damnum absque injuria

November 6, 2007

1,099 Days Late and $20 Million Short

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:10 pm

Move over, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and say hello to the the Swift Boat Veteran Against Truth.

UPDATE: McQ and Pseudo-Patterico are equally impressed.

January 30, 2005

Mikey Likey

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 1:24 pm

It’s about three months late, but it seems Michael Williams can finally claim total vindication. Today, on Meet the [de]Press[ed], John Kerry advised Tim Russert that he didn’t really do that badly in an election in which he really should have gotten trounced. When asked if his last-minute endorsement from Osama bin Laden had played a role in the election, Kerry replied:

I believe that 9/11 was the central deciding issue in this race. And the tape — we were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday. I think it had an impact. But 9/11, you know, it’s a very difficult hurdle when a country is at war. I applauded the president’s leadership in the days immediately afterwards. I thought he did a good job in that, and he obviously connected to the American people in those immediate days. When a country is at war and in the wake of 9/11, it’s very difficult to shift horses in midstream. I think it’s remarkable we came as close as we did as a campaign. Many Republicans say we beat their models by four or five points as to what they thought we could achieve.

Kerry further elaborated about how although he lost both the electoral vote and the “popular vote,” he did win the popular vote among battleground states, and therefore would have won the electoral vote if only those votes had been distributed differently. He then explained that if only has aunt had had balls, she’d be his uncle.

November 5, 2004

Four Eight More Years!

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:57 pm

Matthew Hoy has a brilliant idea: let’s concede the barking moonbats’ argument that George W. Bush wasn’t properly elected in either 2000 or 2004. That way, we can re-re-select him in 2008. I mean, it’s only fair. FDR pulled this crap on us in 1940 and again in 1944. We had to get him back eventually.

What Possessed You to Vote for Bush?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:42 pm

If you’re one of those 58 million knuckle-dragging ‘Mercuns who helped re-elect Chimpy McSmirk, the BBC would like to know why. Here’s what I told ‘em:

(more…)

November 3, 2004

Election Post-Mortem

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:23 am

Michael’s prediction was wrong. Kerry didn’t beat the spread, after all. My predictions were mostly right, even down to the point of knowing the outcome of 47 states last night. OK, so maybe we knew the outcomes of all 50, but the networks and the Kedwards campaign didn’t, so that’s all that matters. I was wrong about both 60 and 62 passing, however. The actual outcome was a bit more sensible, with 60 passing 67.3% to 32.7%, and 62 failing 45.7% to 54.3%. Still, that means 21.6% of the electorate are complete idiots. If only we could disenfranchise them, President Bush might well have carried the state.

Regarding the national election, I’d urge all conservatives to resist the temptation to gloat. I know it feels good to do it, but it’s bad form. If you have a liberal friend or coworker who is down in the dumps, don’t kick him when he’s down or get in his face saying “nyah, nyah.” Be a compassionate conservative, and send him a sympathy card, instead.

Kerry’s career is done, and Edwards’s may well be, also. I think it’s about time to retire at least one John, if not both, to the political graveyard. Fortunately, some guy in Montreal saw this coming and prepared his headstone in advance. The headstone reads:

John:
Free your body and soul
Unfold your powerful wings
Climb up the highest mountains
Kick your feet up in the air
You may now live forever
Or return to this earth
Unless you feel good where you are!

Missed by your friends

November 1, 2004

Election Predictions

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:29 pm

Here are my tentative predictions for the November 2, 2004 election.

  1. Both Propositions 60 and 62 will pass, thereby proving once and for all that half the world’s population is indeed stupider than average.
  2. Proposition 64 will pass, thereby ending the plaintiff lawyers’ reign of terror.
  3. Proposition 66 will fail, barely, just like Proposition 15 did in 1982, and for basically the same reason: everyone supported it until they finally figured out what it was actually going to do. [UPDATE: Alternative scenario: it has passed already due to early and absentee voting, but FWIW, will still fail by a slight margin among those who actually cast their votes tomorrow.]
  4. Proposition 71 will pass, causing us to spend even more money we don’t have. Oh joy.
  5. By midnight, Pacific time, we’ll know who won at least 47 states.
  6. It won’t be Mickey Mouse, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader or Jack Bauer.
  7. Bill Jones’s Senate campaign will fare marginally better than Michael Badnarik’s run for President.
  8. Approximately one week after the election, we will learn that Karl Rove had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden’s endorsement of John Kerry, but did play a substantial role in arranging for Walter Cronkite to claim that he did.

Yes on 2

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:53 pm

No, not in California, sillybuns. In Michigan. Or, if you’re in Ohio, try #1 instead.

Dean Esmay [actually, both Esmays, but for reasons that will soon become obvious, I’m just picking on Dean right now] urges his fellow Michiganders to vote no on Proposal 04-2, a ballot initiative that would define marriage as … well, marriage. Esmay then links to the dishonestly-named “Coalition For A Fair Michigan” and the list of their seldom-asked, loaded questions known as “frequently asked” questions. Of course the Fairness people, being all about fairness, are much too fair to actually quote anything as potentially misleading as the goddamned intitiative itself, which is an easy read:

“The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

This language is slighly broader than California’s DOMA law, Family Code 308.5, which provides merely that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Whether that’s a good or bad thing is a matter of reasonable debate. If, on the one hand, you happen to like California’s domestic partnership law, which drives four of Arnold’s Hummers through the huge loophole in 308.5 (as interpreted by the courts thus far), then you’ll probably take the position that Michigan’s version of DOMA goes too far. If, on the other hand, you are rather annoyed to see the California Legislature act in such blatant disregard of the clear intent of its own laws, then you might agree that it could stand a little tightening, in which case Proposal 2 is just the ticket.

