Libercontrarian

Crushed between the wheels of capitalism and big government.

Reviewed: 2005 Mustang Convertible

I've had an interesting bit of duty this weekend: I've had to pick up a 2005 Mustang Convertible from Hertz for a client company picnic that I am throwing this afternoon – it is a copy of the car our client is giving away to its employees in a sales contest, and I’m going to show it off to the employees. I've been attracted to the Mustang in the last few years since it is one of a very few remaining 2-door sporty cars available with a 5-speed tranny THAT HAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT REAR-WHEEL DRIVE.

I don't know why the auto makers are in love with front-wheel drive cars. They don't handle very well, owing to the fact that the front wheels already have to perform a wide variety of tasks (steering, braking) WITHOUT the added stress of propelling the car down the road, and when you accelerate hard in a front-wheel-drive car, the weight transfer off those driving wheels to the rear, non-driving wheels, and means less power is going to the ground.

So when I go car shopping, I look for cars that have those wonderful characteristics - rear drive, manual transmission, two doors, four seats. Damn few cars are made this way anymore: the Pontiac GTO, the Ford Mustang come to mind, as everything else remotely similar is $20k more. I like two doors with rear seats, so things like Corvettes and Miatas don't have enough interior volume to justify spending money on them. The Three-Series Bimmer coupe I'm $400 away from paying off is really starting to wear out, and will require $2,000 of work to give it another 50k miles of value. I was considering sending it down the road, but in retrospect, $2,000 seems to be a bargain to keep my buttoned-down BMW in my parking lot. In other words, I’m out of the market for another four years. As a result, I can review a car without any desire for it corrupting my outlook - kinda like eating lunch BEFORE you shop at the supermarket.

The Mustang's a modernized throwback to the ancient 60's standard. It comes with a pushrod-driven (!) 4.0L V6, which has wads of low-end torque, but moans like a sinking slave ship when pressed. It is singularly the worst sounding engine I have ever heard, and it’s not what you would call “rev-happy.” I’m not even sure that it’s noticeably better than the motor it replaced. This motor does make the car scoot down the road at around-town speeds and has great push on the highway, when the five-speed automatic transmission shifts into Second and the revs climb. (It’s a rental – I hate autos!)

The chassis is as solid a bowl of jell-o - can you say "cowl shake?" The windshield header wobbles noticeably - there's always some in evidence on every convertible, but it seems excessive on this particular car. The steering is a high point on this car - the wheel has a thick rim with a nice pebbled surface, and the steering rack and gear have a direct and tight feel; better than my BMW's, in fact, which is high praise indeed. Too bad it's so wildly mismatched to the rest of the suspension; the car is grievously under-sprung. The shocks do their job as well as the floppy springs will permit, but the overly-tall 65-series tires have so little sidewall integrity that the car wobbles around its central axis noticeably when you're changing lanes or making sudden inputs on the wheel. You will note if you look underneath the rear end of the car that it has the old-school live axle. Couldn’t Ford have squeaked out another $120 per car and made it fully independent, like other modern cars? No, in this case, they chose to “go cheap,” and it shows. The ride is overly soft, yet an odd shiver continually rolls up through the bodywork and the steering shaft. Cornering isn’t flat, but the body motions are well controlled (better than you thought they’d be; they have the anti-roll bars tuned perfectly to the suspension on this cruiser-mobile), and I suspect that you could push this car aggressively without it snapping back at you. The tires give plenty of warning about their impending loss of grip – too much, in fact. There’s plenty left when they start wailing away. They are clearly the weakest link in the suspension.

