to giving up one’s v-card?  “Off” barely begins to cover the distastefulness of this concept.   The “Hey Girl” Paul Ryan meme that ran the rounds a couple of months ago was a mockery of the idea of the hunky guy sending ladies’ hearts a-flutter; if you recall, it was pictures of Ryan at his dreamiest captioned with “flirting” such as “Let me show you my budget projections” or “You want to get some tort reform some time?”  IOW, politics and infatuation don’t mix.

I don’t think I’m stretching to suggest that Obama likely thinks of himself as for-reals irresistible ladykiller.  He thinks of himself as a for-reals Zen Hoops Batman Prophet Jedi King, so why not Casanova too?  So, Hey girl, vote for me, because it will thrill your finer features – we’re all about your lady bits in the Democratic Party.  Ugh.

It’s rather a pity that a lovely and talented young lady like Lena Durham wouldn’t run from this advert like she would from a stalker in a windowless van. What was she thinking?  It’s not insulting to women to be told that it’s not enough to support President Tiger Beat with her vote, but that she has to swoon over him and flatter his virility as well? Who the hell does this doofus think he is?

Next step: the inevitable backlash over the squickiness, followed by the equally-inevitable calling of “Dog Whistle!” when people point out how awful this is.  You’re just afraid of da black man sexin’ up white women, raaaaaacist!!!one!  Sure, sure… keep politically-advertising that chicken.

The final observation is one that the Obama campaign probably doesn’t want to think about, but it’s actually the first thing I think of.  To wit: America already gave up their v-card to this cad in 2008, and wound up just like so many other poor girls who listened to rutting fools and gave it up, only to wake up in the morning to an empty bed and a guy who was just too busy to call all of a sudden.  Now he’s crawling back to us:  Oh baby, I was crazy to give you up, I’ve learned, I’ve changed, let me make it up to you.

Well, he only wants one thing out of us, and I pray America has learned some self-respect and kicks this bum to the curb.  He’s mooched off the rest of us for long enough.

Shut up, they explained – it’s for your own good

So, it’s law.

The local paper ran a two-color headline: YES IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL.  I wouldn’t go quite that far.  “Yes, It Stands,” maybe, or “Sure, Why the Hell Not?” or “Yes, It’s As Bad As You Feared and If You Don’t Like It, Scrap It Yourselves.”  But constitutional?  Even though the Supreme Court refused to strike down the ACA, I think that I’d stop short of saying that they gave it the Constitutional imprimatur.

For one thing, the decision basically outlines every last way in which this statute is bad law, and Constitutionally sketchy… which seems quite odd in an affirmation.  For another, it’s quite possible for a very smart person to make mistakes that no average or middling intellect could ever.   Justice Roberts’ reasoning in this decision is nearly a textbook example thereof.  It’s almost as if he were searching frantically for a legal reason to avoid scrapping this monstrosity.

As a result, there are a number of thoughts within his reasoning that make sense in isolation.  For example, there’s the statement that a bad policy isn’t de facto unconstitutional; also, the thought that the Courts don’t exist to spare us the consequences of sending morons to Congress to write dumb laws.  Both eminently true.  Alas, neither of these is the point at hand.  The point at hand is, does Congress have the authority to force us to do what this bill requires?  And a very simple reading of the list contained in the US Constitution of things Congress can do reveals that, No, they really can’t, not no way, not no how.

But they ARE allowed to tax us, right?  OK, so fine, this is a tax and they’re allowed to do it!  Splitting the judicial baby, as it were.  Poor kid, he never stood a chance.

There’s a huge flaw in that thinking.  I’m sure a cleverer mind than mine could paper over it, explain it away, much as today there are many clever minds explaining all the silver linings in this cloud that’s currently set to deluge us in another layer of unbearable government busybodery.  In this case, let’s just look at the cloud, OK?  Sure, the Congress can levy taxes – but why are they taxing us this time?  That’s exactly what the decision refuses to examine, with a firmness and determination that I wish had been applied towards actually deciding the issue instead of punting it. 

Continue reading

Oh, come ON, Irene

So, we had flash-flooding on Sunday last, and an earthquake on Tuesday. What have we missed?  Well, how about a freaking hurricane?

There’s a flash-animated storm tracker here, and it shows the latest predicted storm course, which would have Irene sitting in my living room and eating my cornflakes sometime Sunday morning.  We’re about two miles from the ocean over here – time to hit Costco for a pallet of bottled water and canned stuff.  Might have to board up some windows, too.

Somehow, I must have missed the advertising for Great Adventure’s newest attraction – the Insane Natural Disasters Safari.

Too-la-too-rye-yay.

So how did your team do?

Not well.  We lost 5-4 to my ex-team (never fun); next week we have the best team in the league, the umpteen-time defending top-division champions.  Huzzah.  But at least I have the Islanders, right?

That’s our guy Rick DiPietro on the right, at the instant Brent Johnson’s left fist introduces itself.  The source of that screen grab is this clip… maybe the guy shouldn’t be starting fights and then not taking them seriously?  It’s all giggles until you can’t remember what day it is.

UPDATE, Feb 4:

Rick DiPietro out 4-6 weeks with facial fracture and knee swelling.  Insult, meet injury.  At this point they should just encase him in this stuff and be done with it: