Or maybe it's dead trees. Yes, definitely dead trees.

An idea whose time has come: increasing your carbon footprint. Excerpt:

Carbon Debits - Increasing Your Carbon Footprint...

Making a carbon debit is a delicate matter taking both skill and time. Our carbon debiting process starts with our FECON spinning shredder and a driver who has vendetta against trees. Add any tree and about 20 seconds and a carbon debit is born!

On a Mission - Taking Away Al Gore's Carbon Credits...
We are on a mission to take away every one of Al Gore's meaningless carbon credits by simply providing carbon debits. Help us make this dream a reality by purchasing one of the packages below. Don't let Al Gore assuage his guilt with meaningless penance, heap it back on with carbon debits – every one of which we will let him know about.

Included is the image of your carbon footprint certificate, which I've placed below the fold.

more...

Posted by: Physics Geek at 06:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

So Jeff Goldstein is going behind enemy lines at the Democratic National Convention. No word yet on whether Ann Coulter will show up as his room with a 6-pack of Mickey's Big Mouth again. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Whipping up on Andrew Sullivan, while fun, has become somewhat boring because (a) he's too predictable and (b) he makes himself such an easy target. However, it's worth noting when someone lands a haymaker on Sullivan's glass jaw. From Ramesh Ponnuru comes this little gem:

Andrew Sullivan comes to the aid of John Derbyshire, with whom he is well-matched in argumentative style and malice. Sullivan, adducing, as is frequently the case, absolutely no evidence, intuits that I "basically want Vatican II undone." The accusation is false, baseless, presumptuous, and sort of insane, which is another way of saying that it does not stand out on Sullivan's blog.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Karl Rove, meet Dan Abrams. Dan, meet the guy who just made you his bitch. Excerpt:

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isnÂ’t a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but donÂ’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires. For example, while you do ask Siegelman what evidence he had to back up his charges, you did not press him when he said "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits."

The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “The glove fits! The glove fits!” - only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line ("Bush Justice") and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable. You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts. You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review. You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your producers slapped on your segment, created the nifty graphic for and promoted in the ads before your appearances.

Dan, I realize that you're an intellectually stunted, Democratic sycophant little ass-kisser, but even you should realize when you're punching out of your weight class. Tell you what, though: I'll match you up against my 5 year old son. And don't worry: I'll tell him to take it easy on you.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Now we will conduct a proper show trial.

Radley Balko links to a story which displays more evidence of the increasingly acrimonious relationship between cops and the "justice" system and us, the general public. It's disturbing. While I'm all in favor of putting actual criminals behind bars, I'm quite concerned that law enforcement now considers the citizens of this country as mere pawns in some bizarre game of "fuck you" chess, where the first move is for the cops to declare checkmate, forcing you, the accused, to prove your innocence, turning the theory of jurisprudence on its head.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but perhaps our public servants need to be reminded who actually is in charge. Memo to the police: it isn't you.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll keep reposting this every year because it's worth remembering.
===========================================

Again. And again and again.

Reprinted from Neal Boortz's website, albeit an entry that has disappeared into the bit bucket:

Message:
APRIL 15th TAX DAY

http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
From Neal Boortz

"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."

-Robert Heinlein

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

- Albert Jay Nock

The income tax is a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic and socialistic act. The crusade for an income tax is the most unreasoning and un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter-century.

Editorial - New York Times. 1894.

TAX DAY- FOR ABOUT ONE-HALF OF US

It's April 15th. That day is important for just about one-half of Americans; the one-half that actually carries the load for all of us. For the remaining one-half of income earners it's either just another day, or it's a day they revel in their ability to not only avoid paying taxes themselves, but in their ability to loot the pockets of those who do through such gimmicks as the rancid Earned Income Tax Credit.

April 15 is depressing ... and not just because your taxes are due.

OK , I know you've heard this before, but it doesn't do any harm for you to review the facts just once a year.

This is the day when a simple question can lead to the discovery that most people have no idea how much income tax they pay, though this is becoming less and less true as we go along. There is one group that does know how much federal income tax they pay every year, and this group is growing ever larger. It's that segment of wage earners who pay nothing. So, we'll revise this statement to read: "Most people who actually do pay federal income taxes have no idea how much they pay."

For proof, try this little test: Approach a friend or co-worker whom you actually suspect may pay federal income taxes and ask them what their tax tab was. You will get one of two responses. For the majority of taxpayers who actually get refunds, the response will be "I didn't have to pay anything! I'm getting some back!" Taxpayers who actually have to write a check on April 15 will quote the amount of that check as their tax bill.

This is all by design. Politicians know that if those who pay federal income taxes knew what they were really paying there would be an instantaneous and ugly tax revolt. To hide the ugly truth, these politicians have kept alive our wonderful system of withholding. With the magic of withholding, the money is gone before the wage earner even gets the slightest whiff of it. It's almost as if it was never really there in the first place ... so, what's to miss?

Not only do most people not know how much tax they pay, they don't even know what they make!

You've already asked your co-worker how much tax they had to pay in 2001, and they didn't know. Now, ask them how much they make! Most will tell you it's none of your business. Some will respond, though, and their response will begin with the words, "I take home ..."

If you wanted to be particularly obnoxious at this point, or if you fancy yourself to be a radio talk-show host, you could say: "I didn't ask you how much you took home. I asked you how much you made." Then, standby for the inevitable blank stare.

See how well this system of withholding taxes has worked! The majority of wage earners can't even tell you what they earned! Just what they "took home." It's as if they viewed their "take home" pay as their total earnings! No wonder they don't think they paid any taxes when they get that refund check from the IRS!

But --- if you happen to work for youself then it's a good bet that you DO know how much tax you paid. The owners of small businesses, the businesses that employ about 80 percent of the workers in this country ... you know. You are the people who have to sit down four times a year and write a check to the IRS for your quarterly tax payments.

WHY WE'LL NEVER HAVE A TAX REVOLT.

One word. Withholding.

Withholding was sold to the American wage earner as a purely temporary measure to speed up cash flow to the government during World War II. As soon as the war was over, things were supposed to return to normal and the wage earners would get their entire checks, just as before the war.

In case you haven't checked, the war has been over for about 58 years or so, but withholding is still with us. It's still with us because the proliferation of the "I take home ..." workers and the "I didn't have to pay anything, I'm getting some back" taxpayers are such a boon to our politicians. As long as the majority remains ignorant of the extent to which their paychecks are plundered, politicians will be safe.

Now ... get those tax returns completed and then completely forget what they say so that you can join the ranks of the unknowing.

PROTECTING POLITICIANS

I can't let this April 15th go by without reminding you of what a wonderful job politicians, especially Democrats, have done insuring that there will never be enough angry taxpayers to cost them their jobs.

Politicians pay attention to polls. Polls are indications of the presence or lack of job security. When politicians read a poll which says that the majority of Americans (a) don't think they're paying too much in taxes, and (b) don't see any need for a tax cut, they sit back and smile. Politicians, and especially Democrats, have been working for generations to shift the burden for the payment of federal income taxes to a small minority of high-income earners. They have succeeded marvelously. Today the top 10 percent of income earners pay over one-half of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60 percent of income earners, a majority, as you can see, pay less than 10 percent of all income taxes. Even someone educated in a government school can tell you that this leaves politicians free to increase taxes on the upper-income minority and then spend that money on the middle and lower-income majority in return for votes.

AND NOW --- TIME FOR SOME TAX AND SPENDING OUTRAGES.

We begin with a statistic that should jolt you right out of your seat. Have you ever stopped to consider just how many cumulative hours are spent across this entire country every year just handling the paperwork associated with the federal income tax? American businesses will spend about 3.4 billion man-hours doing tax paperwork this year. Individuals will spend another 1.7 billion man-hours. These figures represent 3 million people working full time all year just to do tax preparation work. Now --- get this. It takes more man-hours in this country to pay federal income taxes than it does to build every car, van and truck produced in this country during the same year. (Money Magazine)

Where does your tax money go? Try this:

Between 1986 and 1998 the IRS spent $5 billion of your money on a computer system that they were never able to get to work. Five Billion, that's with a B.

Taxes now comprise 31% of the cost of a loaf of bread, 30% of the cost of a hotel room and 43% of the cost of a bottle of beer. (Money Magazine)

The two major tax writing committees of congress are the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Money Magazine reports that seven out of ten members of these committees cannot figure out their own taxes. They have to hire professionals.

Your government recently gave $170 million to a group called PSI. PSI was founded by Philip Harvey. Philip Harvey runs a mail-order porno business called Adam and Eve. PSI wants to hand out condoms around the world. They now have $170 million of your money to fund their project.

