yeah i know it's awful

text

but, despite all the horror surrounding last week's shootings at northern illinois university at dekalb, the image that hit me the hardest--the one i just can't get outta my mind--is that fucking winged ear of corn.

so, fine, i ordered a t-shirt--what's your point?

i guess idi amin was unavailable

text
ok, am i the only one who finds this hysterical?

africa, long-renowned for its rarefied, discriminating taste in leaders, has apparently clasped ol' W to its collective bosom--and he, oblivious as always of irony (among the myriad of things of which he is oblivious), is soaking it up with the fervor of a die-hard lush tasting booze after a long dry spell.

enjoy the love while it lasts, georgie--sooner or later, you gotta come home.

this is getting ridiculous

just when i thought the hysteria surrounding the cult of obama had reached its peak, here comes gary hart to prove me wrong--if you can get through this without throwing up, you're a better man than me.

i'm sorry, i just don't get humanity sometimes--apparently, looks, charisma and a good line are really all it takes to be anointed leader of the free world. don't get me wrong, i'll probably end up voting for the guy too, but only because i see him as the lesser of two evils--far as i'm concerned, a vote for this untested, untried greenhorn with more than a couple of questionable connections in his background (more about that later) is nothing more or less than a blind roll of the dice.

oh, and while i'm at it

let's talk about a very interesting thing that barack obaby said recently: he was speculating about where we'd be if we'd taken the two trillion dollars that this idiotic war might ultimately end up costing (i'm not sure exactly where he got that figure but hey, let's go with it) and applied it to all the domestic problems we're facing here at home--and he concluded that for that kinda coin we could fix every highway and bridge in the country, update every school, secure our borders, ports, airports and chemical plants against terrorist attacks and i don't remember what all else.

that got me to thinking, and after pondering for awhile the magnitude of the squandered opportunities of which the good senator spoke, i decided to do a little rough math, as follows:

$2,000,000,000,000 (cost of war) / 3,000,000,000 (americans) = $6,666.67

that's right, folks--if you wanna operate under the assumption that we as americans are individually and collectively responsible for the debts run up by our leaders on our behalf, then if the bill for this sorry war became due and payable tomorrow (a scenario not as far-fetched as you might think, btw), each and every citizen of this country would effectively be on the hook for an amount somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 fucking grand.

now, i've long maintained that if we'd had to conduct this war on a pay-as-you-go basis (or for that matter even had to experience the level of sacrifice endured by americans at home during the second world war), this war would've been a non-starter--and the neocons knew this as well. so they cleverly structured its financing in such a way that payment wouldn't come due for years after they themselves were long gone--i mean, it's easy to generate support for a war among the faithful if it's seemingly not costing 'em anything, right?

the problem is, that's not only an illusion, it's financial malfeasance verging on treason; the bush administration has sold our future down the river for nothing--hell, worse than nothing.

so the next time you come across a war supporter, forget all the usual (i.e., rational) arguments to which the kool-aid drinkers seem oblivious--instead, do the math for them and ask them if they would still feel the same patriotic fervor for "operation iraqi freedom" if they had to cough up their (and their spouse's and kids') share of its cost today.

and then laugh in their face when they lie.

the "economic stimulus" package revisited

had another conversation recently with someone who just doesn't get why the government handing out a lot of money isn't a good way to stimulate the economy and, as i've had to have this conversation a lot lately (which surprises me although i guess it shouldn't), i've decided to spell it out for anybody who might happen to come by these parts:

1. you don't alleviate a debt crisis by increasing debt. see, if the u.s. were running surpluses right now (i.e., as we were before this president and his cronies got hold of the reins of power), it might make sense to rebate a portion of those excess funds to the people; but the point is, we're not running surpluses--we're broke as shit. so the only way the government can come up with the $150 billion to fund this package is to either (a) go out and borrow it, thus increasing our debt, or (b) go down in the basement and print more money. this is literally like charging a new outfit on a maxed-out credit card in order to make yourself feel better about being way over your head in debt.

2. this will ultimately hurt the very people it's supposed to help. Let’s take some poor schlub with an after-tax income of $20,000; we'll give him a rebate of $600--hooray! however, if inflation increases by 5% because of all the interest rate reductions, increase in national debt and injection of all those new dollars into the system, what said shlub doesn't realize is, he loses $1,030 in purchasing power. but all the shlub will remember come election time is all those nice politicians who gave him "free" money (or at least that's what they hope--this is, of course, why the democrats in the senate wanted to run up even more debt by extending the handout to non-taxpaying poor and old people--i.e., their voters--and why the republicans, realizing there was nothing in that for them, said "no way").

this isn't the way you stimulate the economy, folks--you stimulate the economy by encouraging savings and investment, which leads to job and wealth creation. if you focus on consumption, as our idiot leaders have chosen to do, you're gonna get nothing but currency debasement and creeping socialism.

yeah, hillary, that was the problem

this just in from the associated press:

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams on Sunday, engineering a shake-up in a presidential campaign struggling to overcome rival Barack Obama's financial and political strengths.

the mccain problem (part 2)

good ol' john mccain--noble, self-sacrificing war hero. poster boy for bipartisan cooperation. independent straight-talking maverick. everybody's favorite white-haired benevolent grandpa.

yeah, right.

to republicans, moderate democrats and independents alike, i'm begging you: please, please don't allow yourself be taken in by this asshole.

[and understand: unlike many bloggers out there, i'll willingly put forth my own personal biases before i argue why you should feel the same way i do--in fact, before i even do that i will, for the benefit of those who don't know it, present an abbreviated recap of the mccain legend in all its glory:

this was a guy who, unlike most sons of privilege in the 60s, not only willingly volunteered to serve his country in vietnam, he did so valiantly. and after not only being injured and narrowly escaping death on an aircraft carrier but flying numerous perilous missions as a navy pilot, he was shot down in 1967 and, after ejecting his seriously-injured ass outta his fatally-damaged aircraft, parachuted into the ocean, nearly drowned and was captured by the north vietnamese, who subsequently imprisoned and mercilessly tortured him.

and later, when his captors realized his daddy was a powerful admiral in the american navy and, for propaganda value, announced his capture and volunteered to release him, he essentially said "fuck you--i'll leave only when every man you're holding who was captured before me is released as well", he pretty much secured his well-deserved reputation as a true american hero.

and, for brevity's sake, i've left out lots of details of lieutenant commander mccain's rather remarkable war history--but it's all out there on the internets, and if you're of an even-minded sort, i urge you to seek it out--it's inspiring reading and it might give you some context for what's to follow.]

so with all that this guy has going for him, how could i--or any true american--possibly argue with his fitness for the highest office in the land?

to my mind that's a no-brainer--but if in light of his actions since his aforementioned military heroism you haven't figured it out on your own already, i guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of this series for me to fucking spell it out.