Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Global warming causes everything

Behold: the most complete collection of links to media stories ascribing the cause of everything under the sun to global warming. You can click on every single link and see how each is being blamed on global warming. What doesn't it cause?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

CNN Republican debate


At 8 PM EST, hilarious format. With the chaos in the polls and everybody openly gunning for everyone else, who knows what can happen.

Man without a gun

Football player Sean Taylor didn't have a gun to protect his home and his child. Sean Taylor is now dead.

His fiancé attempted to call 911, but the criminal, not being an idiot, cut the phone lines. By the time she reached her cell phone, it was too late.

You cannot depend on the government to protect you. Home invaders will not give you time before bashing your head in. Even if you fend them off until the authorities arrive, you might bleed to death before they reach you. What you are counting on if you do not own a gun is not an emergency response, but the luck of the draw; that the intruder will pick another home to prey on, not yours.

But by that logic, why put a life-jacket on your child? Boats rarely sink... right?

The world doesn't hate America; the Left does

Dennis Prager: "It is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's Left that hates America. However, because the Left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America."

If the world hated America as much as we hear about, you have to wonder why all these pro-American leaders keep coming from these countries. Sarkozy, the Frenchman, is perhaps the most pro-American of them all.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Protection

Monday, November 26, 2007

GOP YouTube Wednesday debate

God, not another YouTube debate. I'll probably watch it, but what's the point? It's a joke. It's the internet, so it'll be crawling with liberals, and they'll ask stupid questions like, "Does it hurt your feelings Al Gore gets so much media coverage?" Why don't we just go all the way and start using sock puppets for questioners?

Aside from Hillary, I mean.

The new Grinch


The fact that it's even being mocked by the New York Times suggests that overbearing environmentalism is getting tired even in liberal circles.

The "fat gene"

Although there seems to be over fifty different genes for obesity, there appears to be an especially determinative one, with over 70% of those carrying it suffering from obesity.

It's not really a big story, but I love how it was illustrated:


This guy is obviously a doctor — check out the labcoat — and of course he needs to check if this particular magazine model has the gene for obesity.

Eighth wonder of the world?

He had visions of a strange land with remarkable temples. He recruited people who believed it.

The results:


I was off-put by this statement, though: "Stunned by what they had found, the authorities decided to seize the temples on behalf of the government."

What religion is Hillary again?


Her prayer during a service at Church:
God of empowerment, help us to give all of our children the anchor of faith, the rudder of hope, the sails of health care and education, the paddles of family and community to keep them afloat when life's sea gets rough. Amen.
The "God of empowerment"? Wait, what?

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that those who should believe in Him should be totally Empowered, like in those Nike ads, climbing walls and skydiving and pole-vaulting and stuff.

A Republican and a Democrat...

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars.

Dinesh D'Souza on virtues

The conservative virtues are many: civility, patriotism, national unity, a sense of local community, an attachment to family, a belief in merit, in just desserts, and in personal responsibility for one's actions. For many conservatives, the idea of virtue cannot be separated from God. But it is not necessary to believe in God to be conservative. What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.

Conservatives recognize, of course, that people frequently fall short of these standards. . . . But for conservatives, these lapses do not provide an excuse to get rid of standards. Even hypocrisy — professing one thing but doing another — is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos and nihilism. . . .

What really distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not that one is for freedom while the other is against freedom; rather, what separates them is that they have different substantive views of what constitutes the good life.

Let us make a list of the liberal virtues: equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, peace, autonomy, tolerance. Liberals become impassioned when they use these terms: they make up the moral priorities of the modern liberal worldview. By contrast, conservatives emphasize other virtues: merit, patriotism, prosperity, national unity, social order, morality, responsibility. Both sides are willing to place the occasional restraint on freedom to achieve their substantive vision of the good society.

(Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative [New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005], 6-9)

Dinesh D'Souza on conservatives and liberals

At root, conservatives and liberals see the world so differently because they have different conceptions of human nature. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau's proposition that humans are intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society puts them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold, the great conflicts of the world are not a result of good versus evil; rather, they arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of such groups as the United Nations. Finally, liberals' high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well.

