It just occurred to me – no matter how blatantly mocking of hippieness your WEhugger sacrificial e-mail name is, the tools in charge of the project will not catch on. They’ll simply assume that you’re being self-deprecatingly ironic.
Archive of entries posted on 5th May 2008
Hellbender Note
Sorry, I’m getting a bit behind on Hellbender and should have the next part up tomorrow.
Just to be clear since I don’t remember mentioning it, it is not a continuation of the previous attempt and meant to be a story by itself. Also, I know I’m not a very technically good writer, and its just supposed to be entertaining pulp. Basically, I keep coming up with story ideas whether I want to or not, I don’t have the patience (or, perhaps, the skill) to get published through traditional means, so I’ve decided to indulge myself and write here because I have an audience. I really appreciate everyone who is reading it and promise to finish it this time.
Jindal?
Isn’t it way too early to make Jindal a VP nominee? He’s only been governor like for a week now — sure he’s accomplished more in that week than Obama has in his couple years in the Senate — but give him time. Being VP stunts your growth; you don’t do anything while VP. Let the guy rack up some more experience getting Louisiana on the right track, and by the time he’s Obama’s age he should be unbeatable. He’s our young Reagan in waiting; let’s not waste him.
One Person, One Vote
Jim Geraghty is making fun of how the Democratics are having trouble with their own “one person, one vote” principle, but I don’t see it. Everyone still gets one vote. It’s just that some votes are worth more than others while other voters are completely worthless and ignored.
But you still only get one, regardless of the vote’s quality.
… Unless you’re a superdelegate and also vote in a primary, but if you have the power of a superdelegate, why would you waste your time voting with the hoi polloi?
I’m Confused
Should Our Military Be a Bigger Bunch of Bastards?
It’s Monday, so time for another diary saying that a war with Iran is about to happen “really really super soon!” to make the top of the recommended list on Daily Kos.
|
How would we do that, though? Do we have enough troops at the ready? I guess we could declare “we’ve decided to leave Iraq” one day and move all the troops out of there and right into Iran.
Now, if we’ve decided occupations are too messy and we don’t care about rebuilding, how many troops would it take to totally @#$% Iran in a non-nuclear way? If we wanted to just go in there, blow up a bunch of crap, and leave, I don’t think that really takes a lot of manpower. I mean, the mission objective will just be “destroy lots of stuff” and that’s what our military does better than anyone else in the world. It’s the stuff afterwards that takes all the time and people. If we decided that, after Iraq, countries can rebuild themselves, I think that makes things a lot simpler.
“Won’t that just make them mad and have them come back after us when they rebuild?” some ask. The answer is: Maybe. But they’ll be much weaker. And then we can just wash, rinse, and repeat. Easy-Peasy.
So, if things are looking bad with Iran — such as more proof they’re supplying weapons against our troops in Iraq — we just threaten them that we’re going to kick the crap out of them. We’re not going to install a new government — the citizen can do that themselves if they want — but if they cause more trouble, we’ll come back and kick the crap out of them again, and the second time will be even easier.
Now, I’m not a military expert — I just play one on my blog — but am I missing anything? Wouldn’t that be pretty simple? If people are horrified by that, they can go over themselves and help out in humanitarian ways — it just won’t be the military’s job. Our military is not going to be liked by most countries, so why try? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think most people signed up to the military because they wanted hugs.
ONLY?
Interesting.
In the above Obama campaign commercial, he criticizes McCain’s proposed summer gas tax holiday because it would only save “about 25, 30 dollars”.
His point being, I suppose, that such a piddly little savings would make zero difference in the lives of those on the receiving end.
Which may be true of politicians whose net worth stretches into the 7 digit range, but for working schlubs like me, that money means I get to live the Dollar Menunaire lifestyle for a solid month.
But if $25-$30 is so insignificant, why is it that when Obama’s campaign site asks for contributions, not only is $25 one of the options, so is $10.
He needs a new campaign commercial:
“So, I’m here to tell you the truth. I could collect tiny campaign contributions for 6 months, but that’s not going to get me to the White House. Donations of 25 or 30 dollars? That’s like half a tank of gas.” [supporters in the crowd snicker]
“That’s typical of how small-town gun-&-religion-clinging racists work. There’s a problem, they’re upset about campaign prices — let’s find some short-term, quick-fix, that we can say we did something, even though were not really doing anything.” [Audience full of rich white people nods in approval]. “I cannot be delivered into the White house unless we change how fund-raising is done in America. I’ve got to go out to the oil companies and threaten them with ‘price-gouging’ investigations so that they’ll write big, fat checks to my campaign to get me to call off the dogs”
“And the little people have got to start using less oil so they can afford to start sending me big, fat checks, too. That’s the real honest answer to how I’m going to solve this problem.” [standing ovation] “That’s what you need from a President… someone who’s going to tell you the truth.”
I agree, Barack. Is $25 significant, or is it nothing? Tell us the truth.
Democratics Love Guns!
Tell me if you can immediately see what’s wrong with this picture:
This is a Hillary mailer about how bad Obama is on guns. Some people are making a big deal about the error in it thinking it will jump out at hunters (and when something jumps out at hunters, they shoot it). I heard the error before I saw the image, so I can’t say whether it would jump out at me (but I see pistols on a much more regular basis than rifles).
Anyway, I think it’s pretty cool that both Hillary and Obama are arguing that the other is worse on guns. They’re arguing guns from the right in the Democrat Primary! Despite how things have gone bad for conservatives lately, we still win.