We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
First off, before the peanut gallery pipes up with "Not another debate, already!", I should note that the last debate was solely about economics, and that the previous debate was a month before, so it's been a while since we've heard Perry claim that Social Security is an illegal Ponzi Scheme and thus should immediately be disbanded, or Ron Paul screaming we should BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW! to thunderous applause from the Paulbots in the audience. Good times, good times.
As far as the current status of the election goes, I suppose the primary question is, can Cain actually, really, for-sure, possibly, maybe, somewhat, somehow beat Obama? Because if he actually, really, for-sure doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, then the next Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters post is going to be full of self-congratulatory remarks as the gang pats each other on the back for the plethora of Cain Would Beat Obama In Face-off, Poll Says headlines that have been floating around recently.
Remember, as I noted in my very first election post, the plan is to always push the 2nd- or 3rd-place Republican contender in order to diminish the person holding the #1 spot, thereby keeping the masses in a state of flux. One thing we don't want is for anyone to actually be making any decisions out there. Keep 'em unsettled, keep 'em guessing, right up to the day of the election. Then, the American voter might still be so undecided when they hit the voting booth that they think, "Oh, maybe I'll just go ahead and vote for that nice Mr. Obama. He's so articulate!"
Utah readers, you'll be crushed to learn that Huntsman is boycotting the event because of the possibility that Nevada might move its caucus up on the schedule. That sounds a little thin, but the two states do abut each other, so there's bound to be a little rivalry between them and there might be more to this than meets the eye. An article on the debate is here.
Ana, for one, said she voted for Obama last time, but will now be supporting the Republican nominee, whoever it is.
"I don’t want promises," she said.
Short and sweet.
Tonight, 8 pm EST, CNN. Democratic lapdog Anderson Cooper is moderating, so it's possibleprobable inevitable that the questions just might will be slightly biased tilted dramatically in order to get the group to throw bombs at each other, but after last week's calm, measured round table debate, much of that early rancor might be gone.
Perry/Cain/Gingrich 2012?
(Hey, big businesses have more than one VP — why not us?)
While at first glance this might appear to be 'old news', I can assure you it isn't.
Because no more than a week ago I was reading some article and the guy was listing out all of the bad things our government has done in recent years (granted, it was a long article), and stuck right in the middle of his list was "lying us into an unnecessary war". This refers to Iraq, and how Bush 'lied' by telling us Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. As the lefty meme at the time declared, Bush lied, thousands died!
And, much like global warming, the 'Bush lied us into war' meme has become so ingrained and believed that even a conservative writer might include it on the list without even thinking about it. Either way, I couldn't fault the guy.
Below the fold is the single greatest collection of quotes I've ever seen, regardless of subject. They were stuck in the comments of some throwaway article a while back and I hate to see the effort go unnoticed.
One quote deserves particular attention:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Yes, Saddam had literally tons of WMD in his possession at the time. Bush and the CIA and the British, French, German and Israeli intelligence services were entirely correct. Estimates vary, but he'd already gassed somewhere between 100,000 and 350,000 Kurds with deadly Sarin gas and the like. The problem is that the anti-Bush MSM took 'WMD' to only mean nuclear at some point, ergo, if they didn't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq after the invasion, then Bush lied.
And, yes, we found tons of WMD, in the form of Sarin gas, in Iraq — but you never heard about that in the MSM, did you? Power Line was the one who broke the story, about eight months after the invasion. The army had found over 1,500 shells of Sarin gas in one underground bunker alone.
I don't expect you to be particularly interested in the list, but I'd like you to keep this post in mind the next time you see the 'Bush lied' meme dragged out and wish to respond. This is one of those things that simply cannot be refuted.
In case you don't know what Wonkette is, it is — by far — a blog site full of the biggest Lefty fruitcakes in existence. "Frothing at the mouth" would be an adequate description. Following is a selection of their posts and links from just this past week.
Remember, folks, if you want the latest anti-right screed, then you want Wonkette!
