Saturday, January 29, 2005

Canadian Socia-Capitalism

So, my lovely daughter attends college in Canada. She recently had a project for her business class where the students had to start and operate a "business" - more commonly known in the US as a fund-raiser.

Her group chose to open a hot dog stand where they sold, remarkably, hot dogs! And, a few other things like soda and sausages.

They quickly found out that there were cyclical sales periods that coincided with the beginning and end of scheduled classes. So as to not sit idly, one young woman trekked inside the buildings and chased down professors to sell hot dogs to. She did fairly well and even got some very generous tips.

The students did a remarkable job and turned a nice profit for the day. They invested their own money, set up everything themselves, did all the work and kept all the books. The professor provided very minimal assistance and guidance.

When all was said and done, the university kept the money. No one is really sure what the money went to. But, the university does have it.

So, there you go, teach students to be capitalists for the betterment of the state - socio-capitalism.

No word on whether the hot dogs were kosher and free of Mad Cows and or human remains.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

The Week in Review

Feminists across the world were incensed by the remarks of Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. Summers indicated that females were weaker and suggested that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers. The remarks caused Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) biologist Nancy Hopkins, to walk out. She later told reporters she would have "either blacked out or thrown up" if she had remained. Hopkins added, "I would have loved to debate him on this point, but, I was too weak to continue. Women are strong...unless they are too weak to continue and feel faint or are on our period."

Peace protesters at the Presidential Inaugeration were furious that the only press they got was for beating up counter protesters. At the Inaugeral parade, members of DAWN, a peace activist group, beat and kicked a man carrying a pro-Bush sign. An unidentified, masked peace protester was quoted as saying, "we are totally against war and violence, but this guy really pissed me off, so I had to stomp him. It is unfortunate that all the good we did by protesting Bush's unhumanitarian and unjustified war was undone by the press covering only the violent aspects of a largely peaceful protest. We should take out those damn reporters next time so only our message of peace can get through."

In other Inaugeration news, President Bush's speech caused uproar on both sides of the political aisle. His speech was mainly a repeat of President John F. Kennedy's speech, with it's message of spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world, and the courage and conviction of the American people to do it. The main problem seemed to be that Bush generally means what he says and will most likely take action on his own words. Whereas Kennedy was just trying to get laid by sounding both insightful and macho.

Professional hockey players held a new round of negotiations...but none of the people who can make decisions were there, so no one really cares.

Condoleeza Rice was due to be confirmed on the same day of the Inaugeration, but was delayed when senator Robert Byrd refused to agree with a unanimous consent vote. Byrd gave some lame excuse about wanting to debate the nomination. Democrats defended Byrd's decision. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said, "Senator Byrd just wants to ensure adequate discussion occurs. This has nothing to do with Ms. Rice being black or Senator Byrd's former membership in the Ku Klux Klan." Republicans were also understanding of Byrd's position. Dennis Hastert was quoted as saying, "we don't think it has anything to do with him being a Klansman. We just think he is so old that he forgot what the vote was for and needed to get a briefing from his aids." That briefing may take a while, as Byrd has refused to talk to any staff member with the title of "aids" for fear of catching the HIV virus.

Finally, our standard item about the United Nations not actually doing anything but taking credit for everyone elses efforts while the diplomats enrich themselves and take posh vacations so they can study nearby tragedies and create 3000 page plan of action papers. We will note that the UN actually deployed two helicopters to the tsunami devestated areas to assist with the relief effort by shuttling diplomats and reporters to the hardest hit areas for proper photo-ops.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Oh, Canada

Here is my report from the front lines of the Canadia. The Canadians are war-mongers because they are all massing at the US border, preparing for attack. They seem to be living normal lives, but everything they do is in preparation for all out war on the US. I can tell by the look in their eyes and, they ALL SPEAK FRENCH!