At a series of employee retreats workers played children's games and sang We are family. They wrote Christmas carols, went on treasure hunts, dressed in cat costumes and talked to imaginary wizards and magicians. It was a team-building exercise for the U.S. Postal Service. Cost? $3,600,000.00.

There are 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the United States. That's six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. These 1.2 million people add absolutely nothing to our quality of life or standard of living.

Do you know what IRS form 8845 is? It's the form you fill out to get your Indian Employment Credit.

In 1969 the congress discovered that there were 155 taxpayers who paid no taxes because their deductions eliminated their tax liability. That's when congress passed the Alternative Minimum Tax, just to catch those 155 taxpayers. Today the AMT nails 3 million taxpayers. Within 7 years that figure will soar to 36 million.

The IRS still insists that the income tax is voluntary. If you believe that then you believed Bill Clinton when he said that oral sex isn't sex.

THE SOLUTION

The solution is twofold.

First --- reform the tax system by getting rid of the income tax, repealing the income tax amendment and moving to a national retail sales tax. I've been promoting such a system for over 15 years. You can find out everything you want to know by studying the website for Americans for Fair Taxation at http://www.fairtax.org.

Second -- Government must be reduced to its constitutionally appropriate size. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are up to the task. That's why I'm a Libertarian.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1683 words, total size 10 kb.

I finally realized what makes the Instamonster say "Heh" so much. Such insight was finally gained by reading something from the Puppy Blender himself:

"VISUAL SEXUAL AGGRESSION:" Perhaps we should cover women in large, tentlike garments to prevent this. It's popular some places, I hear.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

The inestimable Camille Paglia, in responding to a letter, makes a point that most of us on the right have been saying for years:

I live in Nicaragua and am familiar with the expat community, and though I know this implicates Democrats, I think you will find this interesting from 2004. My in-laws are registered Ole Dixie Democrats from North Florida, and in 2004 they received two ballots each. Surprised, they asked another American couple here if they had received two. The husband, a registered independent, had received one absentee ballot, while his wife, a registered Republican, had not received an absentee ballot.

It is interesting, and I agree there needs to be some kind of oversight of this.

Chris Farrington
Nicaragua

Wow, this sure stinks like week-old mackerel wrapped in soggy newsprint! Though I'm a registered Democrat, I've often been alarmed and disgusted by rumors of ballot manipulation by Democratic ward heelers in big-city neighborhoods, where even the dead vote. In past elections in some Democratic districts in Philadelphia, for example, the percentage of reported voter turnout has at times been suspiciously, stratospherically high.

Absentee ballots, in my view, should be more strictly limited and supervised. Their promiscuous distribution is an invitation to corruption. I have heard troubling stories from upstate New York, for example, about campaign operatives (of which party I don't know) taking absentee ballots into nursing homes and directing how they are filled out. In unscrupulous hands, this practice is unacceptably coercive.

Funny how the districts with the most suspicious voting activities tend to be Democratic districts. Okay, funny isn't the right word. The word I'm looking for is "predictable".

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Allah unloads on the Obamessiah and the MSM as only he can:

Hey, guys? If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?

Obviously, the question was rhetorical, but the answer is definitely yes. I saw Lanny Davis on H&C the other day. When questioned about the intra-party fighting, Lanny stated something like the following:

We're all united as Democrats by a common set of beliefs. Regardless of who the nominee is, we'll all get behind him or her this fall.

Does anyone honestly believe that Democrats will not vote for HillObama, irrespective of who their favorite candidate is? While many conservatives cannot bring themselves to vote for Maverick™ due to our belief that a McCain presidency would do irreparable harm to GOP and the right in general, most Democrats are not-these days- motivated by any ideals. It's all about the pursuit of power for power's sake, which is why I still haven't written Hillary off. The Clintons exemplify the do anything, naked lust for power wing of the Democrats. And if Hillary, as I expect, pounds Obama into a frigging pulp in PA, she's likely to have overtaken him in actual votes cast, which will strengthen her position with regards to the superdelegates.

As much as I enjoy the political infighting amongst team donkey, if doesn't really matter. The winner will grind McCain into a pulp come November.

Update: I go to Ace for the D&D references and hooker pictures. After all, who doesn't? Yet he keeps going off form to post "interesting" and "intelligent" pieces like this one.

Obama, and his liberal media spirit squad, speak of having an "open, honest" dialog on race and racial resentments, hatreds, and paranoias. But Obama has had twenty years to have an open dialog -- but a private one, which is far easier -- with his "friend" Rev. Wright.