I liked the interior – the Mustang wears the same new look that the trucks have, a pebbled, expensive-looking plastic that showcases the retro-gauges and chromed air outlets perfectly. Seats are beautifully clad in stylish fabric, with the Mustang logo faintly visible in the print. Climate control is superlative, an icon of perfection that is typical for all American cars straight from the 1960s. Switchgear is top notch, with the glaring exception of the auto-shift column; it’s the very image of the cheap plastic lawn chair you bought for the backyard last spring. The lever itself feels gritty and cheap as you engage it into gear, with no solid stops – you are forced to look carefully at the gearshift to see which gear the car is in, instead of being able to tell by feel. The convertible top functions flawlessly through its electric controls, although the newness of the car increased the difficulty that I faced getting it buttoned back up when it came time for me to put the Mustang back in the barn. Rear seat space is at a true premium; this car can’t be considered to be a true four-seater as it is really more of a 2+2. My 2000 3-Series Bimmer that I had before my current 1994 model looked like a limousine in comparison, in spite of being nearly a foot shorter in overall length!

Trunk space is generous for a smallish convertible, although such trivialities are unimportant on a car like this. No, your goal of ownership with this car is “Fun While Driving;” leave it to the SUV to haul the people.

In review, I’m not impressed with this car as much as I was hoping I’d be. The main drawbacks, however, could be well addressed by the GT version, which invariably has tighter springs, much better wheels and tires, a better sounding and more powerful V8 engine with a single overhead camshaft and variable valve timing. Better still is the Cobra, which will have a supercharged V8 and independent rear suspension; it also bears the $40k price tag that would make me consider more refined cars.

Maybe in a few years I’ll consider test-driving a GT, but the Bimmer seems like it’s doing pretty well, since it’s essentially paid off!

posted by: underwhelmed at July 31, 2005 09:24 | link | comments |

Battle With A "Journalist"

I read a hit piece, one of many the Denver Post has written about Congressman Tom Tancredo, and just snapped. I finally had to write to the "Red Lady of Journalism" to tell her that one of her reporters thinks that she's a columnist - and an activist. last time I checked, that wasn't supposed to be an interchangable thing when you write something that doesn't say "Opinion Piece" somewhere on it.

"In 2002, the congressman tried to have deported an undocumented high school graduate seeking funds for college. This year, he questioned Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper about whether the public library focuses too much on Spanish-language books, and Tancredo recently proposed that Congress make it a felony to be an undocumented immigrant."

The article purports to be an unbiased account of an unimportant demonstration of illegal aliens and their Leftist enablers, who apparently are unemployed, since they have time to saunter on down to the Capitol and bitch about Congressman Tancredo's uncomprimising stance on law enforcement. I called Elizabeth Aguilera on her obvious bias, questioning if her ethnicity created it:

"Was your article about Tom Tancredo intended to be an editorial or a news article? It didn't make any attempt to approach the subject from an unbiased point of view.

I'm curious - your last name is Aguilera; did your ethnic background drive your bias?
Really, inquiring minds want to know."

Her surly response:

"You need to be more specific about what your issue is? Tancredo's spokesman had his say, so did the protesters. Be more clear.

Also, my surname has nothing to do with my reporting. Just in case you don't understand how reporting works. I'm not a columnist.

Thanks."

No, thank YOU, Elizabeth. I guess I don't really understand how reporting "works," especially when hit pieces purporting to be "news" appear in The Post. I also am wholly unimpressed with your sentence fragments and pissy tone. You are a professional writer, correct? Then check out Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style." Assuming you have the attention span to read it, you might learn something about how to communicate utilizing the written word.

I guess that I just don't have a degree in Journalism or Bed-Wetting, like the lion's share of the smack-tards that offer up their idiotic Leftist agendas disguised as "news" these days.

My complete response to her, and her editors:

"OK, so you're not a columnist. Since I've been on the planet a few decades, and have read a paper or twelve in my time, I am at least capable of discerning good writing from bad, and biased from unbiased. I think your writing of the protest showed a marked appreciation for the actions of the protestors - your tone lends credence to their values, especially so when you write a paragraph like this one, that purports to give background information about Tancredo to a reader with no previous education of the Congressman:

"In 2002, the congressman tried to have deported an undocumented high school graduate seeking funds for college. This year, he questioned Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper about whether the public library focuses too much on Spanish-language books, and Tancredo recently proposed that Congress make it a felony to be an undocumented immigrant. "

I object wholeheartedly to the term "undocumented," it shows overt favoritism to the Leftist ideology of "political correctness," instead of simply labeling "undocumented persons" as what they are - ILLEGAL ALIENS. It is also an attempt to show the Congressman as a bigot, attempting to strong-arm a local politician to change policy outside Tancredo's area of responsibility, and as mean-spirited, because he doesn't want a foreign national receiving in-state tuition, when U.S. citizens from other states can't get it.