When I flew over the enemy lines, the first thing I noticed was how industrial everything looked. It was one massive military-industrial complex. The buildings were all lined up and the same size and shape. It was very communistic. Even the highways were straight as arrows...except for the times when the road "jogged" to one side. Sort of like the incompetent military engineers realized, half way through construction, that they were off the mark and just shifted everything to get it lined up again. I'm convinced this is some sort of ploy to confuse our pilots when the inevitable counter attack bombings occur.

It was also much warmer than I had been told. My ultimate destination was Prince Edward Island, which is supposed to be bad. The propagandists in Canada always say how cold it is an how snowy it is. Well, there was only a little snow and the temperature hovered just above freezing. Not nearly as bad as we've been told. Just another Canadian lie to keep us from learning more about them.

They also have "self-defense" armories. I'd buy that, but the things are everywhere. I'd wager that every Canadian is within 200 feet of a gun at all times. I don't think they are very good shots though. I played pool with a few of them and they weren't very good. Unless, of course, this was just another con job to keep me from being suspicious.

I also saw lots of cool looking cows. They certainly didn't look angry or mad to me. Again, just another bit of propaganda to keep us out of their country. A couple of the cows did look a little annoyed, but nothing approaching mad.

There are also mysterious giant tire/snowmen everywhere. These are large, 20 foot tall snowman looking statues that are made of tires and wrapped in white plastic. I can't believe anyone would go to all that effort unless there was some underlying evil intent.

There are lighthouses all over Canada, except they are camoflauged. They look nothing like a lighthouse. They are shaped funny and very short. The are also all over the place. I think they are all laser beams, waiting to blind out troops.

In short, the Canadians are very, very scary and we should anhilate them at the earliest possible time. Screw Syria and N. Korea, the Canadians are much more dangerous. Axis of Evil my ass, we've got evil just to the north.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Kos - Not As Think As I Dumb You Are

Kos is a Republican operative. There is no other reason for proposing such idiocy:

The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won't be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don't worry about them becoming law, because they won't. Worry about branding the party and placing every bit of bad news (and there will be plenty) squarely at the feet of the party that controls all levers of government.

We need to make the GOP radioactive. Their incompetence is providing the ammunition. It is our job to wield it. Remember, they control everything. We don't need to be bipartisan. We don't need to work with them for them to pass their agenda. So we offer up clear alternatives to everything they propose. We have to be aggressive.

Absolutely brilliant. The Democrats will look completely foolish. Can you imagine the alternatives:

Republicans, today, proposed new legislation to enact a popular flat tax. All workers would pay a straight 15% tax on all income. The new law would virtually eliminate all confusing tax rules, tax forms and the IRS labyrinth. Democrats countered with their own plan which would impose a flat tax in a graduated manner. Workers making less than the federally defined poverty line would pay no tax, workers make more than poverty line but less than the social security cap would pay 5%, workers making more than the social security cap but less than $150,000 would pay 10%, workers between $150,000 and $1 million would pay 15% and anyone earning income over $1 million would pay 75%. To ease the marriage penalty, couples filing jointly would pay 2/3 of the single rate, unless they made over $500,000, then they would pay 3/4 the single rate. Any couple making over $1 million, with less than three children would pay the full 75%. There are many more nuances to the plan, which is outlined by the DNC on their website.

There is no such thing as a "clear alternative" proposal by the Democrats. They are the party of policy wonks. They vote for things before they vote against them to show they agree with the principle of the legislation but disagree with the form it took and would rather have the right legislation than any legislation at all. Have you ever seen a Democrat take a clear, concise stand on anything? Kos is actually encourage Democrats to do things that will further alienate them from the American people. He MUST be a Republican operative.

I truly fear the Democrats are killing this country. While I may be closer to the Republicans ideologically, I clearly see the need for a strong opposition to provide balance. The Democrats are not even close to being strong and are getting weaker by the day. They are headed straight for Libertarian and Green party marginalization.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

British Monarch Embarassed by Nazi Symbol Ban

Queen Elizabeth is said to be highly embarrassed by the proposed EU-wide ban on the Swastika. Her grandson, that little brat and third from the throne Prince Harry, was recently featured on the front page of British tabloids sporting a Nazi uniform, complete with Swastika, a drink and a cigarette. This started a huge up-roar within the US and the UK.

