Nasty, Brutish & Short

June 2008 Archives

« Previous · Home · Next »

Friday Fun: "Family of Faggot Fans Fly the Flag."

June 27, 2008 08:31 AM

People in the old country shur do talk funny.  The BBC reports:

The Doody family

The Doody family hopes to raise profile of faggots.

Apparently it's a culinary delight made from pork liver and pork.  Yum!  Mr. Doody says:

"The great British faggot is full of flavour and a great belly warmer at this time of year."

He must be so proud of his family, winning a "competition organised by faggot producer Mr Brain's Faggots."  Who wouldn't be?

Oooo, here's an idea... Mr. Brain's Faggots should see if they can't get their product to be the official food of the Church of England.  Think of the cross-marketing potential!

McCain 12 points behind; only 58% of the conservative base is supporting him

June 24, 2008 09:41 PM

That's per an L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll.  Apparently he's relying on the old "they'll have nowhere else to go" myth.  Because he sure isn't trying to appeal to the base himself.  I was at a Young Republicans meeting last night, and the poor guy from the McCain campaign tried to make a pitch for help.  He couldn't have been more ignored by the party regulars.  They just aren't interested.

I felt sorry for the poor kid, even as I briefly thought about pointing out to him that his candidate shouldn't be turning to us for help until his candidate stops stabbing us in the back (the global warming tour being the latest example of this).  But I didn't say anything.  It's not his fault. 

His boss may learn.  But it may come too late.  There is no way a Republican can win if he's only getting 58% of the conservative vote.  We're the ones who do all the work to get the candidates elected.  Have you ever seen a moderate work a phone bank?  Go door to door?  No.  Not in their nature.

And he just can't write off that many votes.  10% yes.  Maybe even 30%.  But 58%?  The math just doesn't work.

Will Smith appeals to original intent to get us to rally 'round Obama

June 23, 2008 04:59 PM

No seriously, he really did.  Here he is being interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today show (which after this interview they should just go ahead and rename "Dumb and Dumber"):

LAUER: Do you think people can't get behind America led by John McCain?

SMITH: You know I just, there, there are, there are certain ideas that I believe Barack stands for that are fundamental that the forefathers of this country wrote down on paper that we're all supposed to pay attention to, we're not supposed to ignore it and do what we want to do 'cause we have different ideas. And I believe just at his core the, that those ideas just they, they just come of his pores. And I'm, I'm excited to support him.

Yep, that's it.  Obama will put us back on the Founder's Path!  He's just oozing James Madison.  Out of his pores!  Was that flop sweat?  No, it was the Federalist No. 10.

Meanwhile, over at Politico we learn how wonderful Obama was.  As editor of the Harvard Law Review.  This headline made me snort at its ridiculousness:

Obama Kept Law Review Balanced

The sub-head:

Mostly liberal publication ran progressive pieces alongside ones from a Reagan official and a right-wing judge.

Another snort.  What are we supposed to think, that his administration will be a conservative happy land because he published an article written by a Reagan official and right wing judge?  Is the point that Obama was sooooo brave for printing articles by conservative scholars?

The pretentiousness (and the utter untruth) of this passage made me snort a third time:

In Obama's time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second or third year at the prestigious school.

The Harvard Law Review is not even a remotely important legal publication.  No law review is.  Lawyers rarely, if ever, read law review articles.  And if you cite to one in a brief it is highly suspect.  Judges frown on it.  It's kind of like, "What else have you got?  Any actual case law?"  Why cite to some professor's personal or political agenda?  That's what they all are. 

Also, pretty much every law review I am aware of is "compiled and edited completely by students."  That does not make them great, it just makes them possible.  They're basically just vehicles academics use to advance their careers by "getting published," courtesy of indentured servants working for a future pay off (a highly profitable line for their resumes). 

And yes, I have that line on my resume.  What did we run articles on during my law review days?  I don't know, and I don't care.  You just suck it up and work on them.  No one pays the slightest bit of attention to what they are actually about.  In law school, you don't have time to care, and I'm sure Obama didn't.

But lets not let these facts get in the way of talking about how Obama was such a great law review editor.  He let two conservatives get articles past his desk.  Nobless oblige!

DCCC Still Doesn't Think Wulsin Has Much of a Shot

June 20, 2008 08:53 AM

I'm sure they'll add her to their "Red to Blue" program later this summer.  But round three of their list of targeted pick-ups is out, and Ohio 02 isn't on the list.  From The Hill:

Democrat Victoria Wulsin came within 3,000 votes of defeating Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) in 2006 and is taking another shot this year, but she’s still got something to prove to national Democrats.