Conservatives know better. Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature — good and evil &mdash and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps bring out the best in human nature and suppress man's lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that because there are evil régimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives, force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally, conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personality responsibility — when people are held accountable for their actions — but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice. . . .

Since liberals have a wrong view of man, their policies are unlikely to achieve good results. Indeed, liberal programs frequently subvert liberal goals. . . . By contrast, conservative policies are not only more likely to produce the good society, they are also the best means to achieve liberal goals such as peace, tolerance, and social justice.

(Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative [New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005], 9-10)

Sunday, November 25, 2007

DePalma: tragic hero

From the transcript of NPR's review of Redacted:
Another charge is that he's [Redacted's director] anti-American or anti-troops. But it's an act of sympathy to suggest that soldiers on their third tours of duty in a place where they have no knowledge of the culture, where they can't tell who's on their side and who wants to blow them up, stand a good chance of losing both their moral compass and their minds.
Here lies the road to the inversion of morality. As an "act of sympathy" for troops, DePalma is supposedly taking the position that even the worst actors in the world — US troops committing atrocities while on an imperialistic mission — are blameless for such atrocities because of the chaos around them. He's not maligning them &mdash he's trying to help them. Don't you see?

The logic is unassailable:
  1. Bad guys might do good.
  2. Good guys might do bad.
  3. This is hard to figure out.
  4. Let's rape someone!
This fits neatly with the Leftist conception that we are all merely products of society. In America, mindless voters are held under the sway of Rush Limbaugh, fundamentalist Christians, and Karl Rove. In the Middle East, suicide bombers are compelled to kill women and children because of their poverty or their rage at American foreign policy. What's new is the application of this mentality to the military, the traditional home of those baby-killing thugs who got spit on returning home from Vietnam.

Soon we will recognize that everything &mdash everything! &mdash is George W. Bush's fault, and that individual conscience is merely a bourgeoisie construct of kapital.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Hi-larious: atheism officially a religion

Get ready for atheist Sunday school! It's even the same day. I thought it was all about being a "free-thinker," man.

Save the world: get an abortion

Reducing the carbon footprint by reducing actual footprints:
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet" . . .

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. . . .

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet &mdash and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do," she told the Daily Mail.
I'm not really sure why I should care about the Earth without its use to people in the equation. Without people, what happens to the environment doesn't matter. My interest in taking care of an apartment ends when I move out; I don't come back every few weeks to trim the hedges. Environmentalists put nature above Man.

And let's take what they're saying to its logical conclusion: if having babies is bad because people are the worst thing that could happen to the environment, then why are they still alive? You know what would reduce their carbon footprint even more? Suicide. Maybe they should look into that.

"I am a normal woman, with my family and my work as a teacher. I am (also) looking for transgression and sex."

An Italian high school teacher got suspended for moonlighting as a hardcore porno "actress."
The out-of-hours behavior of Anna Ciriani, who calls herself "Madameweb" in hard-core videos on the Internet and at erotic shows, was "not compatible with educational activity," the head of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia education authority said.
I guess it depends on what classes she was teaching.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

The greenest Thanksgiving

How to have a great Thanksgiving, and by "great," I mean terrible:
"The pilgrims didn't get their meal from the freezer case at the local supermarket. Why should you?" asked the Arlington-based Nature Conservancy.
Uh... because I'm not a farmer? Is that a good enough reason?

Actually the group is whining about the need to be "locavores," a made-up fake word which is supposed to mean "only eating the garbage locally grown or raised in your immediate area," which means a lot of Thanksgiving favorites are off the table for most of the country.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Who knew?

Did you know that in the new Brian DePalma propaganda piece Redacted, about US Marines who rape Iraqi women, the lead rapist is a white trash, chunky, cigar chomping character named...

"Rush"?

Monday, November 19, 2007

Tyranny of the minority

More holiday belly-aching: "a seventh-grade field trip to a matinee performance of the Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street has been canceled, due to complaints from totalitarian grinches who have it in for Santa Claus."