In the UK, they were very upset that Harry had the bad judgement to be wearing a Swastika. Even though there are very few Jews in the UK, the public saw this as an opportunity to finally side with the Jews on something. The EU, has now proposed a complete, Europe-wide ban on Nazi symbols. This embarrassed the Queen for reasons only the mainland EU can understand.

Even the Queen was confused and said, "I'm not certain why they think I should be embarrassed. I represent every fallen soldier who fought the oppressive Nazi regime. We are the only country that fought Hitler from start to finish. Our boys were dying why those wimpy Frenchman were sipping lattes and collaborating with the Germans. On second thought, I know why I should be embarrassed. I should have convinced Harry Truman to nuke the whole damned continent back in '44. They are right. It is highly embarrassing that I missed that opportunity. Maybe I can make up for it today by suggesting a ban on the ultimate Nazi symbol, the German language!"

In the US, the MSM was highly insulted. It wasn't that Harry was wearing a Swastika, but that he had the audacity to smoke in a designated non-smoking area. When asked about the dust up, new NBC news ancor Brian Williams was quoted as saying, "I don't know anyone that voted for Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm biased!"

Senator Ted Kennedy was more empathetic towards the Prince, saying, "Er, ah, Prince Harry is a just a misguided child. Er, ah, I can understand his attraction to Socialist symbols, but maybe he should stick with something less controversial like a Che Gueverra t-shirt. He's a handsome, er, ah, young man. He should have wooed the reporter to his car and driven him off a bridge or something. Er, ah, having too many drinks and killing someone is easier to get away with than you think. Er, ah. Strike that last part."

An undisclosed high ranking Bush official was quoted as saying, "Did Harry make a mistake? Certainly. Did he mean any harm? No. Should he be beaten? Probably. Would I like to administer 50 lashes? Absolutely. But, you deal with the foreign dignitaries you have, not the dignitaries you wish you had."

Other foreign leaders had this to say:

French Prime Minister: "This is excellent news. Even though there is so much anti-semitism in my country, I can now point out how anti-semetic the British are, thus deflecting the spotlight away from France. Harry is such a stooge. I wonder if I can make money from this."

Canadian Prime Minister: "We're not interested in commenting. Canada doesn't wish to offend anyone, so we'll just keep our opinions to ourselves. Thank you for asking though. I hope it wasn't too much of a bother getting in touch with us. Would you like something to drink?"

Mexican President: "Prince Harry, who's that? Can I use this as a platform to further my relationship with the US? What did Bush have to say? Can't you just make up a quote for me that won't offend the Leader of the Free World?"

German Chancellor: "We are proud that Harry would assist us in offending the US by choosing our ultimate symbol of nationalism...oh, wait this isn't an election year. It's just the British Monarch, who cares?"

This Blog Sucks!

Since I really have nothing intelligent to say and most people find me humorous (hopefully not just funny to look at), I have decided that from this post forth, I will attempt nothing but humor. I want to be sort of an on-line version of one of my favorite TV programs - The Daily Show.

Let the further sucking begin!

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

The Democrats Still Don't Get It

This article is very enlightening on why the Democrats keep losing elections. Just for fun, let's point out the...the...well, idiocy!

Democrats "as a group are uneasy" about attacking and defending on character, says Harold Ickes, a former Clinton aide who heads the Media Fund, a political ad organization. "But they damn well better get the stomach," he adds, because "we've seen way too many of our candidates taken down on issues of character."

