I laughed, I did

It looks like the little mommmyblogger media whore got what she always wanted – TV!

Providing analysis and historical context will be ABC News contributors George Will, Cokie Roberts, Donna Brazile and Matthew Dowd. They will be joined by Ron Brownstein, Editorial Director for the National Journal Group and conservative commentator Dana Loesch.

Good for her, if that’s what she wants. But no wonder conservatives are so hapless. Look at their “opinion leaders”. I’d almost be tempted to watch, just to see the expression on George Will’s face when the mommyblogger makes one of her nonsensical attempts at a point.

VPFL Week 7

94 Greenfield Grizzlies(2-5)
74 Moundsview Meerkats (1-6)

84 RR Redbeards (3-4)
66 Winston Reverends (4-3)

92 Blackmouth Banksters (5-2)
78 Judean Rhyneauxs (4-3)

48 Valders Quixotes
44 Meigs Marauders

46 Bane Sidhe
39 MS Swamp Spartans

The Piranha of the Serengeti are looking simply woeful this year. Even when I finally managed to score some points, I got lit up by the nearly-as-woeful Grizzlies; who would have thought the worst two teams in the league would shoot it out. But while I can blame myself for trusting those who said Shonn Greene and Ryan Mathews were going to have big years – my first two draft picks in lieu of keepers – it’s just bad luck that has seen opposing teams score 520 points against me, 170 more than the Bane Sidhe so far. But these things should balance out over the course of the season, so even if I’m already out of the playoff hunt, I can still achieve respectability.

On the NFL front, why does Chilly insist on trying to talk smack with Belichick? Does he not have enough problems on his hands?

90% Democrat

That’s what Nate Silver says about the odds for Senate on October 29th. I suggested it would go Republican back on July 14th. Regardless, we’ll see what happens soon enough.

Senate: Republican chances of taking over the Senate are up a tick to 11 percent Saturday from 10 percent Friday.

Needless to say, with regards to the most important issues facing the nation, it doesn’t matter which of the ruling party’s two factions holds the legislative branch. Republicans are even more loyal to the banks than the bought-and-paid-for Democrats thanks to their ideological confusion of corporatism for capitalism. But speaking of my far-fetched predictions, here’s another very interesting poll.

“Half of Democrats Think Obama Should Face Primary. An AP-Knowledge Networks poll finds that 47% of Democrats think Presidential Obama should be challenged for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination”

Time travel!

My own feeling is that time travel is rather less likely than a secret elite making use of advanced technology. Although apparently less advanced phone-wise than we are now; that mobile phone looks bigger than my Android device. Of course, this raises the question: if they had phones in 1928, what do they have now?

Mailvox: Jesus and war

LJ has his doubts:

Read your bit on Jesus and war. It is hard to believe Jesus would support all the death that War brings to innocent children. What would he say about our inability to put money into education for the poor. You are fooling yourself.

I’m always a little taken aback when people begin with a reasonable, if mistaken, point, and then go on to make asses of themselves by making baseless declarative statements about me. How am I fooling myself? And with regards to what? While everyone is certainly welcome to disagree with me, you have to either know nothing about me or be almost completely unfamiliar with this blog to believe that my opinions are formed on the same basis of that amorphous collection of vaguely remembered elementary school classes, parental biases, college lectures, personal insecurities, peer pressures, and emotional reactions that go into forming most people’s opinions.

Now, as to the subject in question, Jesus doesn’t speak much on war, but it is clear that he doesn’t regard it as the be-all and end-all of evil that most people today seem to consider it, except when the media and the White House have whipped them up into a frenzy of support for another round of long-distance bombing.

First, God Himself wages war against men. “You fear the sword, and the sword is what I will bring against you, declares the Sovereign LORD.” – Ezekiel 11:8.

Second, Jesus did not come to bring peace. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” – Matthew 10:33

Third, Jesus intends to make serious war upon mankind in the future. “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” – Revelation 19:11

Fourth, I’ve never seen any evidence that Jesus cares particularly about education, either for the poor or anyone else, to say nothing of any moral duty to pay for the education of poor children.

In conclusion, it would appear that LJ doesn’t know the Bible nor the first thing about what Jesus would say about anything. The efforts of the New Atheists notwithstanding, spouting an opinion in complete ignorance is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.

