Friday, October 29, 2010

The Terrible Cartridge Bomb of Death

In today's news, the UK police discovered what appeared, on first glance, to be a bomb. Only, it probably wasn't. Or it was. Whatever. You know, it amazes me how al Qaeda always manages to pick plots that can be so easily encapsulated in little two-word catch phrases. "Underwear Bomber". "Times Square Bomber". "The Cartridge Bomb". So easy for dumb Americans to remember and chant.

On top of that, there's the idiocy of current al Qaeda operatives. We had Abdulmutallab, whose bomb wouldn't have taken out more than this own seat. We have the Times Square Bomber (whose name escapes me now that I think of it) whose bomb wouldn't have done...well, much of anything, actually, seeing as it wasn't really a bomb to begin with. Now we have The Infamous Terrible Cartridge Bomb of Death that...

Was so obvious officials could spy it as suspicious from the outside of the packaging because it had white powder and wires. On the outside. The only thing that was missing was the ominous ticking of a Time Bomb. (BTW- don't click that link unless you want to spend many hours of your life on a website that is epic in its ability to suck you in...and because it's just sheer awesome, but anyway.)

It's hard to be shiveringly fearful of an organization that consistently manages to (once again) prove just how idiotically inept and impotent it really is. Dear al Qaeda people- please make all this government control in my life worth it and prove that you really can pose a threat to us. Please.

Monday, October 25, 2010


are almost upon us. The impending big day has been greeted with much speculation about how bad the Democrats will end up- not "will they", notice, no. They're going to do bad. It's just a question of how bad.

You know, it's rather frustrating. We had an election two years ago. Things aren't going to magically change/get better/even get worse in 2 years. We could, oh I don't know, stick with one side for awhile just to see how it'll end up before we automatically switch...and end up getting the same thing as we had before.

Rather closer to home for me, Texas is having the time of it's life. Rick Perry is probably going to win (again), have another term in office (again). Yay! I'm so 'cited. His most prominent opponent, Bill White, wouldn't be any better. But, of course, those are the only two people focus on. And whine about. The mantra is "Oh we don't have choices, so we'll just vote party."

Because, after all, voting with da partay has fixed our problems so effectively in the past. That's why America's in a drawn-out recession. Yeah.

The problem is, my dear fellow Texans, that you do have choices. So they're not great choices. Kathie Glass may have gotten the Libertarian nomination for governor, but that doesn't make her an ideal libertarian. (I'll leave you to go do the research on that one...) And the only other one is some Green Party candidate named...Deb Shafto, I think.

Not amazingly wonderful choices. But anything's better than the Perry/White choice at this moment...

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Didn't we already do this?

Right. So now we're about to sell $60 billion in weapons to our very near and dear radical Muslim friendly friends in Saudi Arabia! Because it's so smart to do that. It's worked so well in the past.

I mean...Iraq never turned on us after we sold her weapons. Nor did Russia. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or Pakistan.

Not at all. Why, selling our weapons to other people just makes them love us so much! They think- "Wow! America really loves us! Let's not attack her now!"

If only...


The don't-ask-don't-tell policy is back in the news. Again.

Frankly, I find the significance of this policy questionable. I mean, what do you want? Should we make everybody in the army carry a big sign clearly proclaiming their sexual orientation, that way everybody's clear and we all know whether you like guys, girls, or both?

Frankly, I just flat don't see how this should matter to much of anybody. As far as I understand, in the military, your sexual orientation just doesn't really matter that much, seeing as you don't go there to find a date: you go there to go kill people, or whatever else it is the military does. Where, exactly, does having the ability to tell which sex you like better matter in any way in that setting?

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Marijuana & Social Security

Fun subjects, right? You bet.

First up, Eric Holder issued an announcement that the DoJ wouldn't back down on marijuana law enforcement even if California (a sovereign state, did I mention that?) legalized said drug. Holder seems to be conveniently forgetting, in his push to keep it illegal so the federal government can continue enforcing drug laws, that the federal government has pretty much failed at either containing drug use, drug proliferation, and violence related to drugs.

Of course, one of the most hilarious (or sickening) parts of this thing is that the Republican party is against it. A state can't pass a law like that! They'll imperil the ability of the federal government to enforce laws! While...uh....Arizona is doing the same thing. Yeah! .....Right.

In other news, the Social Security Administration is reporting that payments to beneficiaries are once again staying at the same place, instead of going up as they apparently should. I wonder why that could be? It couldn't be at all because costs are increasing in other parts of the government, and so there's less money to devote for Social Security? It couldn't be because the Social Security system is bankrupt?

Oh no, of course not. It's just the recession. Yeah.

So there's your depressing fix for today. ^.^

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Free Market?

Only so long as companies stay here. If they want to leave, forget it. We hate them and we hate the elected representatives who gave them the freedom to leave.

It will never cease to amaze me, the hypocrisy here. Especially on the Republican side. Republicans, sit down and think about this for a minute. The free market is good. The free market is our friend. The free market regulates corporate behavior and makes sure that companies go where profits are. In the end, everybody's well off. But now the free market is taking businesses to China. Bad. The government should stop them because only the government can fix the free market, even though the government can't fix the free market so they should get out of it.