Quite the list, eh? And that's just from one week! As I said, if you want the latest in hard-core right-wing defeatism, then you want Wonk-
Oh, wait a sec. Damn it!
Sorry, everyone. I've made a terrible mistake. Those were last week's links from Hot Air, the "leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary."
And just why is the "leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary" so incredibly defeatist? I have no idea. But hey, this was the blog site that had more anti-Palin links than pro-Palin links during the 2008 election, so who knows what's going on behind the scenes? If anyone out there has the scoop, please let us know in the comments. It's all quite the little mystery. After founder and ex-boss Michelle Malkin wrote her anti-Perry HPV article a month ago, Hot Air promptly ran twenty anti-Perry headlines in a row over the next two weeks. Twenty.
The kicker is that Hot Air is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the California-based Salem Communications Corporation, owner of over 1,650 sites, and the "bloggers" are actually compensated writers.
In other words, they were paid for the above.
Again, I apologize for my grievous blunder, and I promise to be more careful in the future.
They were asked (if you can believe this) if they thought anyone on Wall Street should go to prison for the economic harm they've done.
James Taranto in yesterday's Best of the Web Today expounded on this in his usual exemplary fashion and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. He really nailed those liberal asshat moderators.
First off, the (literal) round table format was great. As I mentioned yesterday, it gave the whole debate a 'businesslike' atmosphere, yet it was also much more 'casual' than normal, simply because they were sitting so close together. It was also cheerier, in that when someone cracked a joke, you could hear everyone laugh. Cozy, might be the word. For the record, Michele Bachmann has a delightful laugh.
And while I was wondering how they'd handle the numerous cameras required to keep everyone in front of the lens, they solved that little problem by not shooting anyone from the front. Most of the shots were offset a good angle, and then there were the you-are-there shots like this:
I thought it was terrific, and the next 'standard' debate is going to seem almost stilted in comparison. Notes are below the fold.
*Unless you live in New Hampshire or get the exciting Bloomberg Channel on your cable network.
Well, there are plenty of questions surrounding tonight's GOP debate, but one of them overrides them all.
Will the candidates soundly condemn the Washington Post's outrageous attack on Rick Perry? Will Herman Cain again play the race card by bringing it up as he did last week? While a few of the braver candidates dared to use the word "entitlements" in the last two debates, will any of them have the cheek, the gall, the moxie, the sheer effrontery to use the term "lavish government pensions" in tonight's debate? Will any of them, after having read Maggie's Farm this morning (as I'm sure they all do), call for NASA to be severely downsized? Will Rick Perry continue to endorse the slaughter of Innocent Young Girls™ (copyright Michele Bachmann Enterprises 2011) with the HPV vaccine? If he does, will Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have to pay Bachmann royalties to use her favorite copyrighted phrase in their own spittle-spewing diatribes?
So there are some of the questions surrounding tonight's debate. But, as I said, there's one little mystery that far outweighs them all:
Why the hell isn't it being aired? Or even mentioned?
Zero articles about it this morning on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, USA Today or the Washington Times. There's a big splashy pic on the Washington Examiner's home page, but the article appears to be offline.
The Washington Post, which is co-hosting the event, has an article here. The streaming link is on the page. Starts at 8 pm Eastern. There's also a TV station in New Hampshire airing it, as well as the exciting Bloomberg Channel for those of you with satellite dishes and 500 channels at the ready.
And it's taking place around this:
King Arthur could not be reached for comment.
From a technical standpoint, this looks kind of dicey. They'll have to have a cameraman straight across almost every candidate or the angles are going to make the person directly in front the camera appear like they're at the head of the table, and anyone shot at an angle is going to look like a subordinate.
And sitting down isn't what contenders usually do when they're trying to oust the usurper behind the throne. It'll make them all look subordinate to the guy in the Big House. Which, given that the Post is a liberal tabloid rag, is probably the intention.
