More on the media shitstorm surrounding Barack Obama and his orange-juice prefering, Yeungling-swilling, non-bowling ass, from Hunter at DailyKos:

Very well; I give up. If, as the Reuters correspondent declares, common America has no hope of identifying with someone getting a poor bowling score, then the answer seems obvious. We must quantify how much "connection with the voters" is possible, given a particular score in the sport: this will then allow us to wallow freely in our own idiocy, not bothering the pitiable higher-ups of government or the press with our incessant demands for any more substantive information or knowledge. I therefore suggest the following crude measures of a man, so that the people of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre will not be left in cruel emotional limbo, unable to find an emotional bond with their candidates.

A score of 100 should be the minimum: if a candidate can bowl over 100, after practicing for a week, that signifies that they have the minimal personal integrity worthy of office. They are suitable for heading a lesser government agency, or an ambassadorship.

If a candidate can top 150, they show true intellect, and are worthy of at least a cabinet position. 170 indicates fortitude in the face of adversity, indicating perhaps a position in the defense department is in order. 180 signifies that their tax returns are in order.

If a candidate achieves a score over 200, that means that they are faithful to their spouse. A score over 220 furthermore indicates a loving relationship, and not just a marriage of convenience. A score over 225 signals that they have the love of their children as well, and that their children are free of drugs or unfortunate homosexual tendencies.

A bowling score of 240 or above shows a candidate as capable of leadership. It also testifies to a good relationship between with their God; the presidency may be viable. 250, the typical score of devout Protestants, cinches the deal, indicating God loves them back. A second term may be in order.

A score of 260 indicates competent fiscal management abilities; if they achieve this score on a league night, managerial competence is also likely. Bowling an impressive 270 is a sign of great foreign policy capabilities, possibly including past war hero status. At 280, you can expect a balanced budged to be achieved, as well as at least one great speech about the evils of communism.

A score of 290 will win a war, probably without a nuclear exchange.

And what of the perfect game, the elusive 300? Ah, my children, that indeed shows true greatness. In the entire history of the Republic, only one President has been a 300 bowler: none other than the Emancipator, the great Abraham Lincoln himself.

Because it was Abraham Lincoln's hard-fought perfect game, achieved in the dead of one cold and bitter winter's night, that allowed him to free the slaves.

Kennedy must have had one inconsistent game.

-pb

Well, I just can't vote for Obama now. That elitist prick prefers orange juice to coffee*!

Of course, you know what this means - Barack Obama prefers O.J., a guy who (despite a botched prosecution) brutally murdered his ex wife and her boyfriend. Instead of denouncing O.J., Obama has embraced him - nay - literally drank him up, pulp and all! First Farrakhan, and now O.J.? What's next!? This is the guy who thinks that I'm bitter because Washington has been screwing me economically for the past, oh, forever. How out of touch is he? I'm a ball of sunshine because the economy is literally shitting rainbows all over me. True story. Barack Obama - wrong on breakfast drinks that share initials with a black guy who probably knifed two people to death, wrong on the economics of rainbow turds, obviously wrong for America.

Up Next: John McCain, he's the greatest! (Even though he launched into a red-faced, profanity laden tirade while beating our intern to death because he was provided with a chair was an inch too short. Skip probably deserved it, though!)


-pb

*offer not valid in Florida, where this is probably a selling point.

Why, in every presidential cycle that I can remember, does every news outlet get all nuts over the fact that Candidate A is related to Candidate B and French King C and Author D? John McCain is Laura Bush's sixth cousin! Barack Obama is related to Brad Pitt, and Hillary Clinton is related to Angelina Jolie! THEY'RE PRACTICALLY COMMITTING INCEST BY BEING IN THE SAME STATE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!! ALERT THE MEDIA!

-pb

CNN is apparently looking for a web copy editor.

Headline: "Five hurt Iin mall blast"

From an article: "Bloomberg, a former Republican who become an independent while in office..."

Concerning that article: "Bloomberg passes on White House run." More News From the Past We're Just Getting Around to Reporting®™. I know there's been speculation that Bloomberg will run, even though he has not made any sort of statement that he intends to since he said this to Dan Rather in August:

Rather: Well, let’s get it out of the way. Are you running for President?

Bloomberg: No.

Rather: Are you going to run for President?

Bloomberg: No.

Rather: Any circumstances in which you would?

Bloomberg: Oh, I don’t know. Any — the answer — if I don’t say no categorically you’ll then read something into it. The answer is no.

So, why is his repeated denial of a run newsworthy? It'd be like them writing an entire article about Al Gore coming out and saying he hasn't ruled out a run, but he's not planning on it. When I was in Third Grade, we had a saying: NO DUH.

-pb

Economy, War To Dominate State of Union

Blah blah, State of the Union, blah blah...

