December 07, 2009

NEVER EVEN CROSSED MY MIND

I swear on a stack of Bibles that, throughout this whole boring thing, I never once realized that Tiger Woods only cheats with white ladies.  Not once.  Not until Noah Sheppard pointed out how ticked the black community is about it.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:02 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

December 06, 2009

POPULISM

Via The Corner:

[Blanche] Lincoln will have another day in the spotlight tomorrow when her own amendment — to cut the tax breaks on the salaries of health-insurance company executives — will come up for a vote. The money saved from her proposal, she says, will go toward Medicare. Her gist: Cut tax breaks for big-bad execs and save Medicare.

How dare she?  I mean, really that's all I can muster on this one.

This is a prime example of why we need a flat or Fair tax.  So Congress can't fiddle with who pays taxes and who doesn't based on their own personal agenda or who it's popular to hate at the moment.  Just because it's fashionable to hate insurance companies right now doesn't mean that their bosses should have to pay more taxes than the bosses of, say, Google, which we've already seen makes more profit than health insurance companies.

Of all the nerve.  Really.  This blatant populism makes me sick.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

November 24, 2009

WHO'S DELAYING JUSTICE?

Holder has some nerve.  From Marc Thiessen:

Only after KSM had been exhausted as an intelligence source did President Bush transfer him and 13 other terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial by military commission. Once the legal obstacles had been cleared in 2008, the commissions finally got underway. And when they did, KSM and his co-conspirators all offered to plead guilty before a military commission and proceed straight to execution.

With his decision to send them to civilian court, Holder has effectively rejected KSM's guilty plea and told him, "No, Mr. Mohammed, first let us give you that stage you wanted in New York to rally jihadists, spread propaganda, and incite new attacks." Indeed, a lawyer for one of the detainees has said that all five intend to plead not guilty "so they can have a trial and try to get their message out." Were it not for Holder, they'd be on death row instead of preparing for a trial that will take years and make the O.J. Simpson case look like a traffic court hearing. And Holder chastises President Bush for delaying justice for 9/11 families?

Posted by: Sarah at 02:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.

November 23, 2009

FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME

Via Instapundit, who says, "A rule under which only politicians have guns strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds."

Chicago politicians are zealously committed to gun control in law but fairly relaxed about it in practice.

In 1994, State Sen. Rickey Hendon had an unregistered handgun stolen from his home in a burglary, and he didn't feign contrition about his disregard of the ordinance.

"I have a right to protect myself," he declared, noting that he had been burglarized before—and forgetting that the state legislature of which he is a member allows Illinois cities to deprive their citizens of that right. Asked if he would replace the lost piece, Hendon said, "No comment." The police were kind enough not to charge him.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, another Chicagoan, has endorsed a nationwide ban on handguns and, in 1993, organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day. But the following year, while running unsuccessfully for governor, he admitted he owned a handgun—"for protection," he explained—and hadn't seen fit to turn it in along with those other firearms. Lesser mortals apparently can protect themselves with forks and spoons.

So they write gun laws for the peons and have no intention of following the laws themselves.  Politicians are a real piece of work.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

November 19, 2009

RIGGING THE GAME

So, I'm trying to understand this, really. The prison at Guantanamo is illegal and illegitimate, but Obama and Holder saying we'll try these men in NYC and, duh, of course they'll be convicted and will never be released...that's somehow more legitimate?

I heard someone on TV say, and I'm sorry I don't know who, that we all kinda thought OJ Simpson would be convicted too. Heh.

The whole point of a fair trial is that the person has a chance of being acquitted. If there is no chance of being acquitted, if the game is rigged from the outset, then there is no point in having a trial. So if you're going to guarantee that KSM will be convicted, you can't have a trial. It's simple. You cannot guarantee the outcome of a trial. If you do, it's a farce.  And if we're setting all this up to be a farce, just leave them at Gitmo.

That's my major problem with this idea. But Lindsey Graham also brings up another facet of the issue that's just as troubling.