This isn't the only paragraph which displays your bias - all but four or five of the remaining 15 reek of sympathetic tone to the protestors and their message. I honestly did not know whether it was an opinion piece, like Cindy Rodriguez's "Immigrants Aren't The Real Issue," or Diane Carman's "Muslims Fight 'Ignorance'," or if it was simply a news article. Why couldn't you just have reported the news? Would it not have been entertaining enough? Couldn't you resist your own impulses to "get your message out?"

The bias your paper has against Congressman Tancredo is reflective of the serious Left-orientation of that institution. I recognized it the first time I picked up the paper when I came out to Denver in May of 1996, and if anything, it's gotten worse. I'm used to putting up with constant pressure from the media to be an agent of change in the world, as opposed to what it was originally contrived to be - persons factually reporting noteworthy events, but this particular flurry of Tancredo hit pieces emanating like a stink from The Post is simply too much.

It's why you guys are steadily losing ground to the Internet and to bloggers. It's why the tremendous goof of "Rathergate" got that "News Icon" kicked off CBS and further eroded what little credibility your profession has in the world.

It's why bloggers and other forms of New Media will eventually supplant the Old, Dead Media. I'm watching history happen with my own eyes, and I think that it's a change for the better.

I doubt you people do."

There it is. Hope they like it; I'm sure it will be quickly deleted like the 9 billion other emails they get daily telling them how worthless and pathetic they've become.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 27, 2005 18:22 | link | comments (1) |

"Pressure Rises For More Cameras In Your Anus - Uh, In The U.S."

posted by: underwhelmed at July 23, 2005 19:23 | link | comments |

Eric Grumbles Before The Sergeant Major Of The Armchair Commando Brigade About Illegal Immigration

Eric Cowperthwaite, whose blog has been quoted about 1,100 times here, is my friend and a man whose opinion I respect immensely on every topic - until Monday. Eric has been oddly silent about his opinion about the immigration issue. I found out that he's likely silent because his opinion may get him laughed at - and I mean this in the most realistic, but friendly way, like how you tolerate your crazy uncle [JOKE] . I promised Eric a fisking, and here it goes. His post is presented unedited, so you can read it in its entirety.

"Well, Nick, the LiberContrarian, has asked me, in comments on another post, why I don't post on immigration issues and where I actually stand. Okay, you asked for it. ;-)
First, before I talk about how I feel, let's debunk the idea that tougher immigration laws would make the US safer. The truth is, it would not. The most obvious reason is that there is no reasonable way to actually police our approximately 5,000 miles of border, when you include both the Canadian and Mexican borders."

OK, so if the job is difficult, we shouldn't try it? Good thing we didn't have the same attitude when we were building the railroads, learning how to fly, fighting the Japanese and the Germans or going to the moon. Really, Eric, not doing something because it's tough, like SECURING THE BORDERS, one of only a few functions Libertarians claim the Federal Government should be empowered to do, is foolhardy, and bad policy. It reveals us not as a nation of laws, but just as a nation of men; cowardly men at that.

"The USSR had one of the tightest borders in the world, for a large country, and far harsher law enforcement and penalties for illegal border crossing (like torture and execution) than the USA could ever have. And they were unable to control their border. "

Really? Were there 57,400 East Germans sneaking into West Germany in one week of July, 1986? Did I miss something there?

“Even if we were to bring every soldier and marine home from overseas and put them on the borders, spaced out evenly, we would only have one military member every 44 feet. This assumes that every single one of them was on the border, including staff, mechanics, generals, everyone. Since the reality is that you could only put about one out of every 15 of them on the border, and you would need four shifts, so that they could sleep, take days off, get sick, etc., we would end up with one soldier/marine about every half mile. Of course, this is simply ridiculous.”