Wait, what's that in the second paragraph? (emphasis mine)

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

"Probably final?" WHAT DO YOU MEAN "PROBABLY FINAL?"

-pb

So, the eventuality that I discussed in my last post is apparently going to become official later today. Richardson is dropping out after posting distant fourth place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Never mind the fact that this further underscores the ridiculousness of our primary system. "Less than 2% of the country didn't get on board with my campaign! Well, that pretty much wraps it up!"

So, who's next? One of two things happened in New Hampshire: Clinton* got a massive boost from getting all teary over some insults, or the media had a combined clusterfuck in terms of interpreting the polling and actually going after real numbers.

I'll take media clusterfuck for $1000, Alex. The media (like, all of the media) took the numbers that suggested that independents were going to break for Obama and ran with it. That led to the notion that Obama had broken open an 8-10% lead over Clinton, and McCain was only leading Romney by about 2%. When the real poll came back, the numbers were practically opposite. Conspiracy theories aside, there were actually some polls that suggested that Obama's hard numbers were right on the money and others that suggested that independents might break for Clinton or McCain, which apparently they did.

So, what does this all mean? It means that this is still a three-way race. Clinton's hoping for some massive success on Ultra-Bonzo-Loco-Habanero-Chalupa Tuesday, but Obama is nowhere near out of the race. Coming in second by about 2% Yeah, that's not particularly bad. Edwards, however, needs some serious karma heading his way to convince people that he's still able to play, and that might come in the form of a South Carolina win.

The way I see things happening, Obama will nudge Clinton in Nevada, Edwards will win in South Carolina, but it won't really help. He'll continue to trail while Obama and Clinton dogfight across the country. Edwards will then get to play kingmaker - He'll either bow out before the convention and endorse (I would assume Obama, and get to be VP candidate again), or he'll go to the convention keeping enough delegates from either Obama or Clinton to lock the nomination... and then the real fun will begin.

Anyone watch the last season of The West Wing?

-pb

* I'm not going to call her "Hillary" any more because can be realistically assumed that anyone reading this knows that I'm not referring to Bill Clinton, so calling her by her first name is just stupid. It's a bit disrespectful, as well, to be referring to a Presidential candidate in non-friendly terms by her first name - just like I don't call Barack Obama or John Edwards by their first names.

You should all know by now that I trust the so-called "mainstream" news media to report accurately about as much as I trust the Bush administration to do the right thing... on anything.

You should also know that I think Mitt Romney (and his Republican opponents) are all despicable people. All of them.

And, you should know that I think that people who can't write proper English, even though it's their native tongue (especially those who fancy themselves media outlets), should be flogged.

This post will address all of those issues.

So, Mitt Romney gave a speech yesterday that he'd like you to believe was akin to John F. Kennedy's "I AM NAWT BEHOLDEN TO THE POPE" speech. It wasn't. He wants everyone who didn't hear the speech to think that he gave some massive statement about how he's a Mormon, but everyone should be cool with that because he's not going to answer to Salt Lake City when it comes to Presidenting. He didn't.

Here's what he said about it:

If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect respecters -- excuse me -- believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God.

I highlighted "Mormon," because that's the only part of the speech where the word appears. A speech about being Mormon. Now, taken out of the context of the rest of the speech, these are some pretty words. But...

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Wait, I thought we were talking about how you're a Mormon? But, it gets better. Romney lands his space-ship in Wackyjobland and flashes the correct gang-signs:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

DANGER WILL FUCKING ROBINSON! DANGER! FUNDIE WHACKJOB IS GOING TO RAPE YOU!

If you don't understand my reaction, uh, I can't help you.

The Media, predictably, reports as Romney likes:

Ann Romney made two campaign stops in Las Vegas Thursday night, telling crowds that the address husband Mitt Romney gave earlier in the day on the role of religion in America and his Mormon faith was a “historic moment.”

First off, this speech wasn't really about his Mormon faith. It was about how he agrees with paying lip service to the Constitution and installing a theocracy. But the real tragedy of the article is this:

a “historic moment.”

BUY A FUCKING EDITOR.

-pb

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination. At the outset of the campaign, he was an also-ran with no name recognition and no real prospects of making a blip behind the combined names of Giuliani, Romney, McCain and the specter of a Thompson candidacy. Huckabee was lumped in with the likes of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Ron Paul out on the media-void fringe.

However, Republicans don't seem very happy with the top tier. McCain imploded early, and while he's gained back some ground, he's nowhere near the heir apparent to the Republican throne. Romney is still laboring under the "Mormon from Mass" label and his record that he's been desperately running away from since the campaign began. Thompson hasn't made a significant splash, despite high expectations. He looks like McCain. And Giuliani, the front runner, has just barely managed to keep the lead with his constant repetition of (to quote Joe Biden) "a noun, a verb, and 9/11." He's still dodging his pro-choice, pro-gay rights, thrice-divorced credentials. The evangelical right is no where near convinced that he's the guy, and they're making noise to suggest that they might bolt the party if he is the guy.