That's also indicative as to the type of questions that will be posed. Look for the moderators to keep them fighting among themselves and thus keep them from mentioning a certain White House resident by name.
What they want is for the viewer to order the candidates in their least liked order. You least like one candidate more than the others, then move up the list to the candidate you least like the least. So you guess you'll vote for him or her, but only until they do or say something else that the MSM points out as demonstrably unlikeable, in which case you might just vote for that nice Mr. Obama, since at least you know where he stands on things.
Or, just as likely, because people don't like voting for 'lessers of evil', you just stay home.
Mission: Accomplished.
I'll report in tomorrow on this mess. There might be an unanticipated effect from having the candidates sitting, rather than standing. They might appear more 'businesslike', which, given the dire straits our economy is in, might come across as a real plus. It might give it more of a 'boardroom atmosphere'. We'll see.
I was drifting around the TV one weekend back in '94. I blundered across the U.S. Amateur Golf Championship, but, only being interested in the pros, I reached to click the remote.
But, well, the kid was about ready to hit his putt, and it's pretty rude to make any abrupt movements at that point, so I held off on the remote for a sec.
The ball rolled toward the hole a long 30 feet away. It rolled up a slight slope and veered to the left. It rolled up another slope and veered to the right. Then it veered to the left again. It crept right up to the hole...
and dropped in.
That was my introduction to Tiger Woods. I've rarely missed an event he's been in since.
(Or "Ol' Slobber Jaws", as he's known around the farm)
We're pleased to announce that we're adding a new guest blogger to the assorted collection of drunken reprobates and societal misfits already inhabiting this place. I've grilled him extensively on the finer art of hog sloppin' and how to read the future from chicken scratchings and I think he'll fit right in.
His name is Bulldog. And, when it comes to 'bulldog grip', I can't imagine a better handle. He and I are still arguing about my Magellan post from last April. The guy just won't let go! His condition is so pronounced that we're actually offering up three Official Maggie's Farm Bonus Points if you can win an argument with him in the comments.
Also, like myself, he comes with a dire warning, given the hard turn to the political right this site has taken over the past few years. When I started talkin' politics again a while back, I quickly noted that I was a confirmed Centrist, which I define as hating both sides equally. Thus, when the next thing you know I'm desecrating your favorite candidate with nasty euphemisms that even a hard-core lefty site would have qualms about using, it's understandable. But Bulldog is even worse.
He's a Libertarian.
Which is, of course, why I invited him aboard. The banner does say 'politically centrist', right? So, with only poor little me to fend off the unmitigated horror of the constant outpouring from the right-wing propaganda machine that infuses this place (our president is a "idiot", Greenpeace is "indoctrinating" people, Planned Parenthood is an "abortion mill", the Boomers and/or Hippies are to blame for all your problems, screw poor people and their food stamps, etc, etc, etc), I thought throwing a for-real Libertarian into the mix would help keep that 'politically centrist' part of the banner from becoming the biggest joke in the blogosphere.
Ever the helpful one, I.
Using the strange, archaic moniker 'Rick', Bird Dog and I have already posted two of his pieces. He should have his own account set up by next week. His next post follows this one, but he quickly notes that it's just a throwaway piece; just something he wanted to toss out there. He's going to save the really cruel, biting, acerbic pieces about those gun totin', dawg-lovin', Bible-thumpin', war mongerin' Conservatives until he can get his own byline and take full credit. Libertarians are like that.
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to please raise my taxes. Edwards has the luxury of being "unemployed by choice." This is a very nice choice to have, one which I wish I had when I was unemployed. Not having the financial wherewithal Mr. Edwards has, it forced me to make some very different choices during my period of unemployment. One of them was not related to raising my taxes at all.
Where Edwards, and Warren Buffett, go off the rails is their assumption that raising their taxes is something they should be allowed to impose on others who may not share their views. If Mr. Edwards has a very good friend who is also making money by selling his stock from "a small startup that did quite well", it's quite possible that friend is happy with his tax rate. Is it fair or right for Mr. Edwards to tell his friend that his taxes should be raised?