Unlike every other near-miss rematch candidate, Wulsin has not yet been named to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) Red to Blue program.

The Democrats were fools to pick Wulsin over Steve Black in the primary.  Yes, Wulsin came close last time.  But Black is a much better fit for the district.

Getting on the Red to Blue list brings lots of attention and money.  The Wulsin Campaign seems ticked by the DCCC's neglect. 

Wulsin spokesman Kevin Franck was critical of the DCCC, and cast doubt on whether national Democrats know what is happening on the ground. He pointed to recent gains in Democratic registrations and Wulsin’s outperforming in her district of Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) in 2006.

“I’m not sure I understand the D-trip’s thinking, completely,” Franck said, adding: “Interacting with the D-trip and the national party organizations, when you get to the highest levels of decision-making, where the choices are made about which list a race goes on, there seems to be a lot of mystery surrounding the metrics they’re using.

“I think we have a very clear case. We have an incredibly unpopular incumbent in a district that’s not a Republican stronghold anymore. Vic has been running for two and a half years now. Her name ID is much higher than it was. We have more money than before.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has taken note of the DCCC’s lack of action. NRCC spokeswoman Julie Shutley, said: “With one loss already under her belt against Rep. Schmidt, Wulsin seems to be having a tough time convincing her own party she has a remote chance of launching a competitive campaign.”

If the Wulsin campaign hasn't made its case to the DCCC by now, it's probably too late.  Like I said though, they'll add her to the list later this summer (they've already got her on some sort of watch list, that means it's coming next time).  It'll give her the chance to put out a release that says the DCCC thinks the race is tightening, and she'll get some free media out of that. 

But in the meantime, the campaign cash and the attention is going elsewhere.

Well, here's one reason to vote for McCain...

...it will tick off all the right people.  Like the French.  Byron York has lunch in Paris, and discusses it with one of them:

In the European mind, Guantanamo is one of the centers of evil in the world, a dungeon where George W. Bush commits unspeakable acts on innocent Muslims who just happened to be on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Pakistan when U.S. troops captured them.

She says the prisoners in Gitmo have been denied their constitutional rights.

I say they are enemy combatants; they have rights under international treaties, but not American constitutional rights.

But they have “global rights,” she insists.

What are “global rights”? I ask.

There’s no precise definition, but as far as I could tell, “global rights” appear to be American constitutional rights applied to the entire planet. It’s an astounding notion, given that American constitutional rights definitely do not apply across the entire planet — not even in places like, well, France.

A lot of the English aren't much better:

I have a friend in London, very Euro in outlook, who is terrifically frustrated and worried about the election.

His chief concern: the role of Americans. “It’s a pity that Americans are the ones who elect the president,” he says. “It would be much better if the people of the world voted on the American president.”

And guess who would be elected in such a scenario? Here’s a hint: It’s not John McCain.

Basically, it's us against the world.  And by us, I mean red state people.

Only 12% of Republicans are "very satisfied" with McCain as the nominee

June 19, 2008 04:33 PM

People think the number is shockingly low.  But I have to ask: Who are these 12%?  I know of no one.

Chad Johnson: "I am what some people would say is the face of Cincinnati."

June 3, 2008 11:10 AM

Um, no

Please let us not have this idiot for another season.

Scientists Peeved They Don't Have All the Answers

From the NYT:

A decade ago, astronomers discovered that what is true for your car keys is not true for the galaxies. Having been impelled apart by the force of the Big Bang, the galaxies, in defiance of cosmic gravity, are picking up speed on a dash toward eternity. If they were keys, they would be shooting for the ceiling.

“That is how shocking this was,” Dr. Livio said.

It is still shocking. Although cosmologists have adopted a cute name, dark energy, for whatever is driving this apparently antigravitational behavior on the part of the universe, nobody claims to understand why it is happening, or its implications for the future of the universe and of the life within it, despite thousands of learned papers, scores of conferences and millions of dollars’ worth of telescope time. It has led some cosmologists to the verge of abandoning their fondest dream: a theory that can account for the universe and everything about it in a single breath.

What a bunch of idiots.  Fools on fools' errands.  And such arrogance!  They want a theory that can account for no less than "the universe and everything about it."  And they're looking in telescopes to try to find it. 

Amusing though that they call this b.s. "dark energy."  Wonder who had a hand in that?