So, back to Mike Huckabee. He was essentially a backwater candidate. However, he's been tenacious. He's reached out to evangelicals by touting his record as "one of them." Now that the election season is in force, they're starting to listen.

Huckabee came in second in the Iowa Straw Poll behind Romney this past August. Granted, Giuliani and McCain skipped it, but Huckabee's placement was surprising. He's continued to move up the national standings as January looms, but in Iowa, there's talk now that he might actually come in first there. The further national exposure and the perception of winning would likely give him a boost among Republicans allowing him to roll into Super Tuesday where the Southern states are likely to give Romney and Giuliani a huge stumbling block. That could well be Huckabee's chance to shine.

So, why should you be afraid of Mike Huckabee? He's a right-wing fundamentalist, and that defines his campaign. If that doesn't scare you, well, I can't help you. But, all the Republican candidates are like that. Why should Huckabee be any more frightening?

Two words: Chuck Norris.



Huckabee picked up an endorsement from Chuck Norris and did two things that Democrats are scared shitless of doing: 1) was seen in the same time zone as anyone who has ever been in a movie and 2) was funny.

Most people don't know this, but Chuck Norris makes Sean Hannity look like a centrist. He's out there in whackyjob land. He thinks we need to homeschool all children, which could conceivably be accomplished if we just accepted that America is a Christian Nation and women should just stay home. But, like I said, most people don't know that. The most that people actually know about Chuck Norris is that he was Walker, Texas Ranger, and his tears cure cancer (too bad he doesn't cry - ever). Which is exactly what Huckabee plays on in this ad. This ad speaks to Republicans, but replace one line (the part about being a conservative), and it's ready for the national spotlight. People aren't going to be looking to see what kind of politics Chuck Norris espouses, they're just going to see Mike Huckabee standing next to Chuck Norris, telling Chuck Norris jokes and talking about how he's going to put the IRS out of business. The center is going to eat that up. Hillary Clinton is going to look positively shrill compared to that. Even Barack Obama, Mr. Serious With No Tie, is going to come off as stiff compared to a guy who said "there's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, just another fist."

Democrats have bought into the right-wing noise machine assertion that they're completely controlled by their Hollywood masters, that they get policy direction from George Soros and Michael Moore. Because of that, no Democrat would even dream of appearing in an ad with an actor, even for the primaries. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that Republicans can say whatever they want in the primary to win the base and then roll on into the general and speak like a rational human being, but when Democrats play to their base, they get torn apart with those words in the general.

So, Huckabee is playing both sides of that coin. He's getting the watchwords out to the base using Chuck Norris, but in the general, the presentation is going to outweigh the message.

And that's why you should be scared of Mike Huckabee. Because even though the points in that ad make my skin crawl, I thought that this ad was fucking brilliant.

-pb

THE WAR PARTY - Ted Rall

Ted Rall tells it like it is, which is, incidentally, something I've been very annoyed about. Democrats are whining about how they can't stop the war because Republicans won't help them override Bush's expected veto. The truth is, if they didn't give Bush a defense budget to veto, they wouldn't have to override it. They'd just have to sit back, wait for the Pentagon to run out of war funding, and then bring the troops home on their own. Republicans like to spin it that Democrats attempting that would be leaving troops sitting in the field with no bullets, but all they're really doing is giving the Dems political cover. "We CAAAAAAAN'T end the war because Republicans won't let us! We have to fund the troops, timetable or not!" Bullshit. What Dems really want is to drag this fucker out until 2008, so they can batter the Republicans with the idea that we're still in Iraq because they wouldn't help bring the troops home.

Newflash: Democrats are extending the war be not cutting off the funding. They're in control. All Harry Reid has to do is say "Nope, we don't have time to work on your defense spending bill."

And, as Rall points out, the media is perpetuating the lie that their hands are tied.

-pb

Dear Marketplace,

So, as I'm cruising along on my way to work this morning, I hear your report about hybrid SUVs that says that my Prius gets great gas mileage in the city, but drops off sharply on the highway. So, I double check with my Prius' mileage display to see if I am, in fact, getting worse mileage than the 51mpg highway that I was told I would be getting. Sure enough, I'm not! I'm actually getting over 55 miles per gallon. I guess I won’t complain.

So what's this about the hybrid Tahoe being able to use its electric motor on the highway? Not exactly a novel concept, as I switch screens to see my electric motor helping my gas engine get up a hill, and then start recharging as I head down the other side.

Your story made it sound like a hybrid Tahoe would be, mileage-wise, superior to (or at least on par with) the Prius. I get 55mpg highway, average, and my daily driving is almost 90% highway (66 miles round trip, 59 of that at a constant 55MPH). Even with a 40% increase in mileage for the Tahoe, that's still less than 30mpg highway, over 20mpg less than the Prius is advertised at. Even for Prius owners who do 80mph and wonder why they're not getting the advertised mileage, their average of 40-45mpg is still far superior to GM's proposed Tahoe.