Now, on the Democrat side. Obviously, giving companies an incentive to be here (tax breaks) means they're going to outsource and lay off workers here. But if we just...raise their taxes...and make it astronomically expensive to operate here in the States, they'll stay here.


What planets are you all living on, again?

In any case, its become fashionable now to bash one's opponent in a midterm election race with the fact that they'll "send jobs overseas." Seeing as that's the one thing they all can agree on- that the other side is going to make jobs disappear overseas- I say we just get rid of all of them.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Life Goes On

Even in the middle of evil terrorists being tried. Well, well. Four trials prosecuting terror suspects were held in the past two weeks.

I'm sure some would like to say that there was mass rioting and much badness happened as the evil terrorists spouted anti-American rhetoric and thousands fell under their sway via their evil Sith mind tricks...

Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. People nearby, in the city, outside the city...were just fine. They didn't even hardly notice. It was a normal day. Birds singing, people talking, cars honking...

And the best part? It didn't cost New York City billions of dollars in security or trial fees. It didn't cost any more than any regular trial on any other regular case. 'Magine that. (H/T to SunTzu for this story. :) )

In other news, a Michigan judge ruled the health care law Constitutional yesterday. Oh, the joys. The judge's argument? He used the Commerce Clause, which is an innocuous line in the first article of the Constitution. It reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (Emphasis added)

How, exactly, that gives the federal government the leeway to mandate people must buy health insurance I don't know. You might be able to say that would justify the government making health insurance companies cooperate and like, let their policies carry on over state lines, because that's just smart and all. But not to demand that private citizens must carry some form of insurance.

Also, for those of you have been following the story of the soldiers who repeatedly staged combat deaths of multiple Afghanis for some strange, demented reason, court-martials have now been "recommended" for them. Really, now? You mean we might now want to court-martial them?

Meh. The military's inner workings will probably remain a mystery to me far into the future, and I really don't mind that. I don't want to know.

So, from terrorists...and back to terrorists. Peace.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Islam: Taking over Campbell Soup

Yes sir, that's right. Campbell Soup apparently decided it needed to cave to the pressures of those evil Muslims (who want to kill infidels) and make sure its canned soups were halal-friendly. Dietary halal is a set of rules about what Muslims can and cannot eat, obviously non-infidel friendly, as it restricts the eating of the beloved bacon and spiral-cut ham and also the gorging typically exercised in all-you-can-eat restaurants that are, of course, near and dear to the American heart.

This is, as you can see, yet more proof that all the Muslims want to kill all of us infidels. What will it be next? Will all-you-can-eat restaurants begin closing down? Will pork become scarcer? Will Jews be forced to eat halal foods instead of kosher? What will it be then?

How much will be too much? Will our government continue to let these private companies do what they can to make money, and accede to the demands of the evil Muslim conspiracy that is infiltrating our society bit by tiny bit? Will they let the Muslims use soup as a wedge to drive yet more space between themselves and the rest of American society?

Stop the Soup. Boycott Campbell Soup.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Using God

So, I'd like to get a for a minute. Yes, I know. Don't run away screaming, pweese?

Christine O'Donnel, the new Republican/Tea Party darling, has definitely stated that God wanted her to run for public office. And do something.

Yeah. Right.

And He came to you in a cloud and told you this, did He not?

You see, I really don't buy into that kind of thing. Something tells me that God, at the heart of it all, just...really doesn't care who is in office. I'm reading an excellent book right now, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd. Wonderful book. In it, he talks about the kingdom of the world (Satan's world, which he owns and rules) vs. the kingdom of God- the heavenly kingdom God runs and owns. His whole point is that God doesn't concern Himself so much with the kingdom of the world because it's all fundamentally Satan's. He's more concerned with Christians showing Calvary love to those around them and showing the kingdom of God in everyday life.

Add to that the fact that Jesus Christ never once encouraged political action. In fact, he discouraged it, and refused to talk about political issues of the day. When people tried to get him to take a stance on taxation by the Roman empire, he pointed out that since, according to the people around him, Caesar was an idolatrous phoney, why not give the idolatrous phoney what he wants- that is, his money back?

As a Christian myself, I get antsy when people claim God's endorsement when they're running for office, mostly because I see it as superficial. As this gentleman pointed out, it's a copout on some level, because it makes it so that the candidate doesn't have to take a stance. "Where do you draw your inspiration?" "The Bible." "Who's your hero?" "Jesus."

Really? Are we in Sunday School now?

More than that, I regard it as using God. Politicians use God to reach a goal. They know that by appealing to the broadest base of public support- religious Americans- they can get power. Because, after all, what will get you more votes- answering the question of why you want to be in office with the honest "Power and money" or "Because I want to turn America back to her roots, back to God"?

Which is sad, of course. Americans eat it up, not realizing the fundamental hypocrisy that goes on there. American politicians who call for God's endorsement also often seem to support the most contrary things- they support big business, which keeps millions of people the world over in bondage to a system of virtual enslavement. They support wars that are unjust and that foster rhetoric like "kill them all and let God sort them out."

Somehow- and this might just be me- I don't think that Jesus Christ, the same man who said that the greatest should become least and that all should love their enemies, would quite approve.

So perhaps it isn't so much that politicians use God...they just create their own that approves of everything they do. As Anne Lamott said- "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."