Oh, I strongly suspect that you could utilize electronic means of monitoring, coupled with a suitable fence (we could take a lesson from the Israelis' success in this venture), and a disciplined and rigorous application of law enforcement ON THE EMPLOYERS VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW, plus the complete denial of FREE GOVERNMENT AID, FREE GOVERNMENT PAID SCOOLING, and FREE AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP to the anchor babies that illegal alien Mexicans come here to have (while defaulting on the medical care given to them), then I suspect you could fix the problem by way of disincentivization.

“The reality is that no realistic increase in border patrol and customs strength can actually secure the border so that no one gets in. But, and just as important, the three major terrorist attacks in the US involving foreigners in one way, or another, would not have been prevented by stronger controls on illegal immigrants. In every case the terrorists had entered the country completely legally and none of the proposed solutions, not Real ID, not strengthened border security, would have prevented those terrorists with legal papers from entering the country or moving around freely.
If the USSR , probably the harshest police state the world has ever seen, could not prevent illegal entry into their country, it is highly unlikely that we can. And, even if we could, the bad guys have the ability to enter legally. So, let's lay to rest the whole "increasing security" myth.”

False premise. Nobody was trying to enter the Soviet Union ; nobody bothered to leave because they knew how dangerous it all was. I disagree in principal with your sentiment; the goal isn't to reduce the number of illegal immigrants from 1 million per year to zero, but perhaps to 10,000 or so. No one is suggesting mining the border and summary executions for tourists overstaying their visas, but perhaps... A reasonable reduction of the flagrant and ceaseless violation of our laws and our borders would be nice, thank you very much.

Remember, Eastern Europeans left their homes when the Cold War ended because Eastern Europe wasn't a land of opportunity (kinda like Mexico - unless you're a drug dealer or a corrupt politician) - but Eastern Europeans came here LEGALLY, and have made a tremendous positive impact on our society. They have respect for our institutions and our traditions, unlike an unfortunately large percentage of the people from Central America. They speaka de English (like Papou used to say), and there's no culture of dependence on government in that community.

“So, on to my position on the matter. The reason that we tolerate illegal immigration is because of our incredibly poorly thought out minimum wage laws. You see, what a minimum wage law does is ensures that some jobs will never be filled and some work never done because it is worth less to the employer than the minimum wage is set at. This is a well known fact to economists, but the politicians somehow think that they can repeal the laws of economics. The truth is that illegal aliens are providing that labor that we can't pay for because of minimum wage laws. They, obviously, can, and do, work for less money than American citizens legally can be paid.”

Couldn't disagree more. What illegal is working for any wage close to Minimum Wage? I work closely with retailers, the traditionally-lowest paid workers in American society. The lowest paying retail job is $8.00/hour. Illegals work in my area for $7.00/hr for kitchen help, to $10+/hr for unskilled construction labor. Nobody works for $5.15/hr.

It's not the government-mandated Minimum Wage that creates false demand for workers, it's government mandated OSHA workplace rules, the accounting costs of workforce pay management in a highly regulated environment, and most importantly, the exposure to liability from lawsuits from ever-aggrieved American workers that makes the Mexican illegal an attractive candidate for employers that love to take shortcuts around the law. You may not like the laws that were created by your elected officials, but I would advise you to change the laws instead of encouraging employers to obey the laws that are most convenient for them.

Try and remember that when those laws were made, they came into existence because employers are abusing the trust of workers; government recognizes that Management holds the upper hand in the workplace – especially so if there’s an unlimited supply of nearly-free labor.

“Politicians not shutting down illegal immigration has nothing to do with security, racism or any of the other things that everyone shouts about. They know full well that a significant amount of work and money in the economy is due to illegal immigration and that it could not be replaced if illegal aliens were excluded from our economy. “

And you're saying that we could not fete and document these workers quickly enough to "make it palatable" to employers eager to underemploy them to make up for their own uncompetitive business models? Nonsense. While Mexicans, who seem to have an extraordinary tolerance for underemployment, would be let in the country at the same pace as other nation’s aspiring workers FOLLOWING THE RULES TO GET IN, I'm sure we could expand our ICE program quickly enough to keep wages and other associated costs of employment for greedy corporations and penny-pinching Wal-Mart shoppers in check.