And please let's not forget that the size of these giant SUVs makes them near impossible to see around, accounting for them taking up an estimated 1.4 car lengths in traffic. That increase in city mileage might be great for the Tahoe, but it's not doing anyone else's mileage any favors... except that is, Prius drivers.

-pb

I am ever fearless in the face of lunacy:

Paul,
Thanks for writing. You should be able to comment on Stan's Blog.
Here's my point with the 4 percent tax on food versus the 1.5 percent increase in the wage tax. I won't have a choice with the 1.5 percent. It will be taken out of my paycheck like clock work. I will, however, have a choice with the 4 percent tax on food. I can put back the bag of chips or the six pack of soda. If you subtract the 1.5 from the 4 we're talking about only a 2.5 percent increase in the food tax. There are a lot of different ways to slice up the numbers.
Stan

So cordial, Stan! Maybe he should just choose to not eat? I respond:

Stan,

You didn’t post this to your blog, so I couldn’t comment there.

As for your “choice”? Choose to spend less on food? My wife just came back from the store – shopping for the week – and spent $65. That’s for two people. That’s working under a single income (my wife is a Master’s student at Penn). That’s being extremely frugal. That’s shopping in bulk at BJs. That’s clipping coupons. Two people, $65, and let’s call that a baseline. But it doesn’t matter. Even if we spent $2 a week on food, your proposed tax increase still costs us two weeks more in food than we’re currently spending. How about this, Stan. How about you “chose” to simply make less money? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about your wage tax increase. Pretty simple, right?

-pb

As a follow-up to my last post, I decided to send yet another shot across Herr Huskey's bow, and fired him off this letter:

Hi Stan,

We’ve been down this road before, but since you’ve taken away commenting on your site, I’m left with simply emailing you and hoping beyond hope that my views are aired. Out of your latest missive concerning Act 1, I found a point that’s either an error in logic or an out-and-out diversion:

“If we put a 4-percent sales tax on food we could all but wipe out the property tax.

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.”

Ludicrous, indeed? Four dollars doesn’t seem like much to you (or even most people), but it’s not just four dollars, is it? Let’s say someone spends $100/week to feed their family. My wife and I, without children, can come close to that. Even though we tend to be thrifty shoppers, we’ve both got dietary restrictions that tend to limit us to more expensive alternatives (one of these ‘restrictions’ is a simple desire to eat healthy, which is not cheap). Regardless, let’s go with the $100/week number because it’s nice and round and very accurately illustrates my point. As I was saying, it’s not just four dollars. Over the course of a month, it’s $16. Over the course of a year, that added 4% turns into over $200. So, under your plan, people wind up paying for two weeks more food every year than they actually bring home. Whatever numbers you plug into that equation, you get the same statistics: Your four percent increase costs people two weeks of food every year. Two weeks of meals, just so you can eliminate property taxes.

I’d rather shoulder a greater part of the burden myself than reducing the buying power of those who can least afford it, especially on necessities. But, I guess that’s what separates us.

-pb

Stan Huskey hates poor people. We've pretty much determined that. But, just for the record, here's his justification for proposing a 4% sales tax on food:

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.

Ludicrous? Let's think about that.

Say you spend $100/week on food for your family. Add 4% to that. Ok, $104/week. How's that look for the year? $5,200 vs $5,408. Over the course of a year, you'd have spent your weekly budget on food 54 times instead of 52. Or, your money goes to feed your family two weeks less per year under Anti-Poor Stan's brilliant plan. Way to go, Stan. Advocating eliminating your property taxes in favor of starving the poor.

-pb

From the letters section of The Morning Call:

Image of abortion is being manipulated

Regarding the May 1 op-ed column by Russell Frank, which said, "Our kids are not going to remember what Seung-Hui Cho said. They're going to remember how he looked with those weapons in his hands. And what some of them will remember, I fear, is that he looked cool":

Was this like the way The Morning Call and the media make abortion look cool? The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often. The concept of "a woman's mental health" is used and not one word is ever printed about the mental health women suffer after abortion.


If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice. It has distorted the truth by printing op-ed columns like "Will court threaten Jewish view of abortion?" by Jonathan Gerard on April 25. Where are we to find spokespersons who will be a voice for the anger, the frustration and the distrust we feel?

Jane Varra

Allentown

To which I responded:

"The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often."

Yeah, that's because that's what it is. Maybe the Morning Call should stop using language like "a woman's right to vote" or "a woman's right to not be owned by her husband".

"If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice."