Did he have this dialog? He says he disagrees strongly with some of Wright's "controversial political positions." Did he, you know, actually raise these points with Wright?

If he did, his putative skills at "reconciliation" and "healing" seem woefully deficient. This bastard has gone on spreading his noxious racism and hatred of America until his retirement... and then beyond a bit. Obama's going to heal the racial "wounds" of 300 million but he can't get through to his very good "friend"? He can't even get him to tone down his hateful rhetoric, even if he continues to give hatred a safe harbor in his heart?
...
My idea of a truly groundbreaking speech would involve a Cosbyesque riff on some of the real causes of white resentment, starting first and foremost with rampant black criminality and anti-social behavior, and blacks' acceptance of this as not only acceptable but justified -- perhaps even obligatory -- given past and current racial discrimination.

He did not touch on this. He's still pandering to Wright's flock. And it's not just pandering of course; he is required to excuse the black racist, not just out of ideological fervor, but out of personal circumstantial necessity. After all, he was caught in bed with a black racist and anti-American radical, not a white racist. So of course he demands that we "understand" and "forgive" the black racist. He needs us to. His personal fortunes depend on that.

But imagine if he were white and had been caught in a 20 year cynical political alliance with a white racist -- would his calls for "forgiveness" and "understanding," and his maudlin Checkers-style "I cannot renounce him, he's my favorite dog" self-justification carry any weight whatsoever with liberals, the media, or good-hearted conservatives?

Well, it's funny in an unconventional way. And I suppose his use of the word "spirit" could be considered part of the fantasy wargaming genre. But no pictures of hookers. Sigh. Guess I'll have to check in later.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 06:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

Yeah. In Bizarro World. Anyway, the Bard of the Internet types another thought-provoking piece. Excerpt:

From my direct observation, these Christian Fundamentalist churches have all -- every single one -- had congregations composed of all the races. From my auditing of the sermons I have never, not once, heard a message of race hate preached. Neither have I heard race hate promoted in the social meetings after. Not one single time, not even in the whitest of congregations. I have never, not for one instant, felt anything coming from these meetings that is anything other than embracing tolerance and Christian love for mankind. I have never, not for one instant, detected a whiff of bigotry or of anti-Semitism in these gatherings. Being a reformed radical from Berkeley in the 1960s I have keen radar for this sort of thing. Like many of my unreformed cohort I can detect it even when it doesn't exist.
...
What has also become clear to me -- what has been a revelation to me -- in the last week is that you do find racism embedded in some Christian Fundamentalist churches; churches whose congregation is almost strictly African-American. Indeed, scanning the tapes of the Reverend Wright Church that Barack Obama has attended it was difficult for me to find one white member of the congregation. I have, it is true, seen a tape where a white female pastor of another church was brought in to gush over the church, but that seemed to me to be a special occasion; something performed for the cameras.

While I can imagine many parishioners of many of the fundamentalist churches I've attended over the last few years sitting through a lot of sermons on this or that, I cannot imagine a white person sitting through the kind of sermons I've heard coming out of Reverend Wright's mouth -- unless they were overwhelmed with guilt and had a twisted sort of Christ-complex.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 06:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

32 years ago, this nation was forced to choose between Howdy Doody and the liberal wing of the GOP. Faced with the rock and the hard place, many in the nation went a different route altogether, supporting the longshot candidacy of a short, cigar chomping, no nonsense sort of a guy. Okay, maybe "guy" is stretching the truth a bit. It's time for the All Night Party candidate to get down again.

For you poor children too young to remember the campaign, but not old enough to have forgotten this abomination, I offer this little link as backstory to the whole thing. more...

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

So McCain wins Florida and is now the presumptive nominee. Huckabee won't pull out, even though he has less chance of winning than I do, which means he's probably trying for the Veep slot, because his staying in hands the conservative states to McDick. So for the first time in my adult life I'll be free during an election year. Assuming McFuckthefirstamendment wins most of Super Tuesday's delegates, my give-a-shit factor will be in the Fermi-fuckit range, and dropping like a stone.

Kind of sad, because I won't understand the SNL parodies, having not bothered to watch the debates. On the other hand, I won't have to worry about president McCain, so I still call it a win.

Update: Quote of the day comes from Stephen Green:

Now that I think about it, a McCain/Giuliani ticket might be the first Republican ticket without any actual Republicans on it.