More importantly, what is Mr. Edwards doing with his money that he wants the government to have? He pointed to Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs as things he considered important and worthy of having his money taxed. We could all agree that infrastructure is in need of improvement. But couldn't Mr. Edwards put his money to better use by setting up scholarships and grants on his own, or becoming an entrepreneur and doing his own job training program by starting a business? Mr. Edwards, I don't want to tell you how to spend your money. After all, it's yours, and I have no right to tell you how it is best used. That's up to you. If you want to pay more taxes, then pay. After all, you can gift money to the government. Nobody's stopping you.
On the other hand, if I had the luxury of Mr. Edwards' position, I'm fairly certain I could set up a scholarship fund and provide money for schools far more efficiently than the government. Why would I want the government to take my money, spend hundreds of thousands of what they collect on bureaucrats who don't add value, and have those people distribute the money to needy school students? There's less money to help the students. Of course, it does become a remarkably inefficient jobs program. I suppose that's the joy. You've been taxed and given several people useless jobs that you could probably do better on your own.
If I had the background that Mr. Edwards has, and lived in the startup capital of the US, I could probably be an entrepreneur. Then my money does several things. It becomes productive, I get to have my own jobs program, and the company and all its employees get taxed. Funny thing about the free market; you can actually be quite effective with your money if you have a good idea.
Mr. Edwards and Buffett aren't asking not for their taxes to be raised, but for everyone's taxes to be raised, and they have missed the very point that not raising taxes creates value if people want it to create value. Edwards and Buffett think the money has to go to the government to be effective. Sadly, the money will produce nothing of value, and the government will only ask for more later after this money is misspent.
Mr. Edwards, the only thing I can think is that you mean well, but you have missed the boat entirely. It would probably be far more useful to everyone if you and your "Patriotic Millionaires for Higher Taxes" set up a Venture Capital Fund or funded some schools in down and out regions of the US. I'm sure all of your "Patriotic Millionaire" friends are very smart and capable people, so one option would help create jobs and taxes, while the other would reduce our reliance on the federal government for handouts. Either way, you get to feel better and we all win.
A couple of days ago, Rick used the term 'Black Swan Event' in the comments so I asked him to expound on it. Here's his report.
The term 'Black Swan Event' entered our lexicon recently, but the idea has been in existence for many years. It has Latin roots, from a phrase that described 'a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan'. This was common saying, at a time when black swans had not been discovered. Upon its discovery in 1697, the black swan ceased to be a impossible thing, and became one which was improbable yet capable of being rationalized and institutionalized after its discovery, as if it should’ve been expected.
Today, the most commonly cited Black Swan Event is 9/11. It was one which was not easily seen or predicted, and considered impossible or at least improbable. Yet, in happening, history has been re-analyzed. Writers have spent a tremendous amount of time reviewing data prior to 9/11 which point to some big event occurring. In doing so, this work makes the event seem not only highly probable, but so likely that it could have been prevented, thereby institutionalizing many aspects of it in new behaviors. Since 9/11, other events have occurred which have been described as 'Black Swans', but may not meet the criteria. As a result, there is a tendency to overemphasize the impact of smaller events by journalists, as the logic of the improbable is sensationalized.
The debate was quite interesting. Everyone turned in an decent performance, with no obvious stumbles or pie-on-the-face moments. For the most part, the questions were fair and reasonable, and the always-smooth Brian Williams did the moderating along with some dweeb from the left-leaning Politico whom I immediately disliked.
Let's start this off with a simple multiple choice question, shall we?
Q: In the great big, beautiful room in which the debate took place, what hangs over the audience's head?
A. A huge glass chandelier B. 9,863 small chandeliers C. An exact replica of the Sistine Chapel D. Air Force One
Answer: D. Admittedly, it's a little disconcerting at first. I mean, Air Force One is a big plane. But there it is, hanging away. Must be friggin' awesome during an earthquake.