“Aside from that, from the perspective of my principles, immigration is one of the things that made our country truly great. We took in people who were willing to take great risks to live a better life. These people worked hard and were committed and dedicated to improving their life and that of their children. And, as we look around us today, immigrants are still doing the same thing. How many small businesses are owned by immigrants and first generation Americans in your community? How many restaurants, dry cleaners, yard care services, etc. are owned by immigrants? How much do you suppose these things are worth to our economy? The problem is not immigration. It is things like minimum wage laws. It is the apparent idea that so many hold that the economy and wealth are zero sum games. Immigrants coming to this country aren't going to make you poorer. I don't have the time, in this post, to delve into the zero sum economic idea, so instead I'll refer you to Coyote's recent post on the topic.

If clamping down on illegal immigration won't improve our security and will hurt us economically, where do I stand on illegal immigration? I propose two things, done simultaneously.

1. Get rid of the minimum wage laws, which are hurting, not helping
2. Allow unlimited legal immigration”

!?!?!!WHAT??!?!

Did I just read this correctly? Unlimited legal immigration? Hey Eric - I've got a great idea: I know where there are some slaves in Darfur that we can probably pay their masters to use. They'll work for so cheap that it will empower our lazy, uncompetitive corporations to make a big profit, even with their crummy business models and short term outlook. It'll be good for the economy - nobody really wants to work in those jobs, anyway.

Before you say "hey - illegal aliens aren't slaves," ask the coyotes that bring these guys to the jobsites if they're free to go... Construction is RIFE with stories of busloads of guys hauled straight to the jobsite by coyotes, who aren’t remotely afraid to show their faces there.

“Security is an entirely separate topic. There is a lot that we could do to improve security without infringing on citizen's rights. Rather than do those things, we are doing things that make the politicians look better, like demanding that people show an ID to get on a plane (this would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists).

Immigration made this country great, immigration was one of the keys that the liberal culture of the US believed in. And no, I don't mean the collectivists posing as liberals today. If other countries don't want to give their citizens the chance at liberty and property, let's allow them to come here and get the chance. People who will willingly leave their country and endure great hardship to get here, are, by and large, people we want here. Are there some bad apples in the mix? Of course. But that's the price of a free society. Is there some risk in this? Of course. But (and I'm sounding like a broken record) that's the price of a free society.”

Was this a freudian slip? A "free society," as in free healthcare, free welfare, companies that get free reign to disregard laws...?

You know, I've never felt compelled to shoot holes in your often well-reasoned arguments, indeed they never present as such in your blog. This post wasn't well thought out, and your position seems to be guided by some apparent personal bias that has clouded your normally clear vision. Since you have a leadership position in our community, I am hoping that you will think more deeply about your position on this topic and revise your opinion after careful review.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 19, 2005 22:55 | link | comments (2) |

What Kind Of Demonically Evil "Person" Is This?

I had to quickly click off the page so that my monitor would not be filled with 5.56 mm holes.

WTF is wrong with this... this... maggot?

posted by: underwhelmed at July 17, 2005 08:50 | link | comments (1) |

New Additions To The Blog Roll

I have had some slackness in the maintenance of my blogroll lately - I haven't been adding contributors like I should.

That being said, I offer up Chris Byrne, the AnarchAngel (he's a member of the LLP), and the great Combs Spouts Off. R.G. Combs is a wordsmith whose prose conjures up the image of a meticulously sharpened carbon-steel blade. It cuts right to the point of matters. Also to be added: Gullyborg, from Resistance Is Futile. A likeable fellow, his status as impoverished post-grad limits his ability to buy arms, but he's an avid reloader and political genius.

