The Imminent Threat Posed by the Cell Phone

With all that's going on the world, one would think the federal government would be a bit more concerned with the exploding deficit, flying Unabomber types, and other minor issues like the war in Afghanistan. But that line of thinking doesn't create new, do-nothing government jobs and pension plans for your friends like anti-obesity campaigns, and the latest, the War on Distracted Driving. From the Weekly Standard:

The most valuable term for LaHood is “distracted driving.” It is an expansive phrase that a deft government guy can play like an accordion, stretching or squeezing it as his argument demands. The immediate upshot of LaHood’s initiative, he said last month, is that he wants laws that will make it illegal for drivers to use handheld cell phones behind the wheel. State laws, local laws, federal laws, whichever, it seems not to matter to him—just so long as this little slice of unregulated human behavior is prohibited and punished.

Great. We bemoan our collective loss of liberty when the NSA listens in on Mr. Abdullah's call to his weapons-smuggling cousin in Syria, but when little Suzie texts her BFF that she just saw the cute guy from Bio class, we're supposed to treat her like a federal criminal. There's even a website dedicated to this national plague www.distraction.gov. Judging by Mr. LaHood's pork record, I'm sure it was taxpayer money well spent.

Read more »

You really have to feel sorry for our intellectual betters sometimes. After suffering through an awkward adolescence of getting pantsed and watching the quarterback pull all the tail in high school, they can't even get any respect in their adult lives. With the information age well upon us, any slack-jawed rube with a 'puter can tear down their policies they seek to enact over the rest of the country.

That's just one possible explanation for this no-good, terrible Op-Ed where Neal Gabler, last spotted calling everyone not on Team Obama McCarthyites, simply resorts to calling Americans a generally stupid lot for not trusting their government all the time. Not to overuse the "elitist" meme, but this is pretty up there. From Boston.com:

There is something bizarre about a country whose leaders have constantly to toady to their constituents and in which any criticism is tantamount to a lack of patriotism, but that describes America today. Every politician feels compelled to ape Jimmy Carter’s old words to the point where our alleged greatness has also become our national mantra.

Like it would be better if politicians didn't bother listening to their constituents and we had power-hungry madmen making all the decisions for us. That alternative had devastating consequences for much of the world's citizens during the 20th century, and I would suggest that a good deal skepticism towards the government is necessary for a nation's survival.

This editorial is clearly a response to the fevered populist piss-offedness that has gripped our country and prevented the sychophants of the Obama administration from getting everything they wanted. However, it wasn't Bubba Joe at the assembly plant that fucked up the economy, but eggheads like this guy. Why don't they engage in some self-assessment of their own policies before denouncing the frustration of our society at the moment.

Read more »

It's difficult to explain what it's like to be a vet these days. Flat-out bigotry is rare. But, veterans seem to be like this politically-correct class of society that many folks seem to pity and avoid acknowledging because of some guilt complex...which is unfortunate. A disturbing disconnect from the warrior class and society at large can mean big trouble down the road, and at the very least leads to awkward situations like this. From CJ at A Soldier's Perspective:

Since I know that you spineless bastards in the school system are reading this, be prepared for a lawsuit! You were way out of line in bringing my personal life and my struggles with PTSD into a dispute with the school on the uniform policy. UNIFORM POLICY, FOLKS!! Where do you get off contacting the military about a private citizen matter? If I worked for Wal-Mart, would you have called the management there? If I were a REAL threat to anyone at that meeting, you should have called the police, not the military.

Despite the big game that CJ talks at his blog, I have met him personally and he is an extremely nice fellow. So it is a bit surprising that a dispute over his child's wardrobe at school would warrant a phone call from officials to his chain of command. A lot of veterans have PTSD, and it doesn't mean they are going to go run around the school screaming about Charlie coming over the wire like some Oliver Stone movie. But it is indicative of the growing divide in our American society.

Read more »

Strange Sports Always Won by Europeans Not Coming to Chicago

If calling Obama's plea at Copenhagen a gigantic waste of time is tantamount to Hanoi Jane, the concept of patriotism and nationalism sort of loses all meaning. Because, not supporting Obama's cronies in Chicago from feasting on an overburdened taxpayer to construct shoddy facilities for the Olympics is hardly grounds for being a moran, IMHO. Jonn has the last word on this:

You know who really lost today? Those folks we’ve sent to Afghanistan. Out of the 15 hours the President spent in Denmark, General McCrystal got 25 minutes with him. Imagine that; all of the time he spent on getting the Olympics brought to Chicago - seven years from now (apparently three years after Obama will be out office if he keeps acting like this) - he spent twenty five minutes with the guy fighting his war for him.

Oh well, highly important priorities like Ballroom Dancing will have to be done somewhere else.