Oh, sure, you think 'alternative energy' is corny or worthless or just downright silly, right? And the worst form of all is that goofy solar power, right?
Maybe you're just not using it for the right application.
The suit uses conductive thread and thin photo-voltaic panels, creating a sort of chain-mail fabric that gives the bikini a medieval armor-meets-21st century look. The solar power absorbed by the panels charges any gadget that can be plugged into the suit's USB ports, sewn right into the fabric.
Schneider is in the process of creating a men's swimsuit using the same technology to chill beers, cutely-dubbed the iDrink.
Article is here, and a big hat tip to Maggie's Valued Reader™ John who runs On The North River.
I'm going to do a post on Perry this Friday and would like to include a video. I've looked over a handful on YouTube and most of them are 'okay', but nothing really jumps out. If anyone has a favorite vid that puts him in his best light, please leave the link or name in the comments.
Also, any links or other juicy tidbits would be appreciated. If there's any truth to the rumor that he's secretly a transgender drag queen posing as a closet transvestite, let me know. We'll get to the bottom of this sordid story, and I note for the record that the Perry camp has not officially denied it, which probably means it's true.
Pic: Chuck Norris + Rick Perry = Awesomeness Unveiled
You might have heard about the terrible tragedy to strike Los Angeles last night. Gigantic earthquake toppled it into the sea? Forest fire ran amok and consumed the entire place? Mexico finally said "¡No más!" and took its land back?
A 10-mile stretch of one of the nation's busiest freeways has turned into a virtual ghost road.
Interstate 405 closed for 53 hours for a major construction project beginning early Saturday that will test whether this car-dependent city can change its driving habits for a weekend.
For weeks, authorities have urged Los Angeles-area residents to avoid getting in their car, lest they trigger what's been hyped as "Carmageddon."
Such an event could back up vehicles from the 405 to surface streets and other freeways, causing a domino effect that could paralyze much of the city.
Yes, you read that right, everyone. 53 hours!
When people suffer so terrible a fate, you can bet that Maggie's Farm will be right there with comfort, aid, and moral support for those most devastated by their grievous loss.
And we note for the record this isn't the first time Highway 405 has been shut down. 405 was where OJ Simpson's infamous 'slow speed chase' took place, and I'm sure we all remember when that jetliner landed on it a few years ago, narrowly avoiding what could have been a horrific disaster.
Of all the astronomical discoveries over the years, which was the most profound? Which discovery, upon further examination, opened more new doors to philosophy, deep thought and science than any other?
Certainly the discovery that the Earth wasn't at the center of the solar system would be most people's pick, since it only relegated a couple thousand years of religious belief to the dust bin of history.
But when you think about it, that particular discovery didn't really alter our view of the cosmos; it was more just a matter of a small physical realignment in the immediate neighborhood. It certainly had religious repercussions, and certainly made calculating planetary orbits easier, but not much else. Switch the Sun and the Earth around and we still have no further idea what all those little twinkling lights up there are.
But in 1863, an Italian astronomer named Angelo Secchi invented the heliospectrograph, which breaks a star's light into its spectral bands. He eventually charted the light from almost 4,000 stars.
At one point, he turned it on the Sun and compared its chart to the others. And what a stunning moment.
Our Sun is a star.
To me, if there was one fulcrum point upon which our entire understanding of the cosmos turned, that was it.
Our Sun is a star.
I'm currently halfway through a terrific series on our solar system called Wonders of the Solar System. It's a 3-disc set; I got mine from Netflix. The following video is from the episode 'Empire of the Sun'. That's the only segue from above; the actual clip is specifically about the Earth. Very specifically, as you'll see.
Apart from the usual breathtaking photography and computer graphics, what makes it particularly enjoyable is the host, Dr. Brian Cox. Like the great science hosts of yore (Carl Sagan, James Burke, et al), Cox doesn't get bogged down in technical talk and he uses easy-to-understand examples of the physics he's describing. He also carries across that unabashed 'wonderment and awe' that Sagan used to wear on his sleeve. Nothin' wrong with that.