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that "conservatives" (up until recently) controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the legislatures of a majority of states, the governor's mansions of a majority of states, the broadcast rights to every major network, and the political dialog of this nation. With all that control, they stopped the open discussion of oppsing ideas and policies, labeled the opposition as "liberal", called anyone who had a differing opinion "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", and handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged, and hog-tied the moderate voice.

Not that I'm agreeing with your sentiment that the Morning Call is "liberal", but since you seem to think that it is... how does it feel?

-pb

So, unless you've been living under a rock, you know about the shit-hurricane that blew through the campus of Virginia Tech two days ago. Nothing like a spree-killing to whip the media into a giant circle-jerking frenzy. One dead! 22 dead! NINE MILLION DEAD! Hitler was there! It was terrorists! 30 dead! I've been having an affair with Anderson Cooper! Fifteen shooters! Jesus is coming back! 33 dead! We actually have no real information!

Allow me to recap the official toll:

33 people died, 29 were wounded.

Let me repeat: 33 people. Remember that.

What happened on the campus of Virginia Tech was, to put it mildly, a horrific, tragic event wherein 33 people were killed in what can best be described as the complete meltdown of a human being. 33 people.

Over the next weeks and months, there's going to be an epic amount of news coverage of this event. Every media outlet in America is going to try to find that tasty morsel to feed to the millions of people who are going to be glued to their TV sets, begging like starving dogs. "Tell us more about the heroic Holocaust survivor who gave his life for his students! Tell us who he was, but more importantly, TELL US WHAT BRAND OF SHOES HE WORE!" And the media? They're going to find out for you. Want to know about how the investigative hearings on Extraordinary Rendition went? Go ask The Guardian, you pinko.

Now that actual facts are being provided and the media is forced to speculate about mere intangibles (was he gay? was he ordered to kill by Hillary Clinton? Did Anderson Cooper do it?), I've noticed that even with a solid death toll, the media can't get its story straight. One common thread you're going to notice is that Cho Seung-hui wasn't actually human. No one will bother to explain exactly what he was, but they're all going to subconciously agree and tell you that he wasn't human.

So, when NPR says that "32 people were killed. The gunman took his own life", what they are saying is that Cho Seung-hui doesn't count as "people". Not human. And when KYW says "32 died", what they are saying is that "32 people were mysteriously killed by bullets that materialized out of thin air". Because, according to them, Cho Seung-hui doesn't even register as a thing. Certainly not human.

So, allow me to open myself up to being accused of defending the guilty:

Cho Seung-hui was a human being. He was a son and a brother. He was, as much as the 32 people he killed, a victim of this terrible rampage. Just because he was the one who carried it out doesn't make him less a victim. All 33 people killed on the Virginia Tech campus died because something inside Cho Seung-hui went horribly wrong. If it hadn't, they'd still be alive. he'd still be alive.

Was he a disturbed individual? Yes, a lot of evidence is coming out to support that. Of course, all I needed was "Gunman mows down 32 people before killing himself" to tell you that he was a highly disturbed individual. Sane, healthy people don't do shit like that. Cho Seung-hui was broken. He was sick. He was a human being. Given a long enough timeline and no accidents, ever one of us will experience the unpleasant consequences of having our bodies rebel against us fatally. Cho Seung-hui did, but instead of cancer or a heart attack, his brain scrambled itself and he took a bunch of people with his when he went.

There's going to be a lot of posturing over this incident. It's started already: Gun control advocates are screaming about how tighter measures could have prevented this. Gun rights activists are screaming that if just one person had been packing a concealed weapon, the death toll would have been lower. Bullshit.

More guns wasn't going to stop this. Less guns weren't going to stop this either. This was a car accident on a crowded highway caused by one car's axle snapping at 90mph. It was an uncontrolled event. You don't stop it. You don't plan for it. The nature of random acts like this is that they are random. You don't see it coming. Even if you think you did afterwards, you really didn't.

In 1984, a man named James Oliver Huberty walked into a McDonalds in San Diego and just started killing people. No warning, he just snapped and took a bunch of people with him. Same thing happened at a Luby's in Killeen, Texas in 1991. George Hennard plowed his truck through the front window, got out, and just started blazing away.

People are machines. Extraordinarily complex, yes, but still machines. They malfunction. Rarely, they malfunction in the most spectacular and violent ways, and the consequences can be outrageously tragic. But it doesn't make them less human. It should serve to remind us of two things: 1, we're all flawed. 2, you can't predict these things.

I know that right now, a co-worker could snap and just start stalking though the halls shooting anyone that moves. Does it worry me? No. I don't live my life with that fear. I could be killed on the Turnpike on my way home. I could drop dead of a heart attack on the stairs. I can't plan for that, and I can't stop it if it happens. So, I live my life with that in mind. Not the fear of it, just the knowledge that this might be it, so I'd better make what time I have left worthwhile.