Wells Fargo in the crosshairs

Here is an example of the difference between the State perspective on the fraud committed by the mortgage banks and the federal one. Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray is clearly not buying the “technical error” line of defense:

“The big mortgage servicers and financial firms continue to demonstrate their belief that they do not need to play by the same rules as everyone else who uses our court system. The suggestion by Wells Fargo and its colleagues at several other national firms that they can cure fraudulent testimony by simply refiling new affidavits and continuing to proceed toward foreclosures shows they do not recognize the seriousness of the problem they have created. There is no simple ‘do-over’ for false testimony that will be likely to avoid sanctions and penalties imposed by the courts. Their brazen efforts to minimize their financial exposure by sweeping these problems under the rug are an insult to the justice system in this country. These disclosures by Wells Fargo will now become the focus for a new prong of our on-going investigation.”

That giant crack in the wall keeps growing….

UPDATE: I’m not generally a fan of politicians, but I find that I LIKE this guy. A lot. He appears to be about as focused as The Terminator. Here’s hoping he isn’t merely angling for a revenue-enhancing settlement, but actually intends to pursue the fraud to its core.

Women oppose freedom

There is no way to avoid this obvious conclusion. The vast majority of women are absolutely and diametrically opposed to every form of freedom unless it happens to align with what she happens to want to do at the moment. One of the latest feminist calls to arms is this direct assault on the freedom of speech:

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street. Now lawmakers are examining whether to do something to discourage it. A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem.

Problem? What problem? A man is merely exercising his Constitutional right to free speech in a public place that happens to make a woman feel unsafe and uncomfortable is a problem that the state must solve? I feel a lot more than a little unsafe and uncomfortable when a man is exercising his Constitutional right to free speech in a public place in order to advocate higher taxes, more bank bailouts, more gun laws, and more government intervention. If we’re going to throw out the freedom of speech and ban the dangerous sort, let’s ban that kind of talk first and then we can worry about whistles and catcalls.

Men who value human freedom must staunchly oppose all forms of equality, particularly sexual equality, for three reasons:

1. Equality does not exist in any material, legal, or spiritual form.
2. Equalitarianism is the primary reason for the material decline of the quasi-democratic West as well as its decreasing freedom.
3. Most women do not believe in equality themselves and have historically used the concept as a stalking horse for imposing statism in order to ensure privileged female status through government force. For example, consider the female opposition to DNA-based paternity testing:

“DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves…Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter…in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.”

I should be very interested in seeing anyone attempt to make a rational case for how human freedom can be expanded by ensuring that a sizable portion of the electorate is vehemently opposed to nearly every aspect of it.

Republicans will fix nothing

There is the evidence. It also proves MPAI, needless to say, as 92% of Republicans believe Congress or Obama are to blame for the current economic slump, (wait, aren’t we in a recovery?), and only around six percent understand that the bankers are to blame. The worst thing is that about 50% of them genuinely think Obama is to blame, when there is no possible way he can be held responsible for it. While he has most definitely exacerbated the situation by his Hooverian response to it, the die was not only cast, but the results were known before he even took office! We already know that the Republican elite has zero desire to force the banks to take responsibility for their criminal and economically destructive actions; this poll indicates that there will be very little grass roots pressure on them to do what they don’t want to do because the voter anger has been successfully redirected to date.

Remarkably, the Democrats are somewhat better in assigning the blame where it belongs. Nearly 25 percent of them hold the bankers responsible, although they clearly don’t recognize that their hero Obama is completely owned by Goldman Sachs. (When the guy is appointing ex-Goldmanites to administration positions outside the Treasury, you know it’s completely out of control.) And at least Bush was in office when the meltdown began, although if he can be blamed for pushing TARP, he can’t reasonably be blamed for the Fed keeping interest rates low and blowing multiple financial bubbles.