Byrne has irked the ire of some charming gentlemen of Islam, who, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are actively planning on Chris' demise. I have generously offered an endless stream of bullets, either cased as pork-injected reloads for Byrne, or uncased, as hurtling objéts du mort towards his enemies. Gullyborg has offered his assistance as well. When any blogger is threatened, as Gullyborg points out, we are all threatened. Unlike our poor commuters who suffer the psychotic wrath of the followers of Wahabbism/Sufism, WE will SHOOT BACK.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 17, 2005 08:16 | link | comments |

Mall Blog - Comments On American Diversity

Once in a great while, I like to post from the mall. It serves two purposes - it permits me to lord my extraordinarily high state of personal technological prowess over you, and it empowers me to comment immediately about that which I see nearly in the instant I have seen it.

Today, amidst the sea of impressively displayed flesh (I'm sorry - did every father die and I just didn't hear about it?), I elected to get dinner from Renzio's, the excellent Greek food chain in the food court of the fashionable Park Meadows Mall, and I noticed that the usual assemblage of, well, Greeks, was not present. Everybody serving me was an Hispanic. Looking to the side, I saw that Edo, the Japanese restaurant, was staffed entirely by Hispanics as well. Everywhere in the food court, Hispanics fill the labor roles in the food industry, working hard, long hours, producing excellent Pastichio, shakes, Tempura, and Chinese food. It amazes me to see the tremendous diversity of culture this nation successfully hosts, and I am proud to belong to an open, tolerant democracy that empowers folks of such markedly different backgrounds to live peacefully with one another.

Do you think a theocratic totalitarian regime like what existed in Afghanistan (until its recent deposition, that is) would permit such intermixing of cultures?

We are clearly strong as a result of our diversity. I say this because I believe in the promise of America. I don't support the flagrant disobedience of our laws by illegal aliens, but I do admire the work ethic of legal workers and the apparent desire by many to contribute the the fabric of American life.

Just some observations from the Park Meadows Mall.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 16, 2005 16:00 | link | comments (2) |

An Interesting Take On Youth Suicide

Jeff from Alphecca, who, interestingly describes himself thusly, "An occasional blog by a gay gun-nut in Vermont. Opinions about all sorts of stuff I know nothing about" writes about the Violence Policy Center's most recent claim that western states with fewer gun control laws have higher suicide rates than eastern states with restrictive laws. Jeff puts the ridiculous claim by the VPC to bed in this post:

"Rand's arguments are specious on almost every level. First of all, you'll notice that most of the states listed are in the northern climes where suicides (of all ages) tend to occur with greater frequency anyway, by any means. Indeed, as this chart from the Psychiatric Times shows, countries such as Finland, New Zealand, Canada, Scotland, and Iceland and others all have higher rates than the US in almost every age group including teens. Some of them have double the rate and all of them have at least as many gun control laws in place as the states mentioned by the VPC press release."

It's a good read and an excellent analysis. My take on it:

"The real thrust of this effort is about Deconstructionism, and engineering a New Society that will be constructed on Reason and Human Secularism, with a healthy dose of Good Ol' Marxism.

These people's hobby - nay, religion, is the effort to deconstruct thousands of years of societal constructs that they view were created on illogical fears, initiating with sun-worship, and most recently evincing themselves in the re-election of The Great Satan, G.W. Bush.

What they aim to do: once they have successfully undermined what they consider to be a deeply dysfunctional society, they will build it back up using the Secular Humanist model: "there's no right or wrong, only shades of gray," and "evil people only need to have their motivations understood and their internal conflicts resolved to become Part Of The Collective," and "from each according to his means to each according to his needs." The effort to ban guns in any way possible is a reflection of their fear of the potential trouble they may have imposing their "ideas" on the rest of us.

They'll fix society, alright. Unfortunately, in the past when they tried it the effort usually involved Deconstruction and Rebuilding through violent means, as that's the only way to get us Great Unwashed Masses to comply with their loony philosphies.

When that happens, I'll be waiting with a rifle and a two-foot high pile of ammo."

posted by: underwhelmed at July 16, 2005 06:33 | link | comments |

Socialism Makes Its Adherents Say Stupid Things

If you have been reading my blog (this is an insane assumption; no one reads my blog, including me, as is evidenced by the sloppy sentence construction, the vacuous ideas that meander off into the wilderness of teakwood that I have the nerve to call "my head," and the piss-weak spelling) you might recall that I have taken a sales position with a carrier of telecommunications equipment and services.