Read more »

Apparently being a university professor doesn't excuse someone from being an embarrassing imbecile. Just like he did during the 2008 campaign, Juan Cole, the self-professed Middle East expert who was horrendously wrong about his Iraq predictions, continues his lame schtick of comparing Sarah Palin to Islamic fundamentalist groups. This time it's Ahmadinejad and how using right-wing populism is a trait shared with Palin or something. From Salon:

Right-wing populism, rooted in the religion, culture and aspirations of the lower middle class, is often caricatured as insane by its critics. That judgment is unfair. But it is true that such movements often encourage a political style of exhibitionism, disregard for the facts as understood by the mainstream media, and exaltation of the values of people who feel themselves marginalized by the political system. Not all forms of protest, however, are healthy, even if the protesters have legitimate grievances. Right-wing populism is centered on a theory of media conspiracy, a "my country right or wrong" chauvinism, a fascination with an armed citizenry, an intolerance of dissent and a willingness to declare political opponents mere terrorists. It is cavalier in its disregard of elementary facts and arrogant about the self-evident rightness of its religious and political doctrines.

So comparing political enemies to terrorists (like Juan Cole's recently published article!) is a political tactic only used by us schlubs who don't have a PhD. Maybe Professor Cole should ask himself why so many Americans are increasingly pissed off at the dangerous cronyism in the Wall Street/DC corridor while the rest of the country goes down the toilet. I'm much more likely to trust this guy working the nightshift at 7-11 in Texarkana than some Ivy League pizzaface in the Obummer administration.

Read more »

Well if you don't like snooty American bloggers telling you why you're a terrible person for not supporting a debt-ridden, centralized health care monstrosity, you're probably not going to care much when someone from Europe does it. From the Independent in London:

Like anyone who writes in a national newspaper, I'm used to abuse, but nothing prepared me for the venom unleashed when I dared to suggest, on an American website earlier this year, that "rational self-interest" might have its limits. My suggestion, said one correspondent who tracked me down months later, was "an attack" on his "happiness, freedom, income, survival and family" and I clearly had "(a) no education and (b) no experience". Suffice it to say that he, and his fellow Christina critics, were less than delighted about the "obscure left/socialist leanings" of "an American Idol President". Socialist? It would be tempting, as a Brit, to say 'you're having a larf!', but these people are not, I think it's safe to say, overly endowed with a sense of humour.

If Obama can't do this, nobody can. If Obama can't do this, America's poor are screwed. Sure, America's got talent, but it's also got some of the most unpleasant, uncompassionate, unerringly ruthless people on the face of this planet. Boy will that boy need some luck.

Well, that certainly doesn't have much of the British charm. And what's up with calling Obama "boy" like it's some 1950s diner in Biloxi, Mississippi. This is not the first time scary, middle-aged women have referred to Obama as "boy".

You kind of get a sense of the commentator;s demeanor with this line later in her stream-of-conscious blatherings:

The pub, cosy cornerstone of the community, hub of happiness and harmony etc, is in decline and this, apparently, is a national disaster.

Could this be the same institution that has been castigated for fostering the country's only serious national pastime, the mass pouring down throats of the drug regarded as the biggest threat to the nation's health?

Great. Another know-it-all, self-roghteous liberal who wants to mind everyone else's personal business to compensate for god-knows-what. Please stay in England, we have too many like you in the States.

Read more »

With the Stimulapalooza getting congressmen all the pork they needed for the fiscal year, it must be a slow season on Capitol Hill. Because, the tedious task of legislation has become fixated on the wang. From CNN:

Last month, Democratic Rep. Jim Moran introduced the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act," which prevents erectile dysfunction and male enhancement ads from appearing on radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

"This [the advertisements] is an intrusion into our daily lives that I believe has become inappropriate." Moran said in an interview with CNN. "There is a saturation of the television airwaves with these E.D. ads, and they have gotten more pervasive, more blunt, and less subtle."

Text of the bill is here. No one likes to hear any direct reference to old people fuckin', but that's why the good Lord invented the remote control to mute these commercials requiring a thorough eye-washing upon viewing.

Of course the congressman's name is "Moran", which shows that politics is one ongoing joke designed to ruin America and all we can do is blog about it.

Read more »

Not sure what prompted Yglesias to write why Americans shouldn't be so "self-congratulatory" about being on the good side of defeating the worst imperialistic powers civilization has ever seen. Maybe he got mad when he saw some tourists gawking at the WWII memorial in DC during his morning bike ride or something. From Think Progress:

The greatest example of that has to be America’s bizarre self-congratulatory narrative about World War II. It’s a narrative that’s all the more bizarre for the fact that the truth would still reflect well on us. But somehow the fact that the Soviet Union did more, objectively, to beat Hitler gets excised. As does the fact that it was Canada, Australia, and New Zealand rather than the United States that really did somewhat selflessly jump to throw in with the Allies at the earliest possible date. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the United States single-handedly, and in a completely disinterested manner, rode to the rescue and that it was incredibly cowardly of the nation of France to located itself adjacent to Germany rather than having the foresight to be courageously separated from Hitler by the Atlantic Ocean.