What he said.

Update: Interesting comments in this post over at Bill Quick's site. Not mine, as I'm apparently having a tantrum and should be ignored. Also, I'm quite the potty typist. However, this comment is spot and should be read by everyone:

had a friend who was always right. It was infuriating. For example, I wanted to like Jimmy Carter. He was a southerner and a Christian. How bad could he be? Frank said Carter was basically a mean spirited hick. And he was right.

He told me there were two parties in this country, a government party and an antigovernment party. There are Republicans in both. There are very few antigovernment Democrats. This is why a Republican majority in Congress always loses to the government party super majority. He was right in this too.

John McCain is a member of the government party. he will support such things as the fairness doctrine because he believes bloggers and talk radio are corrupt and his friends in Congress are not. He will cheerfully support continued campaign finance reform because he really believes anti-corruption is a more fundamental value than free speech.

It would be a catastrophe for the country to see Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in the White House. I could never vote for them. But McCain shares their membership in the government party. He would be better in the sense of less bad. ThatÂ’s not enough. There must be some minimum standard and McCain doesnÂ’t meet mine.

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, I will vote third party or leave the Presidential selection blank. I am not angry. I do not hate John McCain. I simply cannot vote for him.

Excellent. Now I'll back to flinging poo at the walls.

Update: Excellent discussion/fight over at Rachel Lucas' site. Bill Whittle , someone who I respect greatly, weighs in with several thoughtful posts with which I could not disagree more.

There are plenty of people who think McCain is a fine candidate. I worry about those people, but I know that they exist. However, there seems to be large number of people who think that he's worth nominating because "he can win". Remember Kerry in 2004? How did that work out for the Democrats? In any event, that line of reasoning is flawed because McCain cannot win in the general and you're off your rocker if you think differently. In fact, it's absolutely need more meds and a padded room batshit crazy.

Look, you want to vote for someone because you think they can win, you might as well vote for Hillary or wear a New England Patriots jersey.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.

I didn't actually watch it last night because (a) I had some clothes to fold and (b) we need to get this crap over with. Seriously, this 2008 campaign started back 2001. Just have a nice tall glass of STFU and get on with the voting.

Anyway. Stephen Green livedrunkblogged the event. Some of his comments are quite insightful:

7:14pm To Romney: “Are these other jokers really tax cutters?” Again, Paul got stiffed. Again, Romney appears stiff. You know what bugs me about Romney? If his hair were even only slightly curly, you’d swear he was a Viagra-laced penis. The man is erect.

7:14.5pm Mormon Erectus.
...
7:27pm Once you start to think of Romney as a six-foot-tall erect penis, you just can’t see him any other way. I mean, watch the guy with that in mind and tell me I’m wrong. “We’re the party of fiscal responsibility. Bulging, thrusting fiscal responsibility.”
...
7:44pm The Giant Man Penis has some penetrating insights on China and the economy.
...
7:56pm Giuliani just accused Romney of being too lawyerly. Which is probably true, especially if the lawyer in question is a six-foot man penis.
...
8:31pm The six-foot man-penis is running on his record, and his record is stiffly pro-life and anti-gay. Very stiffly anti-gay. Suspiciously stiffly and handsomely anti-gay.

Good times, good times.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don't know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you aren't already Cheers!

Posted by: pozycjonowanie Rzeszów at February 03, 2013 11:48 AM (AmTGN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If things turn out how I fear they might during this presidential campaign, it will actually prove quite liberating to me because I simply will not care. If [insert Democrat here] squares off against John McCain, I will ignore the process, the debates, the polls and pretty much any news channel until after the first Tuesday in November. My give-a-shit factor will immediately reach the Fermi fuckit range, and it will be dropping like a stone.

You know what? Go ahead: nominate McCain. All that time and energy I would have normally wasted during an election year will be freed up. I can spend more time with my family, or doing odd jobs around the house. Hell, licking clean all of the bathrooms in Grand Central Station would look more appealing than watching the party commit Mac-icide.

Update: Mike at Cold Fury nails it, as usual:

Sure, the current GOP candidates are in fact perfectly “reasonable” choices — for Democrats, mushy-middle Republicans, and other liberals. Conservatives, federalists, and libertarians, you’ll get nothing — and if folks who agree with the Anchoress have their way, you’ll damned well like it, too. Now get back in line and stop sniveling.