Cho Seung-hui was a human being. Maybe not a good one, certainly a broken one. We're all flawed, we're all broken, and we're all going to die. Remember that, and do something with the life you've been given. It's too short to sit around waiting for it to end.

-pb

A few days ago, I posted about my response to more anti-taxation rhetoric from the editor of the local Time Herald. They actually approved the post! Check that out, something of mine slipped past their censors.

-pb

CNN has this wonderful article about George Clooney buying lemonade for $20. It's a pure puff piece, but the picture caption and highlights are just... wow.

Caption: "George Clooney was generous to a group of children selling lemonade."

Highlights:
"• Three children selling lemonades for 25 cents
• George Clooney, filming nearby, bought one for $20
• Clooney making "Leatherheads" in North Carolina"


Wow. What a waste of bandwidth.

-pb

In an editorial penned by someone named "In Our View" that smacks of Stan Huskey's "my pocketbook comes before your starving kid" mentality, the Times Herald has reminded readers that Governor Ed Rendell isn't the tooth fairy:

We will remind our readers once again that we were all told by Gov. Rendell that if our state legislators would approve gambling in Pennsylvania, we would receive a $1 billion for property tax relief from the revenues. We're still waiting.

To which I responded:

14 Slots licenses were awarded last year. Since then, two casinos have opened, the first in January, the second in February. Did you expect nickels placed in the slots to magically drop right into state coffers? Maybe you were hoping for little gambling elves to advance the State Treasury the cash right away? Perhaps you were expecting all fourteen casinos to simply cough up the billion dollars before they opened?

Sounds more like a partisan jab at Governor Rendell to point out that his plan isn't working two months after it has officially begun. I guess he just misplaced his wand that turns slots licences into piles of gold coins while he was off working to raise the minimum wage and securing better health care for older Pennsylvanians.

But, the Times Herald screens all comments for views that tend to support their positions, so I doubt it will be posted to the site.

-pb

House panel defies Bush, votes for subpoenas

Reread that title a few times. Not too much, though, because your head will explode once you grasp CNN's complete fucking grasp of our system of government.

The House of Representatives cannot "defy" the President. Defiance connotates refusal to act in a proscribed manner, like when my dog is on the couch, I tell him to get down, and he looks at me, looks a the floor, looks at me again and lays down. That's defiance. That's "I know I'm supposed to obey you, but, instead, how about you go fuck yourself, hmm?"

Issuing subpoenas is a right of the Congress, an integral part of their function of oversight, to be issued if it concludes that they are a necessity in an investigation. The President can scream like a petulant child all he wants in argument with that decision, but it's by no means a Constitutional crisis if he says "Don't issue subpoenas", and Congress says "We're going to issue subpoenas".

How's this for defiance? The SCOTUS says "detainees have a legal right to council". Bush says "yeah, whatever". Congress says "here's a law that says you can't torture people". Bush says "ok, I'll sign it, meaning I'll be bound by it, but I'm going to write a little note explaining how I fucked your mother in her asshole last night, and nothing you send me is going to change the fact that a) I'm your daddy and b) your laws don't apply to me".

That is defiance. Congress doing their job over the insignificant protests of a criminal? That's called the system doing its job. But CNN doesn't know jack shit about that.

-pb

Is anyone else bothered by the music for the Mazda commercial that has been running for the past few weeks that blatantly rips off Nirvana's Polly? Because every time I see a Mazda now, I think of how Mazda is marketing them with a song about abduction and torture.

-pb

Please refer to the icon:

Dennis Kucinich:

I would say that I think we need a politics which does not condemn people. So I am not going to condemn them. But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.

Great. Wonderful. And on top of that, we've got Hillary and Obama flat out refusing to say four simple words in response to General "Let's Shoot Some Fags" Pace: "Homosexuality is not immoral"

Note to Barack Obama: Just say it. You're not going to win a single social conservative vote anyway, so WHY FUCKING BOTHER TRYING. Be the candidate that has the balls to say "That guy is a nut, gay bashing is wrong, and being gay is not immoral". You only need 50.1%. You don't need to win Alabama and Georgia. You do need to win California.

-pb

So, Boston was locked up tighter yesterday than a random Pakistani wedding attendant at Gitmo. And why? Because some Aqua Teen Hunger Force paraphernalia scared the bejeebus out of the city and brought it to its knees.

Let me reiterate: A bunch of electronic ATHF signs shut down a major metropolis.

Is America terrorized? You bet your ass we are. But it’s not all of America. It’s just the East Coast (and pretty much all the Red States).

Remember that scene in ID4 where they juxtapose the LA reaction to the alien ships with the New York reaction? In LA, people gazed happily into the sky, gathering like it was a party. In New York, people lost their shit. Car accidents, looting, mayhem and mass evacuations. People went batshit insane.

Pretty much the same thing happened yesterday, only instead of gigantic malevolent genocidal alien vessels causing these reactions, it was AN ADVERTISING GIMMICK. You see, in Seattle, people saw them, understood them, and then ignored them.