Granted, for those who support gay marriage, and who don’t mind seeing it done by judicial fiat rather than by actual legislation, it does make sense to vote down Proposal 2. That would be a fair argument in itself, but alas, it’s not one the “fairness” people raise. Let’s take a look at a couple of their sillier arguments:

Proposal 2 is poorly written and just goes too far.

It would ban any form of civil unions or domestic partnerships and take away benefits that people have enjoyed for years, like health care, retirement, and prescription benefits.

In fact, as you can see, it’s written pretty cleanly, and unlike the convoluted Fairness arguments against it, it’s short and to the point. As to the notion that it “just goes too far,” would anyone care to take any bets as to how many of these Fairness Freaks would support a tighter, more scaled down version of Proposal 2? Is there any version that would protect Michigan’s definition of marriage against judicial activists, yet would not “go too far?” Maybe, but I doubt it.

Proposal 2 affects straight and gay Michiganders alike.

Huh? If that heading were Minnie Mouse, and I were Mickey, it would be grounds for divorce. Bonus points to the first commenter who can explain why. For anyone else, suffice it to say, it’s nuts.

Proposal 2 does not distinguish between types of unmarried couples, and would prohibit ANY legal recognition of or benefit to unmarried partners.

Translated: not only would Proposal 2 prohibit Michigan courts from inventing a new “right” to gay marriage a la Hawaii/Vermont/Massachusetts, it would also prohibit them from inventing some other brand new version of marriage no court has ever considered. Remember that when you head to the polls tomorrow: not only will Proposal 2 prohibit you from marrying a member of your own sex, it will also prohibit you from marrying your brother, your sister, your dog, a bowl of poi, or any other bizarre hypothetical version of a “marriage” some wacky court might theoretically come up with. And that’s a reason to vote against Proposal 2?

Whether we are talking about a a man and woman in Kalamazoo who are engaged to be wed, a gay couple in Lansing, or an elderly widow and widower in Detroit who do not plan to marry due to the effect it would have on their retirement benefits, all unmarried couples would be treated the same by Proposal 2.

Which is, in the case of all except maybe the gay couple in Lansing, exactly the same treatment they get under Michigan law now. Actually, that’s not quite true, as the elderly couple in Detroit may qualify for common law marriage, which is not affected by Proposal 2 one way or the other.

Who is the Coalition for a Fair Michigan?

The Coalition for a Fair Michigan (CFM) is a diverse group of organizations, leaders and voters around the state that have joined together to defeat the extreme and far-reaching proposed amendment to the Michigan constitution known as Proposal 2. CFM is registered as a Ballot Question Committee with the State of Michigan.

So friggin’ diverse, in otherwise, that we won’t tell you who we are. Let’s just say that a Google search for their name turns up a list of of organizations who are anything but diverse.

These Fairness guys are choads. Even if you support gay marriage, you should vote yes on Proposal 2 just to spite them.

(more…)

Hedgehogs for Bush?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:37 pm

Yesterday, Dog Trainer staff writer Ron Brownstein likened George W. Bush to a hedgehog. Specifically, Brownstein writes:

Half a century ago, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously separated intellectuals and artists into two categories: the fox, who is clever, creative, committed to many goals; and the hedgehog, a creature driven by a single unwavering conviction. By Berlin’s standards, Bush has produced one of the purest examples of a hedgehog presidency.

With his repeated tax cuts, his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the war in Iraq, Bush has consistently pursued goals that generate strong support among Republicans and conservatives, but at the price of provoking antipathy among Democrats and liberals.

There are only two problems with the notion that Bush has governed like one of Berlin’s hedgehogs. First, he hasn’t. Second, the hedgehog analogy wasn’t Berlin’s. Other than that, though, the analogy is spot on.

Thanks to alert readers Merv Benson (Prairie Pundit) and Michael Zorn for the tip.

October 31, 2004

Kerry and NBC Dumber Than Dumbya

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:33 pm

For months, John Kerry has been claiming his military records – all of them, not just the cherry-picked ones on his web site – had been made public. Then, last Thursday, in a vain effort to rebuff charges that George Bush has a higher IQ than he does, Kerry admitted to Tom Brokaw that his military records weren’t public after all.

Now, Captain Ed reports that this part of the interview has been quietly excised from the Dateline transcript. Right now the old version is still up, so in case one hand figures out what the other has been doing, here’s the semi-excised portion:

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

Questions for Prop 66 Supporters

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 2:30 pm

If you support Prop 66 because you think it will release only minor, nonviolent offenders, do you know something all 58 D.A.s don’t know?

If you support Prop 66 because it will save taxpayers money, do you know something the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association doesn’t know?

UPDATE: Here’s a question for all readers, regardless of where you stand on Prop 66: has my constant harping on the issue had any impact on your views on the matter?

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.