(And I agree with Goldberg that, "For those of us frustrated with Graham, this makes up for a lot."  Heh.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

November 08, 2009

LIVING THE HIGH LIFE, ON OUR DIME

Mark Steyn would be happy: Uighurs are back in the news!  At Powerline:

It's hard to know what to make of this, apart from the fact that the world is a weird place, and getting weirder all the time. I'm fine with resettling the Uighurs, but is it really necessary for U.S. taxpayers to fund "spotless hardwood floors, a fresh coat of paint, new furniture and appliances, and a sweeping view of the ocean"? Not to mention housing, job training, food, and all other living expenses, including air conditioning, cable television and high-speed internet, which is a "rarity" in Palau. If the administration is looking for volunteers to live at government expense in an island paradise, count me in.

No doubt these expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions that the Obama administration is wasting here at home. But could it be any clearer that we are living under a government that treats our tax money--which is to say, our work; our time; our lives--with contempt?

Posted by: Sarah at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

ABOUT LAST NIGHT

They did it...

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell

And like those other two things that passed, it will eventually end up costing far more money than ever expected and will be the downfall of the US.

Hooray!

Posted by: Sarah at 08:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

November 07, 2009

YES, WE'RE SERIOUS

Nothing burns me up more than politicians' contempt for people who want to adhere to the original constraints of our founding document.



Her sneering at the question makes me so mad I could scream.

A comment at youtube:

It has literally never occurred to any true Liberal Democrat that their policies should be in any way constrained by the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

November 04, 2009

I DON'T GET IT

Personally, I think many people in our country are just plain goofy.  When Republicans are in office, they want Democrats.  When Democrats are in, they want Republicans.  Look at the Rasmussen generic ballot poll.  Last year, people couldn't wait to have a Dem.  Now they're itchin' for an R.  Is politics just a large-scale case of 'the grass is always greener'?  What happened to voting on your principles?

I mean, a good number of these people in Virginia had to have voted for Pres Obama and then now voted for the Republican governor.  That does not make sense.

I don't get it.

I think Krauthammer makes a good point about the 2008 election:

It tells you that '08 was a charisma election, a one-shot deal, and all this talk about realignment, about a new era, of the death of Republicanism or conservatism is utter nonsense.

 

It was an unusual election last year. All the stars were aligned Democratic, charismatic candidate. Still only a seven point victory. The return to the norm is happening now, and we're going to see it tomorrow night.

I just don't understand voting on charisma, period.  Vote your principles.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 2 kb.

DOUBLE STANDARD

Mark Steyn:

Noor Almaleki, whom I wrote about over the weekend, has died, the latest Western victim of a Muslim honor killing. If there were a Matthew Shepard murder every few months, Frank Rich et al would be going bananas about the "climate of hate" in our society, but you can run over your daughter, decapitate your wife, drown three teenage girls and a polygamous spouse, and progressive opinion and the press couldn't give a hoot. Indeed, as The Atlantic notes, it's merely an obsession of us right-wing kooks.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

October 23, 2009

BABY SAYINGS SUCK

Sig brought up an excellent point about bibs in the comments:

He has another few that were store bought and have annoying sayings on them. "Hello world, I have arrived!" Stuff like that. One says "It's all about me." I hate that one and I always turn it upside down if it's the only one left and I have to use it.

I totally understand where he's coming from.  But I also think he's lucky to have a baby boy, because I've found it's so much worse with girl stuff.

The worst I've seen so far?  I mean besides all the run-of-the-mill stuff that says DIVA and PRINCESS on it?  The shirt that said "Who needs a piggy bank when you have Daddy?"  Second worst: "You're never too young for diamonds."  On a 0-3 month old onesie.

I hate hate hate all the baby crap that says that the baby is the boss, that grandma is wrapped around my little finger, that God personally made me as an angel and then broke the mold, etc.  I want my kid to have self-confidence, but this is disgusting.  No, you are not God's gift to the universe, kid, sorry.  Judging from the state of baby clothes sayings, you'd think we're raising a generation of Eric Cartmans.

I try to stay far far away from shirts and bibs with sayings.  Well, except for the one AirForceWife gave us that says IRS DEDUCTION.  That one's funny.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:04 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

October 20, 2009

MASSIVE FRAUD IS A SURPRISE?