Let’s look at this for a second, shall we? The items in question here were circuit boards with blue LEDs in the shape of Err, a character from the show Aqua Teen Hunger Force, giving the finger. Attached to these boards were a simple battery pack. With some duct tape on the back, a number of these things were slapped onto various buildings in 18 cities, most on the coasts. They were placed between two and three weeks ago.

In Seattle (and pretty much every where else, I suppose), people saw them and either laughed because they knew what they were, or just ignored them. No one cared. In Boston, after nearly two weeks (and the batteries going low), someone saw one on a bridge and thought “zOMG WTF IT’S A GODDAMNED AL-QAEDA BOMB GIVING ME THE FINGER!!!!11eleventyone!” and called the authorities. Now, here’s where shit gets interesting.

The authorities apparently find a few more and decide that it is, in fact, an insidious Al-Qaeda plot to make us laugh and then blow us up. They then bring the city to a grinding halt while they try to disarm these WMDs. The media’s collective head explodes.

CNN merrily reports on this impending doom in Boston for HOURS, apparently oblivious to the fact that a) it’s a cartoon character and b) it’s a cartoon character made by a company that’s owned by the SAME COMPANY THAT OWNS CNN. So, CNN looks like raving idiots.

12 hours after this incident starts, someone from Turner calls Boston and says “Jesus, people, it’s just an ad campaign!” Boston doubles over, throws up, and goes back to being a regular city, albeit a bit pissed off.

A couple of questions here:

1) How come it took three weeks to notice this shit?
2) If people in Seattle knew it was harmless, why didn’t anyone there call Boston?
3) Why didn’t the FBI have someone do a Google search to find one of the hundreds of blogs that had already discussed this?
4) How come no one in the FBI already knew about this?
5) Why did it take Turner 12 FUCKING HOURS to realize this was going on, when CNN was reporting it? You mean to tell me that not a single person involved with this was watching the news? What, were they all in the toilet?

This was a clusterfuck from the ground up. They wasted time and effort on something they could have cleared up by Googling.

They arrested two guys who had put these things up and charged them with planting hoax bombs. Well, that’s great. First off, they weren’t hoax bombs, so the charge is stupid. Second, way to go arresting guys who were putting up a marketing campaign. Good job. I’m sure those two guys are really sorry for conceiving and executing this. Oh, wait, they didn’t. They just put the damn things up. Remember when you were a kid and some asshole you were hanging out with started chucking rocks at a hornet’s nest and you got stung even though you were just standing there? That’s these guys. They didn’t cause this scare. Their intent was not to freak people out. They were sent out by a company that said “do this”, and I can imagine that it didn’t look explicitly illegal. Heck, it was even blogged about. They FILMED IT. Big bad terrorists!

Way to go, Bush administration. We’re even afraid of our own fucking shadow now. Meanwhile, in some posh Pakistani dialysis ward, Osama bin Laden is flipping us off and saying “I hope America can see this because I’m doing it as hard as I can”.

-pb

Poor CNN. They get dumped on by the right for being the "Communist News Network" and a part of the great big Liberal (or Jewish!) Media Conspiracy. And now, they're going to get dumped on by me for being the opposite of all that.

Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood

That's the actual headline from their "Latest news" section, the top current stories. Yes, the article itself has a less sensationalist title, but "Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood" is what they lead with.

Here's an excerpt:

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness."

Too bad they didn't lead with this: "Moderate Muslims: Killing women and children is mental illness". No, because that doesn't sell, does it? It's easier to start with "Radical Muslims want to kill you" and then suggest that a small minority are well-adjusted, instead of going with the more realistic "Moderate Muslims think radicals are truly mentally diseased" and then report that a small minority are bloodthirsty killers, but are in no way indicative of the whole.

Because we all know the facts, right? All Muslims everywhere hate our freedoms and want to kill us, right? Heck, why is CNN even reporting this? It's old news to them.

-pb

So, ABC is going to air a "docudrama" based off the 9/11 Commission Report. "Based", in this context, is equivalent to the way "Starship Troopers" starring Casper Van Dein was "based" off the book Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. That is to say, well, they got the title right.

Now, not having actually seen this, I'm taking the writing of a great deal of people who have that it's fiction disguised as fact. However, I have seen one commercial that alludes to this point: Bill Clinton could have killed Osama bin Laden. So, what we have here is a Clinton hit piece. Because Bill Clinton hasn't been flensed by the media recently, I guess. It was high time they trotted him out to assign blame to. Goddamn liberal media!

On Joe "dead intern in my office" Scarborough's Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002, enlightened us:

SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn't history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?

CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn't made.