These people seem to believe that the purpose of the majority is to bend over forwards and backwards to please the minority. If anyone anywhere at any time has a problem with what's going on then nobody can have any fun. They ask why the majority should gets its way over the minority. But why should the minority get what it wants over the majority? I thought, you know, that was the point of being in the majority. What makes more sense?

The fact of the matter is that this is a Christian country.

We have Constitutional protections curtailing the influence of the majority for the fundamental rights of the minority. But beyond that the majority is supposed to rule. If the minority doesn't like that then they just have to live with it.

Liberals and nuclear power

We're supposed to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, but we're not allowed to dump the waste from the incredibly efficient nuclear technology in a mile-deep hole in the middle of the desert?

Speaking of clueless liberals, Alec Baldwin needs to shut up: "Nuclear power as it exists today is not safe." Thanks, genius. 80% of France's power is supplied by nuclear technology. They haven't gone up in smoke yet.

Racism: defending your family against black intruders

If your home is broken into by criminals of privileged ethnicity, you may want to think twice before defending yourself:
Three blacks broke into a white family's home in rural northern California to rob it, beating a 19-year-old with a baseball bat severely enough that he suffered brain damage and can no longer feed himself. Homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire on the intruders, killing two of them. The third, Renato Hughes Jr., ran away, into the arms of the NAACP, which wants to know why Edmonds was not arrested for saving his family's lives."
The Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and pastor at Hughes' church: "This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."

Zero tolerance strikes again

Zero tolerance means zero thinking. It's happened again: "A first-grade Oregon student was suspended after drawing a picture depicting one stick figure pointing a gun at another."

The sexes

Feminism sounds like a man's dream come true: "First you give a guy oral sex and then you decide if you like him."

Federalism and abortion

There's a furor over Mike Huckabee's supposed "flip flop" on the abortion issue. He made the case for The Human Life Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion nation-wide, on Fox News:


Now he's getting flack for saying it should "be left to the states."

There's no inconsistency between supporting an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion nationwide and "leaving it to the states." The same has been said of Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman throughout the country.

The Constitution is amended if enough states vote to ratify the amendment. The decision isn't being taken away from the states; the passage of the amendment depends on the states themselves and their approval. So there is no betrayal of the Federalist, states' rights approach here.

The finest device ever offered for sale

Just in time for Christmas:



Read on for its remarkable anti-Gore qualities.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Taking Santa out of Christmas

The perpetually-offended have found another way to try and ruin Christmas. On the other hand, it gets more ridiculous every year. At some point it just becomes a joke.

My inner European*


Your Inner European is French!



Smart and sophisticated.

You have the best of everything - at least, *you* think so.



WHAT.

*Yes, it's a slow news day.

Capital punishment saves lives

The New York Times writes about the deterrent effects of capital punishment.
"I personally am opposed to the death penalty," said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. "But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect."
Even if there was no deterrent effect, I would still support capital punishment. I believe people ought to get what they deserve, good or bad.

However, according to this study and many others, capital punishment does deter criminals from murder. Yet this researcher still opposes it. What he is saying is that he values the life of a murderer over the lives of five innocent people. By refusing to allow capital punishment, we sentence innocent people to death.

Brian C. Anderson on liberal argument

"Racist," "homophobe," "sexist," "mean-spirited," "insensitive" — it has become an ugly habit of left-liberal political argument to dismiss conservative ideas as if they don't deserve a hearing, and to redefine mainstream conservative views as extremism and bigotry. A sympathetic old-media regime has allowed liberals to get away with this tendency to argue by invective, rather than to debate ideas seriously, and it has sheltered them from recognizing just how shopworn their ideas have become. The rise of the new Right-friendly media . . . has made this illiberal, politically correct tendency even more hysterical and strident, since it is forcing liberals to defend their positions, something many have little experience with, resent deeply, and — often enough — do poorly. It has also rendered the demagoguery far less effective. The truth can now get out.