On a superficial note, I just have to say how funny I think it is that the Obama administration is all in a tizzy about fraud in the elections in Afghanistan.  Our own country is over 200 years old, and we still have people squawking every election cycle about fraud (and rightfully so, because we still have people voting unjustly in every cycle).  I just think it's funny to expect Afghanistan to be this bastion of trustworthiness and ethical behavior and to be surprised when it's not.  Really, they can't talk about committing more troops until election fraud is settled?  I can't believe massive election fraud wasn't factored into the plan as a given!

And a funny (in a sad way) quote from Michael Yon:

Regarding the Afghan election, which is now headed for a runoff, the good news is that the vast majority of Afghans didn’t vote in the first place and probably are not paying much attention, since they are illiterate and mostly live in remote villages, many of which do not have radios. (That’s also a mouthful of bad news.)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

September 30, 2009

RAPE-RAPE

Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film director Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape" when he had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape."

Really.  What else does the article go on to say?

His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said.

Whew.  I'm glad I now understand the difference between rape and rape-rape.

So which one did Cameron Diaz mean that Bush would legalize?  Real rape or the "I'm famous so I can do whatever I want" rape?

Hollywood is completely nuts.

Awesome quote by John Nolte:

If his unspeakable deed doesn’t meet the standard, what exactly would Roman Polanski have to do in order to become a pariah in this town … I mean, besides vote for Sarah Palin?

Posted by: Sarah at 02:49 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

September 29, 2009

NO BANG FOR THE BUCK

I reiterate that I think Bjorn Lomborg's argument that crises need to be prioritized is one of the best arguments against stopping global warming.  You can grant the premise just for argument's sake but still insist that we shouldn't spend a dollar to get a nickel's worth of good.

Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day and that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan's, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius. The result will be a global price tag of $40 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press next year.

Unfortunately, no government program has ever been held to the bang-for-your-buck test.

But surely this has to be persuasive, right?  How could it not be?  I find it persuasive in every instance.  Take health care: I don't care if they can promise that everyone will have total coverage and no one will ever be sick again.  Our nation simply doesn't have the money now to cover 30 million new people.  Even if it were a government program I could get behind like...um...hmm...giving every law-abiding household a handgun and lessons on how to use it, we just are too far in debt to be adding new programs to the list, no matter what they are.

And certainly we have too much debt to spend $40 to get a dollar of benefit.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

September 19, 2009

CONSTITUTION DAY FAIL

My government class in high school was a joke.  We just memorized and regurgitated how many representatives there are and how old they have to be to run, and then we watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and hoped that somehow we would all learn how this marvelous American experiment works.  FAIL.  Completely.

I was just reading an article about how a Muslim girl is suing Abercrombie and Fitch because they discriminated against her for wearing a headscarf.  In the comments section, a different Muslim girl is arguing that everyone has the Constitutional right to work wherever they want.  She said a size 20 woman has the right to be a runway model.  Quote: "That's the right of an American citizen per our grand Constitution."

Does anyone even read the Constitution anymore?  Apparently everyone's high school government class was as bad as mine.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:59 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

September 18, 2009

EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES

I am feeling less unsettled lately...

After the huge march on Washington last weekend, and the defunding of ACORN this week, I am feeling more like We the People can pressure the government to represent us.

Here are a few things that regular old Americans have achieved since I wrote that I was unsettled:



For an explanation of the list, in case you're not familiar with all of them, listen here.

I am feeling more optimistic.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

September 15, 2009

HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

I was racially discriminated against today.

I got in a black cashier's line at Walmart.  She took the lady in front of me and then switched off her light, saying that I'd have to change lines because she needed to close down for a few minutes.  So I hopped over to the line next to hers, behind three other people.  The black cashier finished up with the lady she was helping, puttered around for about 30 seconds, found out that she was no longer needed to help clean up another register, and then turned her light back on and motioned for a black lady who was just walking up to the checkout area to get in her line.