On the other hand, I'm no slouch with this cosmos stuff, m'self. Until I see otherwise, I believe my Life On Other Worlds: By The Numbers is the definitive work arguing against there being intelligent life on other worlds.
Which is why the following clip interested me. It's yet another link in the chain of events that are extremely unlikely to happen to the average planet.
Does the average planet have... a spinning molten iron core?
I admit I got busy and didn't read through many of the comments in my election post last week, but I presume you all came to the logical conclusion that I was right about everything.
Today, I'd like to toss out some thoughts on a small variety of subjects.
Point In Time
According to the site stats, no one's fired up a site using my new Speakup! 2012 site yet. Unsurprisingly, of course. It's early. The election's still a million miles away.
Or, is it? Here's something to ponder:
Couldn't it be argued that we didn't lose the last election during the general election — we lost it in the primary?
While it might be true that we didn't have a chance in hell last time no matter who we threw up there, this time around things are different. While Obama still has the media in his pocket, many other factions are starting to crumble around the edges (the black vote, youth vote, Jewish vote, hipness vote, etc) and this time we've got a real chance.
Except that the media is going to do everything in its power to promote this kind of behavior:
This infighting is going to cost us dearly down the road.
Burning Scott Brown's Playbook
Do you remember Scott Brown's Massachusetts senatorial win a few years ago after Senator Ted Kennedy passed away? It stunned everybody. It was, I believe, the first time in 232 years that a Republican had won that seat.
And just how did he beat his opponent, ol' whats-her-name?
He ignored her.
Instead, he used ol' whats-her-name as a proxy for Obama's failures, with a "Here's how I'll do better" approach.
That's what the media will be desperately trying to stave off. They want that sordid chapter of American history to die a quiet and natural death. The media wants it to be a knock-down, drag-out playoff between contenders, whereas the candidates should be emulating Scott Brown and telling the people Here's how I'll do better straight through the primary and all the way to the White House.
The Positions
I suggest you not give a rat's ass about some candidate's 'position' on this or that issue at this point in time. It's all going to change when the primary officially begins, it's going to change again during the general, and what eventually happens after they take office may not have any relation to their previous positions. You know all those campaign promises that Obama has broken? Rest assured, he didn't want to break them.
And then there's the bullshit of 'past indiscretions'. So what if Romney signed some AGW 'pact' three hundred years ago? One of the biggest tropes of both the left- and right-wing propaganda machines is focusing on something the opposition did a zillion years ago (Bill Ayers, please pick up the white courtesy telephone) while conveniently dismissing their own candidate's checkered past.
What makes the whole thing pathetically hypocritical is that the same site that soundly castigates someone for something he or she said years and years ago will then make a post on some 18th century philosopher praising man's ability to think in the here-and-now and instantly being able to change his entire course with one new scrap of critical information. Kind of a strange juxtaposition, isn't it?
It isn't just sentience that makes us special.
Furthermore, I-
"Excuse me, Doc?"
"Yes, boss!"
"Mary said some nice things about you at the meeting yesterday. Hope you enjoyed your dinner. By the way, you got anything fresh on that Perry guy?"
"Good morning, everyone. And how are you all today?"
"Fine, chief".
"Mornin', sir."
"Wow, that Sarah Palin sure is hot!"
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Okay, everyone, let's get down to work. Jim, you're fired. Now, before we begin, let's all keep our main goal in mind. Just as we did in 2008, we want to make sure the winner of the Republican primary is the person least likely to win the general election. Mary, you and your people did a superb job last time. Taking some loser who got his ass shot down by the enemy and turning him into a 'war hero'? Absolutely brilliant."
"Thanks, boss. We admit they make it easy. What those idiots know about winning elections wouldn't fill a thimble."