Anyhow, it is quite clear that the electoral devastation about to be wreaked upon Democrats by Republicans (which, you may recall, I was one of the first to predict), is not going to have a salutary effect upon the situation because the Republican Party and the greater part of the Tea Party insist on believing that the perpetrators of the primary causal factor were among the victims. They will surely dig in a different part of the hole than did the Democrats, but we can be confident that they will continue making it deeper. The battle between Republicans and Democrats is an internecine battle between the Keynesians known as Neo-Keynesians and the Keynesians known as Monetarists. Both sides subscribe to a false economic theory and both are beholden to the banks, and as both the names and the polls indicate, the Republicans are more strongly beholden to them than are the Democrats.

This means that Obama and the new Republican majorities, (or if I am only half-correct, House majority) will be eager to announce bipartisan cooperation in finding a means of saddling the taxpayer with TARP II, in which the cost of the fraudulent mortgage-backed security put-backs is shifted from the banks that committed the fraud to the taxpayer while their myriad of proven crimes are swept under the carpet. And the passage of that heroic, bipartisan, and much-publicized “reform” will mark the effective end of the Tea Party, even if its zombie corpse remains an animated political identity for decades to come.

Proving MPAI

Most certainly including the neocon portion of the Tea Party:

The need to reinvest in the military is not an ideological sentiment but rather a baseline statement about urgent national-security needs. But don’t take my word for it. A recent blue-ribbon commission chaired by President Clinton’s secretary of defense Bill Perry and former Bush administration National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, released a report this summer that “represents a striking bipartisan consensus that the United States must do more when it comes to national defense if we are to continue to play the international role we have and pursue the interests that have animated American grand strategy since the end of World War II.”

American strength comes at a price, to be sure. But there is a price to weakness as well, one that the commission notes “in the long run would be much greater.” Thankfully, Americans are telling pollsters of all stripes they agree — cutting defense is not an option.

You’re bankrupt, you morons. Lofty and ambitious words about a historically illiterate grand strategery that has not only failed, but has actually weakened the American military position, aren’t going to pay many soldiers’ salaries or buy many guns. Talking about “national security” is absolutely and utterly ridiculous as long as millions of immigrants are permitted to invade the country at will, and no amount of bases in Afghaniraqistan are going to make the nation any more secure.

It’s pretty simple. More money != better. Conservatives seem to understand this when it comes to welfare, so why don’t they understand that government spending isn’t any more effective when it comes to defense?

Training in action

This is an interesting little clip of four clueless guys attempting to take on a guy who appears to possess a moderate amount of boxing experience. Notice how he keeps moving sideways and backward into open space, only occasionally stepping forward when the opportunity, or in one case, the need, presents itself. The most important thing is that he limits himself to short, quick jabs and crosses; by doing so he avoids committing completely to a strike and thereby leaving himself open. He stays focused on defense throughout and does an excellent job of throwing his opponents down to the ground in order to buy himself more time and clear space whenever he can.

Now, imagine if the guy’s training had incorporated some jujitsu and he’d been throwing some elbows and the occasional low kick of his own instead of only punches… more than the one guy in the white would have been down. Of course, the four guys should have surrounded him from the start, but they had no way of knowing he was a boxer and in the heat of the moment, it’s almost impossible for more than two people to coordinate their actions anyway.

For me, the best moment is when he steps into the white-shirted guy’s second attempt to kick him, catches him off balance on one leg, and puts him down. It reminded me of how one fights a Tae Kwan Do kicker; the minute they plant and start to move their rear leg, step in hard. It’s harder to do than it sounds, because the instinctive reaction is to step back. And Mr. White Shirt is a perfect example of how not to fight. He’s aggressive, but hapless, consistently leading with his face and telegraphing his moves so badly that not a single one of his five attacks even lands, let alone does any harm.

Compare that guy with this man defending his girlfriend. He also shows obvious signs of training, but demonstrates less situational awareness and fighting experience as well as inferior technique. Part of this is because he is taking a more aggressive approach, but he makes the mistake of repeatedly extending himself and twice leaves himself open to an attack by the unengaged opponent, at one point even turning his back on the first guy he attacked. He also leads with his rear hand twice; although he gets away with it here thanks to his opponents’ lack of training, trying that against the first guy would have almost surely met with the rude interruption of a jab to the face.

I was also surprised at his lack of finishing, as I was completely expecting him to kick the first guy in the face when he turned around at the end. But then, the guy had gestured at him, so perhaps he was taught to go to submission rather than incapacitation.