I was speaking with one of my new colleagues today, and she imparted to me a tale of her most recent trip to an un-named retailer that buys *ahem* a few goods from the honest and hard-working people of China. During her visit to the store there, an employee of this largish retailer, who in the past has exclaimed a certain prejudice against our products and services, was finally pushed past the point of reason today when a customer asked my co-worker about an impending merger between our firm and a smaller rival - "You shouldn't get service with these people - they're a huge company - It's up to you to prevent the rich from getting richer and the poor from getting poorer!"

So this little Trotskyite wonder has been torpedoing our sales efforts there simply because he perceives our corporation as some sort of "fascist MegaCorp," eagerly awaiting the day when poor starving widows are forced to sell their kidneys for food, and failure to work 16 hours a day brings swift "justice" in the form of a concentration camp.

My co-worker tells him, "Hey, pal, YOU work for the LARGEST CORPORATION IN THE WORLD, who is notorious for putting 60-year-old family businesses to death within 6 months of creation of one of their stores nearby." The Sheep looked at her nonplussed, and stalked away.

What is it about the LoopyVolk on the Left? Why can't they see the beam in their own eye while they are looking for the moat in everyone else's?

posted by: underwhelmed at July 12, 2005 21:50 | link | comments (2) |

Combs Strikes Again

RG Combs, of the great Combs Spouts Off, created a post, which I commented on. He's a new member of the LLP, and a Libercontrarian Must Read:

Sen. Barack Obama, in Florida to campaign for Sen. Ben Nelson, answered questions from the audience. One was particularly revealing:

"I see a Democratic Party afraid to say they're Democrats, who voted for the war in Iraq and voted for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Glenn Anderson of Orlando. "Why should I remain a Democrat?"

It was a tough question. But Nelson and Obama tried to answer it.

"The Democrats at times have lost their way," conceded Obama. "We are trying to decide what our core values are."

The criterion for judging the party isn't whether it's to the left or right, "but are we true to our core values," he said. Nobody defined core values.

I've got news for you, Barack: if you're holding meetings to try to decide what your "core values" are, then they aren't core values. You might as well say you're taking a poll to determine what you believe in.

But the truth is the Democrats aren't trying to decide what their core values are. They know what their core values are -- and they also know that if they run on those, they're doomed to minority status for the foreseeable future.

The Democrats are trying to decide what to say their core values are. They're operating under the maxim, "Sincerity is essential. Once you learn how to fake that, you've got it made."

My response:

posted by: underwhelmed at July 12, 2005 21:22 | link | comments |

An Inspired Thought

posted by: underwhelmed at July 11, 2005 16:37 | link | comments (3) |

Once More Into The Breach, Dear Friends

I thought I'd take a stab at the "illegal alien problem" the hard-working members of Congress and the Executive Branch have decided to ignore yet again, although I know it's completely useless. I've said this two dozen times in the past on this blog, and nobody cares, but here I go again:

Close the borders. Man them with State Army National Guard units, put up a fence, monitor every foot of it both North and South. Deport the existing illegal aliens when they are captured. Give no amnesty to these lawbreakers; it'll be like turning on the kitchen light in your Florida condominium and watching the roaches scatter. Observe as policing agencies uncover vast criminal enterprises whose goal is the smuggling of drugs, humans, terror weapons, and stolen goods, and marvel at the result. Enjoy as incomes go up for the poorest Americans, whose employers will be obliged to a.) Follow the law in their hiring practices, or suffer jail terms for disobedience and, b.) Pay these American citizens LIVING WAGES as a result of their need to compete for a reduced workforce. Yes, prices of goods and services will go up - this is called inflation and is normal in a healthy economy. Since a rising tide lifts all boats, salaries, stagnant since Ronald Regan was in his second term, will actually rise to meet the increasing cost of living, and Americans will be actually able to afford things like houses, instead of getting interest-only loans, so as to pass the burden onto the next owner/lendor foolish enough to risk such financial calisthenics.