Look, contrary to the snide, insulting assertions of “childishness” and “petulance” from the anybody-GOP-will-do crowd, nobody is looking for “perfect,” and nobody expects it, either. What we are looking for is an actual conservative: someone to vote for instead of against. With teh Fred! hanging it up — and nobody ever said he was perfect, either, by the way; his since-recanted support for McCain-Feingold was troublesome, to say the least — the GOP simply does not have one on offer this year.

Since McCain is perfectly willing to countenance disregarding the First Amendment; Romney and Rudy are ditto on the Second; Hucklebee is a perfect storm of anti-Federalist self-contradiction; and all of them have been pro-illegal immigration and amnesty until required politically to do that most awkward of dances, the Politico Flop — I have to wonder: are there any bedrock conservative principles at all that you GOP-firsters aren’t willing to sell out on?
...
But just because the GOP offers up 12 percent less liberal excrement doesnÂ’t mean it isnÂ’t still a shit sandwich. And some of us dislike the taste enough to decline the damned thing when the GOP lifts the cover off the latest steaming pile on the same old tarnished, filthy platter.

Update: Okay, this from Joe is too good not to excerpt:

Perhaps had you Republicans thought about giving your natural base a candidate they could vote for a little sooner, your party wouldnÂ’t be imploding. But go ahead: you geniuses keep right on pandering to the mushy middle, the unprincipled, the undecided. Keep right on ignoring the folks who brought your party back from near extinction in the post-Nixon years. Make sure your candidates donÂ’t try to run a campaign outside the parameters set by your sworn enemies, the media. Use Fred as your object lesson of what happens to candidates who donÂ’t bow at the progressivesÂ’ media altar, and play by the other sideÂ’s rules. Show your ever-dwindling supporters how good little bitches let the other guy set the agenda and frame the issues. And whatever you do, donÂ’t vary the lockstep march down the Iwannabea Dem trail lest the lemmings see the cliff youÂ’re leading them over before you reach it.

YouÂ’ve learned nothing at all from Reagan or the Contract with America. YouÂ’ve been cheek-and-jowl with the Democrats at the taxpayerÂ’s feeding trough for so long now that not only do you look and sound just like them, you want to be them. To paraphrase a great American, I didnÂ’t leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.

And so you bloody fools are going to suffer a historic defeat: worse than Bob DoleÂ’s embarassment, maybe even worse than MondaleÂ’s disgrace. Congratulations, youÂ’ve certainly earned it. Unfortunately, itÂ’s the nation that will pay.

Final update: I've been wasting my time. The ideal presidential candidate is right here. The naysayers have already lined up.

Final update- and this time, I mean it!: I've seen lots of bloggers- who shall remain nameless- accuse me of whining, pouting and being a brat in general because I won't vote for a liberal RINO over a liberal Democrat. They (you know who they are) say that I'm pissed off because I won't get the perfect candidate. Allow to respond fully:

1) I haven't had the opportunity to vote for my ideal candidate once. Ever. And this will be the 7th presidential campaign in which I could legally vote.

2) I don't plan to take my ball and go home. I will vote in the general election, I just won't be voting for McCain or [insert Democrat here]. Third party candidates exist and, your pedanticism notwithstanding, I have the right to vote for whomever I want including, but not limited to, me. My vote won't be wasted, it will simply be used however I see fit.

3) Blow me.

4) Seriously. Fucking blow me, you sanctimonious suckers of big swinging GOP dicks. You want to keep bending over and taking it up the ass while screaming that the other guy/gal is worse, go right ahead. But don't presume to lecture me on how much better the RINO assfuck is than the one the Dems are sure to inflict on me.

5) I need a beer. Guess I'll go home and brew a new batch tonight.

What do you mean, #5 doesn't belong in that list? It's not a perfect list, but it's the only one here. Why are you looking for a perfect list instead of taking what's here?!

I keeded before: Final Update: Via Ace comes this little Ann Coulter nugget:

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 6 kb.

While I certainly understand Beth's position on a possible McCain candidacy versus whatever nutjob the Democrats nominate, I do not share her conclusion that voting for McCain would be the lesser of two evils. From George Will's recent column and McAmnesty:

In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is:

That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others — new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals — would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent — and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.

There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity or efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats.
...

McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.

When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group's issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain's position, with Alito in the majority.