"And lucky for us. Okay, today we're going to be focusing on the Witch. She's starting to pull ahead in the polls, so let's knock her down a peg or two. Anyone got anything? Steve?"
"And that's a video, boss, just full of heartbreaking stories from people who had barely broken free of this mad cult before the damage had been done. We made hubby come across as the reincarnation of Edgar Allen Poe; pit, pendulum, ravens and all."
"Shirley, you and your team never fail to impress. Have we got anything on the Witch, herself? Yes, Mack?"
"I've been saving this gem for months, chief. Check it out."
"Jeez, Mack, that almost makes me want to weep with joy. You got any more gems like that tucked away?"
"I ain't sayin', boss, but...yes!"
"I'll tell you, people, it's an honor working with such professionals. Now, back to wielding the Intolerant label effectively, have we snagged anyone else yet? Shirley, you've got that usual smug look about you."
"Well, guys, I was kinda saving this for next week when we focused on the Moonbeam Mormon, but here goes."
"In other words, he's secretly gay?? Excellent work! Now, as a lead-in to next week's focus on the Moonbeam, have we got anything else on him? Maybe some no-name beating him in one of those fake polls? Mary, your folks usually handle that. Got anything for us?"
This is actually a little embarrassing. It's like I'm giving away all of my secrets.
Because I am.
I got to wondering just how many 'official' secrets I knew, ranging from the secret of Subway sandwiches (tastiest thing in the house and it's not even on the menu), all the way to an iridium deposit out in the wilds of Nevada that I, alone, know exists.
So I wrote them all down.
Subway Sandwiches — Best thing in the joint and it's not even on the menu
Amazon.com — A penny for your someone's thoughts?
Amazon.com II — Know anyone with a printer?
The Perfect Drink Coaster — And they said it couldn't be done
For Men In Their Mid-30's Only — This is only of concern if you enjoy sex
The Terriblest Truth For Men — The saddest truth you'll ever learn about females
My Best Medical Tips — I'm living proof that none of these will actually kill you
I'm putting the finishing touches on the most interesting site I've ever created. In a way, I guess you could call it my legacy. I'll premiere it tomorrow at noon, but I wanted to give you a heads-up in case you get busy and don't get by. Because of its content, I probably won't link to it much in the future, so it's kinda tomorrow or nuthin'.
Are you aware the best meal at Subway Sandwiches isn't even on the menu?
Are you aware you can buy used books on Amazon.com for a penny?
Are you aware you might be able to buy four printer ink cartridges on Amazon for ten bucks?
If you live in a warm clime and drink iced beverages, is your drink coaster properly sopping up the drips?
Are you (1) male, (2) in your mid-30's, (3) enjoy sex and (4) want to keep enjoying it?
Would you like to discover the terriblest truth about woman and be set free in the process?
Would you like to prevent summer & winter colds?
Would you like to prevent getting sore throats?
Would you like to prevent getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?
Would you like to quit sneezing from allergies?
Are you planning on using your teeth past the age of 50?
Do you know how to stop a sneeze in its tracks?
How about hiccups?
If you grow pot, would you like to increase your yield by 1,000%?
Would you like to contact every single member of Congress at once?
Would you like to be on TV at the Olympics?
Would you like to be in the Guinness Book of World Records?
Would you like to hear the real story of the hippies?
Would you like to find out about a wonderful source for pirated software, TV shows, etc?
Would you like to make a zillion dollars with an easily-produced product?
Would you like to try reinventing the first whiskey liqueur in history?
Would you like to know where there's an official iridium strike to make your fortune?
I don't suppose NASA will mind my posting this ancient clip of the first "moon landing" (ha-ha, wink-wink). I'm sure they'd hate to see those ugly 'hoax' rumors start up again.
"NASA CENSORS BLOGGER - WHY??" screams the New York Post.
No, along with their global warming hoax, I'm sure NASA will want to keep this baby free from any controversy and safely under wraps. We won't be bothered as long as we toe the party line and at least pretend it happened.