Oh, and let us not forget the other side benefit - as no American city is the recipient of a weaponized plague brought over the Mexican border, or is erased by an ice-cream truck with a thermonuclear device hidden inside, hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS of American citizens won't be incinerated to ashes. They can go on to live their merry lives, comforted in the fact that their country is secure.

Of course, we won't do any of this... yet. We will do all of these things AFTER one of the above-listed disasters ruins the economy, disrupts or destroys the lives of millions, and causes a backlash that will make America the most hated nation in the world. See, as Americans, it's in our nature to Give Failure A Chance, to let the conflagration really get a head up BEFORE we take care of the problem. Remember Pearl Harbor? U.S.S. Cole? 9/11?

My only hope is that we don't wait so long that the country is completely destroyed by one gigantic blow - like a nuclear strike by Iran using an EMP weapon, followed by bio-warfare stuff or an attack on our power grid.

This little note was inspired by this article about our daily release of untold numbers of illegal aliens that are classified as OTM - Other Than Mexican. These are people who may be here to hurt us, and we're letting them go so that they can reappear in court at a later date, at their own recognizance, of course. 87% never show.

I wonder what they're doing?

posted by: underwhelmed at July 03, 2005 14:47 | link | comments |

Republicans: This Is Your Grand Opportunity To Do Something Right

Well, now - the Republican Party has a great chance to Show Us Their Balls. Justice Sandra Day O' Conner, first woman on the Supreme Court and an unreliable conservative at best, has announced her retirement, effective immediately following the successful nomination of her replacement. I strongly suspect that Justice Rhenquist, with his attendent health challenges, will announce his retirement in short order. Legal minds better than mine (this likely includes your neighborhood convenience store clerk) tend to agree. I suspect that Justice Breyer, nominated in 1976 by President Gerald Ford, and often one of the most consistently left-leaning members, will be retiring or will die, owing to the fact that this guy graduated high school with Thomas Jefferson before the French and Indian War.

What does this mean?

I believe that the Republican Party performed some clever calculus last month when they avoided the so-called "Nuclear Option" for the Bush District Court appointees. It is my considered legal opinion (that, and $3.75 will get you a cup of Starbuck's) that the Republican Party will nominate a conservative appointee, and of couse the Dumbocrats will leap on the selection (come on, you know that the Dumbocrats would attack Karl Marx, were his reanimated corpse to be nominated by the Republicans, as "a member of the Far Right"). The Republicans will correctly use this forum to loudly proclaim that the agreement the Dumbocrats made with them last month stated that they wouldn't filibuster future candidates. They will then apply the "Nuclear Option" by voting the Senate rule change, and appoint three justices that will vote a Republican line on future court decisions. Or so it would work if the Republicrats collectively possessed the political acumen of Mrs. O'Grady's 4th Grade Civics class.

I rather suspect our current cadre of dimwits will simply stumble when the Liberal Left Attack Machine gets cranked up; I doubt they have as capable and clever a game plan as the Bush Administration had for handing a post-war Iraq. No, I'm far more certain that the majority party, those people whom the voters gave a mandate to run the country, will do like they did during the "appointees" issue, like they did when SCOTUS essentially crushed 5th Amendment property rights, like they did on Bolton, like they've done in response to the Left's assault on Gitmo, like they've done the 900 times bloat-boy Ted Kennedy has labeled the War On Terror as a "quagmiyah..." I can dig up examples of Republicrat weakness in the face of impotent leftist challenges since Clinton II...

If the Republicrats could, just this once, not be the party of sober consideration, of dispassionate compromise, and instead be the clever, manipulative group of slick operators that can stand up to the vicious liars of the Left like Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstien, and Hillary - well, that would just be great. If they can remember that this is the opportunity they have been given by the voters to shape the future of America by rejecting "Constitution-as-living-document" candidates, then perhaps we can begin to turn back the clock on the Marxist bent of SCOTUS since 1993, when Republicrats allowed Ruth Bader Ginsberg, easily the most liberal Justice in history, to pass unchallenged 93-0 in the Senate.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 01, 2005 20:04 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com