And you want this person to be the standard bearer of the GOP? Crap, this party uber alles mentality is what makes me barf at the current state of the Democratic party. For the record, the GOP is in its current sorry state because of this type of action by voters. As the Republicans have become more and more like Democrats, people have continued to vote for them. There's a word for this: enabling. Now they know that they can take you for granted because hey, the other guy/gal is worse. Well screw that. I will not be party to voting for someone whose signature piece of legislation these last few years is one which curtails my 1st Amendment right. If this country is headed down, we might as well hit bottom sooner rather than later to get the rebuilding underway.

One final thought: here is Ace's comment on the whole Maverick-cide the party seems intent on committing:

Sure, we're aware of that. But we always, in every cycle, have the option of fairly easily winning an election by nominating a virtual Democrat. But we usually don't, because we don't just want our party to own the White House, but our ideas and our policies too.

Update: Bill Hollis left the following comment over at Bill Quick's site:

I think voting the same hacks into office again and again and getting screwed by them again and again is irrational. ItÂ’s certainly not the behavior of a rational adult.

So, by my standards, Mark Martin is not rational. Perhaps calling me and my ilk “infantile” may soothe the cognitive dissonance resulting from his irrationality.

As that Puppy Blending monster would say, indeed.

Update: I should probably make another post at some point, but since this update follows the thread above, I'll be lazy and simply excerpt from Rightwing Sparkle who, by the way, I actually enjoy reading:

Go ahead, hate McCain, Huckabee, or even Romney all you like, but you better dang well vote for them. This is important stuff. Life changing, history changing, nation changing stuff.

So stop whining. Keep fighting for your guy now, but when the nominee is selected, we better all get behind him. If we fail to do that, we fail at our own peril.

Life changing stuff? Like relegating the GOP to permanent minority party status by selling out pretty much all conservative principles? I repeat, this is called enabling. And it's idiotic. Do I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse while the donkeys control the legislative branches? I do not. That's why I won't vote for McCain.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 05:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.

Since everyone else keeps posting who they want to win, I'll offer my opinion: I don't care. I've said since around 2004 that the Hildebeast is the likely winner of the 2008 presidential free for all and, Obama's recent success notwithstanding, I still see her pulling it off. At the very least, I know that the phony, two-faced, ambulance chasing little rat bastard won't become our next president. And what a bunch of far left pandering wish in one hand, shit in the other losers when it comes to energy policy. Won't even consider nuclear power? Not in favor of coal power? Beat the drum of renewables as the answer? While I wish that I lived in the land where fairies and pixes created electricity with moondust and kisses, this is the real world. If this country spent a shitload of money over the next 20 years, we could maybe, just maybe, have 5%-10% of our current national demand created by renewable sources. And maybe we'll have a technological breakthrough which will answer our power prayers a la The Gods Themselves. Until that day, our best bet is to build more nuclear plants. Period. And make use of the almost limitless coal reserves we have by using the newer, cleaner coal plant technology. If you decide against that path, you get to pick which people live and which die during the next big snowstorm. Good luck with that.
Now that I've dispensed with the Democrats, let's look at the GOP:

1) McCain: honorable service to this country, but I wouldn't vote for him if my hair were on fire. That bastardly repeal of the 1st Amendment of which is the proud co-author disqualifies him from the presidency all by itself. Add in his open borders stance, his anti-tax cutting positions and his overall delight in sticking his finger in the eye of conservatives in general makes him a non-starter as a candidate.

2) Huckabee: we already have one of these currently sitting in the Oval Office. A pro life social con who wants to use the powers of the federal government to force his will on you.

3) Rudy: while I respect his anti-crime work and I admire his ability to clean up what I assumed what was an impossible city to govern, you'll have to work to convince me that a pro-choice, big government guy will be the nominee. Think a pro-choice Bush.

4) Romney: a very astute businessman, which I think this country needs. I find his recent conversion on some issues troubling. And his pander to the auto workers in Michigan about the government partnering with the industry to the tune of 20+ billion a year to bring back jobs that, frankly, won't come back, makes me question his sanity. A good tactical position for the campaign perhaps, but I'm sick and tired of candidates promising more of my hard earned money to some group's boondoggle. Truthfully, I don't care about the whole Mormon thing. While I think that Mormonism is pretty kooky, the vast majority of Mormons that I've met are people I would love to have around. So his religion isn't the issue, it's his other positions that are.