Raaaaacist!  She helped a black customer instead of telling me to go ahead and get back in her line!  She took a black lady who'd just arrived to checkout instead of white me, who'd been waiting for several minutes!  I need a Beer Summit!

94 percent of African-American eighth graders reported to Harris-Britt that they'd felt discriminated against in the prior three months.

Now, I don't really think it was racial discrimination at Walmart.  I think the cashier was kinda boorish and lazy, and that she didn't care who she helped next as long as she was doing her job.  When I called her on it, she apologized as if the thought had never crossed her mind to ask me to return to her line.  She didn't do it because I was white; she did it because she was unobservant and clueless.

But it got me thinking and I remembered the above statistic from a recent Newsweek article about children's racial attitudes.  If almost every single black pre-teen says they're constantly being discriminated against, then it seems to me that, if the tables were turned and a white cashier helped a white customer over a black one, some people out there are interpreting that as racism.

I don't think it's racism.  I think it's laziness, or bad manners, or tunnel vision you get from doing the same mundane task all day long.  But I don't for one second think she pushed me out of her line because I was white.  But do black people think that?  It seems some of these pre-teens probably do.  How else could they all say they've been discriminated against recently?  A few may have truly met with bigotry, but a good number of them must just be interpreting the slightest offenses as racism.

It just got me thinking that, if you try to find slights based on skin color, you will see them.  But I'd bet that much of the "discrimination" people feel they're encountering is just a misunderstanding or a breakdown in acceptable social behavior, not racism.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:43 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

September 11, 2009

ANGER SPREAD THIN



I am reminded of Nelson Ascher's post again today.

The problem is that I do not want to waste a milligram of my anger on all the idiots who have been getting ready to show us how idiotic they are. We're at a point where to be too angry at, say, Chomsky and the BBC, Old Europe and ANSWER, second and third rate entertainers and academics is to give them a kind of victory. They deserve disdain. Anger needs to remain concentrated like light in a laser beam, we must direct it toward its rightful target: Islamofascism first and foremost. If we spend too much time getting mad at those who are but idiots we run the risk of forgetting, even if only for a second, that it is the Muslim/Arab religious fanatics who are the ENEMY. In a way, that's the idiots' main weapon: to attract a wrath that could be more usefully directed to the really dangerous enemies. Whenever we're not thinking about the Jihadists we are losing some very precious time. And anger."

My anger has been spread thin lately.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

September 07, 2009

HE MAY BE GONE, BUT HE WAS THERE FOR A REASON

Count me in as relieved and thrilled that Van Jones was forced into resignation.  He was a big part of the reason I wrote that I was unsettled.  The fact that a man like that was anywhere near the White House is chilling.

Stanley Kurtz:

In light of all we now know, this gauzy January 12 profile of Jones in The New Yorker is well worth a read. What do you see? I see the too-rapid rise of an inexperienced and poorly vetted man (poorly vetted by the entire liberal establishment, not just the White House) adept at getting and wasting vast sums of money for virtually non-existent plans, all based on seductive political rhetoric rather than substance.

Jonah Goldberg:

I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.

Andy McCarthy:

The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn't one of those things that just happen. This is Barack "Transparency" Obama gaming the system. 

And similarly, from VDH:

When Van Jones talks of the aims of the civil rights movement and its initial minimalist agenda, he references the ultimate desire of 'redistributing all wealth.' When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed "spread the wealth" comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,” we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others.

I am glad that man is gone.  But the fact he was ever there in the first place still alarms me.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:32 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 4 kb.

September 03, 2009

POMPOUS IS TOO NICE OF A WORD

As Jonah Goldberg said, this video clip will hurt your brain.

This is why people are fed up these days.  Our politicians are dimwits who cuss at and belittle their constituents when asked simple questions of fact.  

People are straight-up tired of pompous politicians, jerks who think they're better than us because they appropriate our money to fly around on fancy jets. 

I'm with Glenn Beck: if Congress can't agree to this simple 5 point pledge, then they're worthless.

The more we borrow, the richer we are...seriously?  That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 2 of 22 >>
153kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 0.3054 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.1897 seconds, 289 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.