There are two idiocies here. Uneasy about attacking character? It seems to me that the 2000 drunk driving story is character based. I'd say painting Bush as a National Guard coward and deserter is the same thing...and don't even get me started on Rathergate. The second idiocy is candidates taken down on character issues. Could it be, maybe, that the Democratic Presidential nominees just sucked in general? John Kerry was so strewn with flaws (X-mas in Cambodia, "returning" his medals, too wonkish, couldn't connect with public, really did flip-flop a bit, Theresa, orange skin, etc, etc, etc), it is a bit incredible to blame his loss solely on character assassination by the Republicans.

managed to brand them as unpatriotic (Michael Dukakis, the "card-carrying" member of the ACLU), untruthful (Al Gore (news - web sites), the "serial exaggerator") and unprincipled and weak (Kerry, the "flip-flopper" who couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe). All are variations on a theme: These men have character flaws that disqualify them for the White House

Well...yes...on all counts. I fail to see how any of that was branding, though. The article implies that none of those traits was true. But, we all know Dukakis was a liberal - he said so. We all know Gore exaggerated - Love Canal, inventing the internet. We all know Kerry was a flip-flopper - he voted for it before he voted against it. I would hardly say that pointing out character flaws in branding. Plus, when did he truth become a "theme?"

"It is stunning, the extent to which Democrats keep repeating their errors over time," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in Providence.

This one is really funny. Mr. West's quote, within the context of the article, implies that the Democrats are surprised that the Republicans attack character, rather than the truth - Democrats keep nominating unelectable candidates with character flaws. Every day, I look in the mirror and I am surprised I'm white! I keep wondering how the mirror manages to do that.

Ruy Teixeira, co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority, says Kerry's silence on the Vietnam ads "gave voters the impression that where there's smoke, there's fire, and why didn't this guy defend himself?" When the campaign finally fought back, he says, the delay suggested it was done out of political necessity, not because the charges were baseless.

There are a number of funnies in this paragraph. Ruy Teixeira?? Is that really a name? "The Emerging Democratic Majority?" HA, HA, HA, HA, HA. Plus, he did respond to the ads because of political necessity. Then, tried to counter with Rathergate - see, you're getting me started.

So, the gyst of the article, actually, the main point, is that John Kerry lost the election because the Republicans are evil and mean. They pointed out is many and obvious character flaws!!! How dare they?!?!?! Obviously, the Democrats have no chance of winning an election anytime soon. Until they figure out that they possess a certain moral bankruptcy, they'll never put forth a candidate worth voting for.

Think about it, George Bush is a polarizing figure. Many, many people hate him. I posit that George Bush was responsible for about 90% of the voter turnout this time around. 52% of the people loved him enough to show up and vote, the other 38% hated him enough to show up and vote for "the other guy." The Democrats could have run anyone and the results of the election would be the same. That tells me that John Kerry wasn't worth voting for as much as George Bush was worth voting against.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Tsunami and Politics 2

Here we go, it is getting stupid.

The LA Times - Bush was slow, always has been, always will be, blew a great PR opportunity.

and, Bush isn't really concerned, he's just showcasing concern - gee, wouldn't that qualify as "news analysis," as the LA Times like to call their lefty editorials.

The Washington Post - the tsunami is a great excuse to get out of Iraq!

The New York Times - this one is so full of bullshit, it is hard to know where to start.
Bush's original pledge of $15M was embarrassing and piddling...even though it came with an aircraft carrier and Marine strike force.
The UN is going to redeem itself...even though they've already been taking credit for things they didn't do and are busy getting down to the business of disaster relief by setting up a four-star hotel and 24 catering for themselves.
Finally, at least for the crap I'll point out, none of the money we pledge will ever get spent.

CNN - they think celebrities are oh so generous because they are going to perform for free in another telethon. Once again, I say forget the telethon and give a million a piece. They can afford it. Sandra Bullock did it, why can't the rest of them. I'll bet Rosie O'Donnel gives a bundle too. Leonardo DiCaprio also pledged something. I wonder if the Times will track him...sorry, that won't happen, he's a democrat.

As a side note, USA Today tells of the evil of cows. I think my story is better.

free web counters