5) Paul: I agree with the vast majority of his domestic positions, but I disagree almost entirely with his foreign policy stance. A guy I work with lived in Ron Paul's district and voted for him every time. He agrees with me on Paul's foreign policy. Please, no screeching from Paulbots about how he's the only true savior of this country. And this recent spate of writings that at best were written by someone with Paul's tacit approval kind of make me think that either he or some of his supporters are people that I don't want to be associated with.

6) Fred Thompson: now Fred says lots of things that I agree with, especially his statements concerning federalism. His record pretty much backs up his conservative positions, but he voted in favor of the McCain-Feingold abomination. Maybe he did so because he believed in the crap theory that money was corrupting the political process, but at the end of the day he voted to abridge our right to free speech. This alone makes him damaged goods in my eyes. Yes, he says now that he was mistaken and he might be entirely honest in that statement, but it's a big leap of faith for me.

Where does this shake out? Well, when I took that quiz which matched my answers with presidential hopefuls, my closest match was Tom Tancredo. Looks like my wish won't come true this year. And while I did vote for the Libertarian candidate Browne in 2000, it looks like the national party has decided that nominating kooks is its best bet to to grow. I think they choose poorly. In any event, I will vote in the primaries here in Virginia -a recent development, as we used to have caucuses(cauci?)- and in the general next November. I just don't for whom I'll be voting. The reality is that I don't think it matters as I believe that the country's electorate has decided to do a swam dive into the abyss this year.

By the way, here's the complete quotation from Asimov's book: "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." I think that that, in a nutshell, describes perfectly this election season.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 905 words, total size 5 kb.

I don't normally link to the brain fart that Batshit Crazy< Balloon Juice has become, but every now and then I want to see what the asylum inmates are writing. Today I saw this:

If the Peter Principle were true, George Bush and Bill Kristol would be the street-cleaner and dogcatcher in Crawford, Texas.

Now I have no real use for Bill Kristol and I don't think Bush has been a good president at all, but this level of idiotic, hyperbolic bit of asshattery masquerading as "analysis" provided me with an opportunity to help another blogger say what he really meant to say:

If the Peter Principle were true, I [John Cole] would be licking clean all of the toilets at Grand Central Station.

Now it's fixed. No need to thank me. But the next time you dive head first into a cesspool, it's best not to open your mouth to scream for help.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 02:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Vox's site, I left a comment about what I see are the obvious flaws of the current crop of presidential hopefuls. My final thought was somewhat snarky in nature, but then I thought it through:

• I was born in this country
  
• I'm 35+ years in age.
  
• I've never been convicted of any crime, let alone a felony
  

And I've watched the West Wing and 24 on television, which means that I've absorbed presidential gravitas by osmosis. I'm hereby announcing my candidacy for president. It'll have to be as a write-in candidate, because I don't want to spend any actual money. I realize that Iowahawk's campaign got an earlier start, but frankly, I think that I'd be better for the job. Besides, that Burge dude ignored my request for a cabinet position. Not that I'm bitter, of course. In any event, my stupid, futile and pointless quest for Oval Office is now officially launched. PHYSICS GEEK 2008. Motto: brew and drink your own beer, earn and spend your own money, and kick DC in the gonads.

I eagerly await the returns on election night. Just think how great it will be to see all of the talking heads go WTF?! on every freaking channel.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Criminal lies about address and moves in with family. This move is enforced by a judge.

I lied. I do have a comment to make:

Wrap your mind around the sublime idiocy of what's inside that article. Someone asked a criminal where he lived and he spouted off an address. No one bothered to check if the criminal was lying. Now he's living in the house of a family with a teenage daughter. This lodging is being enforced by the courts. Were I in this situation, I'd lock the asshole outside and tell the judge to go provide himself with some special self loving.

Actually, I think it's a great idea. There are some wealthy people living in the Richmond area. If I end up in court, I'll give one of their addresses as my own. I need to be smart about it though and make certain that the family I move in with has a butler. I obviously can't be expected to fend for myself.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been as tough on Hugh Hewitt as anyone when it comes to what I see as his relentless shilling for the old vanguard GOP types and Mitt Romney. To be fair, I actually like Mitt and understand why you want to pump up your candidate, but when it turns into hero worship, it becomes downright creepy. Anyway, Iowahawk pummeled Hugh in the usual fashion. HH, to his credit, linked to the, umm, parody.

I'll be honest: I thought that Iowahawk had merely transcribed Hugh's former post, but I'll assume that it's a little more over the top than the original.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.