With that said, this clip is a refreshing breath of air from the usual frenzied documentary-style show, where the scene changes every 2.1 seconds and you rarely get a chance to just sit there and contemplate the damn thing.
If you're really old and were alive back in the 80's, you might remember those airplane shows where each 1-hour episode would be on a specific plane. It'd be on some ancient WW II bomber and there'd be endless minutes of it just... flying... along.
No machine guns a'blazing, no enemy fighters on the attack, no 500-pounders being dropped, no narrator blathering away; just the big plane lumbering along and the drone of the engines. Using the same camera angle. For minutes upon end. You had to be a real lover of flying to watch those shows — but for those of us who were, it was terrific.
The great Thunderbird email program just went through a major revision and a number of its add-ons stopped working. According to the sleuths over at their forum, many of them actually still work, but have a built-in limit as to their validity (which versions of T-Bird they'll work with), so when Thunderbird hit the big 5-point-oh, they declared themselves to be 'possibly incompatible' and T-Bird took that to mean they were toast.
What makes this program so great is that it handles multiple identities, yet treats them completely separately when it comes to ISP configurations, passwords and the 'From' identity when replying to people. Plus, it nicely lists the identities along the left sidebar, each one followed by its own 'Inbox', 'Sent', etc, folder. Not bad for a free program. My page on it is here.
As far as the wayward add-ons go, I use one to organize the sidebar and another to minimize the program to the SysTray, both of which turned belly-up with the latest update and both of which I found working replacements for. They're on the page above. For the rest, you'll either have to do a Google search, looking for "thunderbird add-on" and a concise description of what you want it to do, or tweak the version number of your current add-on as described on the above forum page.
Well, since others are weighing in with their election predictions, I thought I'd do the same. No sense in dawdling, right?
Obama in a landslide.
Pending change in circumstance, I hastily add.
As it stands now, I just can't see a Republican win. All of the declared candidates contain major flaws which the MSM will mercilessly exploit, both overtly and covertly, blatantly and subliminally, and I find none of the candidates inspirational in the slightest.
And the poor selection is only one of our worries.
The one, basic, inherent problem here is that conservatives are conservative. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true. And, as such, by definition alone they're not very activistic, tending to sit around on their duffs while the liberals make all the moves. It's no mystery why so many institutions and the major media realms, including the tech world, are dominated by liberals. It's because they try.
My job here is to get some of you to try.
My initial leap into the upcoming election was to create SpeakUp! 2012, a how-to guide for putting together a snappy blog site and then spreading the word around. If you want to show a little gumption and have a say in the election, that's the way to do it. The free WordPress software (the stuff that Power Line just switched to) is terrific and very easy to use. The guide will walk you through the entire process from this moment on. Plus, you've got me trapped here to pester with questions if you run into a snag.
Below the fold I'll run through the candidates in my usual calm, careful, deliberate manner as I soundly castigate, shred, thrash, defile, lambaste, maul, abuseandabase view them with the same objectivity I always show.
(Or "Ol' Slobber Jaws", as he's known around the farm)
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to 
I'm going to do a post on Perry this Friday and would like to include a video. I've looked over a handful on YouTube and most of them are 'okay', but nothing really jumps out. If anyone has a favorite vid that puts him in his best light, please leave the link or name in the comments.
Now here's an interesting question:
This is actually a little embarrassing. It's like I'm giving away all of my secrets.
I'm putting the finishing touches on the most interesting site I've ever created. In a way, I guess you could call it my legacy. I'll premiere it tomorrow at noon, but I wanted to give you a heads-up in case you get busy and don't get by. Because of its content, I probably won't link to it much in the future, so it's kinda tomorrow or nuthin'.
I don't suppose NASA will mind my posting this ancient clip of the first "moon landing" (ha-ha, wink-wink). I'm sure they'd hate to see those ugly 'hoax' rumors start up again.
The great Thunderbird email program just went through a major revision and a number of its add-ons stopped working. According to the sleuths over at their