Does anyone not know about London getting continuously bombed in 1940 or that the Soviets had the most casualties? His contrived strawman seems to be an horrible dumbass in history. Yglesias also conveniently leaves out that whole Pacific campaign portion of WWII, because of the inconvenient fact that we had more skin in the game there than our European allies. He seems to be channeling the standard conservative stereotype of liberals that courage, sacrifice, and patriotism is something the left is embarrassed by and that America is always in the wrong.

Read more »

The Tea Party haters comical criticisms of the events on April 15th may have reached a new plane of silliness with this latest blurb from the dead tree media (h/t Mike of Crook's Shadow). And this is after the drug-addicted Garofalo derided the protests as racists with her "teabagging rednecks" flap on Olbermann! Apparently, if you are opposed to the federal government squandering billions of dollars in unprofitable banks and wasting billions more on "make work" type largesse, you hate the military. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

What did you make of the big protest against the U.S. military and our veterans Wednesday?

It took place in hundreds of American cities; people were waving signs, brandishing tea bags.

Of course, they didn't think they were speaking out against our military and our vets -- they hadn't really thought it through at all. They were under the impression they were condemning federal taxes.

I don't see the paradox in wanting more responsible government but still understanding that some level of taxation is necessary. As a matter of fact, there were at least a few vets at the DC protest, and one officer in Baghdad wrote to Gateway Pundit wishing he could've attended one.

The Sun-Times goes on a history revisionist rant by saying that the founding fathers weren't really limited government types at all:

How accurate is it to say that the founding fathers were for "limited government"?

Well, if you mean they didn't envision an Environmental Protection Agency or NASA, then yes, they were for limited government.

But if you look at what they actually did -- create a federal government where none existed before -- then they were for an enormous expansion of central control.

Not that I could put words in the mouth of zombie Thomas Jefferson, but when he famously stated "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies", I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be hunky-doory with the banking plutocracy taking the taxpayers to the cleaners.

But the kicker is that the same Sun-Times article talks about an art exhibit being co-hosted by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and that they might upset some of those nasty right-wingers. So to be clear, protesting lack of accountability with federal tax dollars makes you a CHUD, but trying to blow up the Fort Dix NCO club makes you a misunderstood philanthropist.

Ross Douthat has a worthwhile piece about how the lack of leadership at the Tea Parties is bringing out too many freaky-freakies, and certainly there will always be your share of crazies at any protest. But, I wish this guy would've shown up to one of the events to point out to the critics that many of them sound like imbeciles:

Read more »

I support the President's Decision!

Word has leaked that two UAV strikes targeting Al-Qaeda militants have taken place inside Waziristan while Obama has been Commander-in-Chief. From Breitbart:

Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed seven people Friday on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, a lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out, officials said.

The strike was the first on Pakistani territory since the inauguration of President Barrack Obama.

Pakistani leaders had expressed hope Obama would halt the attacks, more than 30 of which have been launched since the middle of last year, reportedly killing several senior militants.

The pro-U.S. government routinely protests them as a violation of the country's sovereignty, but most observers speculate it has an unwritten agreement allowing them to take place.

These intelligence-driven, cross-border airstrikes are authorized at the highest level of the chain of command, as seen during the strike in Syria last October, which killed a high-level Al-Qaeda facilitator. There will be some ostentatious criticism of these air strikes, and they alone will not be able to completely eliminate the terrorist presence in the lawless region of Northwestern Pakistan. But consider these facts before you rush off to go protest the President's decision to continue with this controversial strategy:

• The 36 UAV airstrikes in Pakistan during 2008 killed five senior Al-Qaeda leaders [Long War Journal]
• Trans-national militants based in the tribal areas are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. and allied troops and thousands of Afghan civilians [NYT]
• Pakistan's response was to the Mumbai massacre has been weak, and they even moved combat brigades from the Northwestern Provinces onto the border with India [Bloomberg]
• Pakistan continues to make deals with the Taliban despite that area of the country becoming extremely chaotic
• Newsweek warned that Pakistan was ground zero for jihadis back in 2007, and it has only gotten worse
• The Obama administration has vowed to aid Pakistan (like we did during the earthquake in 2005), but "hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan" [WhiteHouse.Gov]
• The governor of the Northwest Frontier Province continues a media campaign of lies and says that Afghanistan is really the problem (WTF!) [Tom Ricks]

Understand that I'm a huge critic of the Obama administration, primarily because I believe his economic policies are going to ruin the country and his followers creep me the fuck out. But this is national security we're talking about here! And I'm grateful that we have a leader who understands the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom and balances diplomacy and military assertion to keep the world safe from international terrorists.