There's this fiction that Somalia offered bin Laden to Clinton, and he refused. Bullshit. They refused to turn him over to us. They did offer to deport him to SAUDI ARABIA (our ally in the Great War on Terror), but the Saudis refused, and therefore Somalia turned bin Laden over to the Taliban, who was more than happy to have him. There's also this fiction that Clinton had the chance to drop a bomb on him and didn't, but as Cressy said, that's complete bullshit.

So, just judging from the commercials for this thing, I can tell you that it is at best incorrect, and most likely incredibly biased to shift blame away from Bush onto Clinton.

-pb

This is the letter I'm sending to The Times Herald:

It has become apparent to me that I am wasting my money on your paper. Over the past six months, your reporting of our democratic process, particularly that relevant to Pennsylvania, has been atrocious. Inadequate at the best points, and ill-researched and outright biased at the worst points, I'm left wondering why you bothered to report on the fact that we have a political system in this country at all. Now, I've been more than happy to stomach this inadequacy for the past six months, but this Sunday's paper was the final straw.

You reported after Tuesday's primary that a mere 11% turned out to the polls. Perhaps, if you'd spent more time letting your readers know that there was actually a primary on the 16th, and spent less time emblazoning your Sunday edition's headline with outlandish conspiracy theories about our government's complicity in 9/11, that 11% would have been slightly higher. Perhaps if you'd devoted even a single column to the candidates that were running (besides the League of Women Voter's outline), more people would have voted.

It has become painfully obvious with this garbage that you have spewed across your front page that you are nothing more than a two-bit tabloid rag, the likes of which I expect to find printing tales of three-headed cats raising human children on Venus. While these wild conspiracy theories have a place, perhaps even a place in a mainstream newspaper, I daresay that the front page is not the place for them, especially when there are other pressing matters around the world that you could spend thirty seconds of your time reporting on. Perhaps something on the genocide in Darfur? Isn't that front-page worthy? If unsubstantiated tales of George W. Bush single-handedly plotting 9/11 deserve to be above the fold, then surely you could have addressed actual government misdeeds, such as the new growing Watergate scandal?

But, I guess not. After all, there are better things to waste your pages on than actual news.

I subscribed to a newspaper. As you are no longer providing actual news, please cancel my subscription.

I'm done paying for their schlock.

-pb

Chuck Pennacchio, Alan Sandals and Bob Notsantorum face off tonight on live television

7pm sharp on PCN, which is only carried on cable. Chuck's going to have a copy on his site afterwards, which appears to be my only option as a) I won't be home and b) I have DirecTV.

-pb

Fucking evil Gothic Satanic Witchraft practitioners try to shoot up yet another high school

Goddamn evil fucking goth kids. My response to 6 ABC's top-flight journalism:

In reference to your story "NJ Police Foil Alleged Teen Gun Plot" http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=4056951), in which you state "The teens are part of the so-called "Goth culture" and which dabbles in satanic worship and witchcraft", I'm reminded of that Geico commercial with the cavemen. "Yeah, next time, do a little research first?" Perhaps, before you start levelling false accusations at an entire subculture that has a large following in this city (prominent members of which have been honored by Mayor Street), you'll do some research into it. You could check out PhillyGoth.Net, which I am the webmaster of, for starters.

EDIT: According to 6's 11 o'clock news, The Goth subculture "worships the devil and believes in vampires". Not Goths, mind you, just the subculture.

-pb

Finally, Pennsylvania media is starting to pay attention to Chuck:

KDKA Pittsburgh interviewed him. Watch the clip. The write-up isn't as good, and it's better to hear it right from Chuck.

Here's the full 19-minute interview.

Kudos to KDKA for not just showing him, but showing him in a positive light. They could have made him look like a whackjob by pulling things out of context or highlighting the more extreme parts of his platform, but they didn't. In fact, their editing, coupled with his quick bulleting and smart wording, made him look like a sane candidate that reaches across all demographics.

-pb

Good to see Fox 29 reporting on Bob Casey's primary win. Can they tell me what tomorrow's lottery numbers are, too?

And for everyone that replied to my last post, apparently LJ ate my replies. Who wants to sign a petition for Chuck Pennacchio? I'm collecting signatures from registered Democrats in Montgomery County only. I will even come to you! It would help me immensely if you can wrangle some friends up, as well.

Thanks!

-pb

Chuck Pennacchio - Better than Casey? You bet.

Chuck gets his first official poll, and in a head-to-head against Santorum, scores better than Casey does AND shows more people inclined to actually vote if it's Santorum vs. Pennacchio.

Best political news I've had in months.

Now, if we could just get Alan Sandals and John Featherman into the polls, that'd be awesome.


-pb

http://www.nbc10.com/news/6026579/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

Rick Santorum says that "liberals" and "the media" are hurting the war effort.

Oh no! Not TEH LIBRULZ! Not TEH MEEDYUH! Give me a break.

I seriously don't understand the media. Really. Every time something goes bad for a Republican, or even not 110% the way they wanted it to go