Frankly, I was very surprised to see Michelle Malkin vying for Moran of The Day with this awful analysis of the situation which is a form of shameless partisanship:

Reader John has a few questions: “Where are the anti-war liberals? Where are the baby-killer signs? Why [aren't] the major media networks showing pictures of dead children as a result of Pres. Obama’s air strike?”

Hey, haven’t you heard? CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

IMHO, bipartisanship is no vice when it's a matter of us getting all killed.

Read more »

The latest NY Times tripe on the military suggests that people only enlist for a steady cash flow during our recession. Certainly, the promise of a pay-check might tip the scales for some potential recruits in their decision-making process, but just joining the military for financial rewards is a pretty lousy idea. The pay scale for junior enlisted personnel is publicly available, and you can see that an individual would have a much better shot at bringing in the Benjamins if they opened up a roller-disco or something. But that doesn't stop the grey lady from propagating the myth that people only sign up to avoid financial ruin. From the NYT:

Sean D. O’Neil, a 22-year-old who stood shivering outside an Army recruitment office in St. Louis, said he was forgoing plans to become a guitar maker for now, realizing that instruments are seen as a luxury during a recession. Mr. O’Neil, a Texas native, ventured to St. Louis for an apprenticeship but found himself $30,000 in debt. Joining the Army, his Plan B, was a purely financial decision. With President-elect Barack Obama in office, he expects the troop levels in Iraq to be lowered.

This type of reporting in the media leads society to believe that they should not respect the patriotism of the Armed Forces. Because they had "nowhere else to go", young Americans can feel "less guilty" that only a small percentage of folks have chosen to serve. Recruits come into the military for a variety of reasons, but it all becomes moot as everyone is familiarized into the military lifestyle and ethnic/class/political boundaries are broken down as everyone dons the same uniform.

The NYT writer, Lizette Alvarez, has covered the same beat for her journalistic career, always proclaiming the military's troubles. Recently, Old Blue did some outstanding analysis that her gripes with the military have nothing to do with objective reporting, and everything to do with making the current Republican administration look bad. So don't buy into the hype...maybe her articles will quietly go away after The O takes office.

What's disturbing is that imbeciles tend to believe this sort of nonsense that the military is not necessarily patriotic. Take Punk'd star and cougar-hunter Ashton Kutcher, who had this to say at HuffPo:

Today, serving our country no longer simply means drop and give me 20, this is your rifle, defend this land we call home. National service is becoming a term used to define a much broader and equally passionate category of patriotism. This brand of patriotism is inclusive of a pure humanitarian effort guided by the simple virtue of the giving of oneself for the benefit of another in the name of the United States of America.

I am grateful that our nation has some excellent humanitarian workers here and abroad, but Ashton Kutcher isn't exactly Mother Teresa. And his flippant attitude that the military is just about "give me 20" is an embarrassment. It's a sad state of affairs when our nation's cultural elite think driving a hybrid is on par with sacrifices made in the military, but it's the reality we face.

Read more »

Sherlock Holmes Blogger Turns Up Jack and Shit

Today's moran is David Neiwart of Crooks and Liars, who has a detailed post about how many returning veterans are going to morph into modern-day Timothy McVeighs to wreak havoc on America. Not sure where to begin on how the military is a non-racist institution, since it's been integrated for a very long time (courtesy of Prez Truman). Honestly, we don't even think about it anymore. I've met a lot of different people during my time in service and I've met some pretty strange dudes, but none of them have been neo-nazis.

Being accused of just "not liking brown people" is a very serious offense by DoD policy, and can get you suitcase-tossed out (as the clowns at Stormfront whine about). And, in true military fashion, there's an entire acronymn'd program (EEO) dedicated to investigating racist complaints. They check for gang tattoos while in-processing into the military, and I have some not-so-fond memories of standing around in a room with a bunch of dudes in their undies, while a cadre of MEPS personnel checked us head to toe.

As for Timothy McVeigh, his beef was over Waco, which most youngsters probably think is an Xbox 360 game. And strained race-relations the LA riots wrought in the early 90s...most youngsters probably don't remember those either. But, Mr. Neiwart laments it could all come home to roost during an Obama administration:

In our current situation, these veterans not only will have served with neo-Nazis amid their ranks, they will likely be faced with unemployment and a wrecked economy, eager for someone to blame and fully trained and capable of violent action.

I suspect this has to do more with the Alinksy-stlye tactic for liberals to demonize their conservative opposition and has little to do with what's really going on, as he has a theme of calling people he doesn't like racists. Sucks the military had to get caught up in this punditry. I'm sure he'll apply the same rigor in finding out who torched Sarah Palin's church! And if he can call all politically-minded soldiers he doesn't agree with "Timothy McVeigh", I get to call all long hair liberals "Charles Manson". It's only fair.

Read more »