(Brian C. Anderson, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias [Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2005], 17)

Friday, November 16, 2007

Democratic debate

Let me just sum up every single Democratic debate thus far: the candidates spent two hours finding ways to somehow blame every problem posed to them on the Bush administration while avoiding ever giving an actual solution or answer to any questions.

In that vein, Hillary won tonight's debate, decisively, not because anything dramatic occurred but because nothing happened, again. All she has to do to win the nomination is coast her way to victory and the Democratic presidential field has no problem sitting around and letting her do just that. Obama can't break out of his "nice guy" persona to attack Hillary and show why anyone should care about him over her; Edwards' faux populism is wearing thin; and the rest are just wasting everybody else's time.

About the only interesting part of the debate was when Blitzer asked about the driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Blitzer poses a "yes or no" question to Obama, who calls the question a "distraction" and goes on about how we need to focus on the larger picture. Wolf embarrasses Obama: "This seems like a question that would be a yes or no question."

Obama: "Yes, but" — there's laughter.

Edwards: Blah blah blah, we need comprehensive immigration reform. Says "no" to the licenses but "yes" to amnesty.

Clinton: "No." That's the entirety of her quote. As they always say at that moment in a movie about Artificial Intelligence when the computer begins devouring every single work of literature and science in history, It's... learning...

Kucinich: Says there are no "illegal" human beings, but even he dodges the question.

Biden: "No." And get this, he looked smug, if you can conceive of such a thing.

At one point, when Campbell Brown asks Hillary what she meant when she referred to "the boys' club."

The initial response: "Campbell." And a look so cold, it carried a wind gust from Canada with it.

There was another Hillary dodge to add to her last masterpiece from the last debate: asked straight up if she supports merit-based bonuses to teachers for outstanding work — which we can infer from her response is opposed by the teachers' unions — she answers, "I support school-based merit pay," by which she just means bonuses for teaching in places people don't want to teach, like the inner city.

Her answer is intentionally deceptive, of course. The unsuspecting — like, for example, Democratic primary voters — will assume that she does in fact support a merit-based pay system.

She answered "yes" when her answer was actually "no."

Hillary wins by default; Edwards is second; Obama gives a lackluster performance. Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich are running for Vice President.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Freedom from speech

Liberals love to champion their commitment to freedom of speech. That is, until it gets in the way of their favorite freedom: abortion.

Massachusetts has expanded its no-free-speech zones. Holding signs, handing out pamphlets, and conversing with abortion clinic entrants, among other activities, is banned by law.

"Women in the Commonwealth have the right to obtain medical care free from violence, harassment or intimidation, and this new law will guard that right," reacted Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. "By widening the buffer zone around reproductive clinics we will protect patients from the harassment that so many have encountered as they seek care."

But violence, harassment, and intimidation is already against the law. You're protected whether you're entering Planned Parenthood or Dunkin' Doughnuts. But protection from pleas and protests? That's only for Planned Parenthood and friends.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Bernard Goldberg on media bias

Too many news people, especially the ones at worldwide headquarters in New York, where all the big decisions are made, basically talk to people just like themselves. What the journalist John Podhoretz said about New Yorkers in general is especially true of the New York media elite in particular: they "can easily go through life never meeting anybody who has a thought different than their own."

Far-fetched? Just think back to that famous observation by the New Yorker's otherwise brilliant film critic Pauline Kael, who in 1972 couldn't figure out how Richard Nixon had won the Presidency.

"I can't believe it" she said. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Nixon carried forty-nine states to McGovern's one, for God's sake — and she wasn't kidding!

That's one of the biggest problems in big-time journalism: its elites are hopelessly out of touch with everyday Americans. Their friends are liberals, just like they are. They share the same values. Almost all of them think the same way on the big social issues of our time: abortion, gun control, feminism, gay rights, environment, school prayer. After a while they start to believe that all civilized people think the same way they and their friends do. That's why they don't simply disagree with conservatives. They see them as morally deficient.

What reasonable person, they wonder, could possibly be against affirmative action? Maybe some stupid people in the South and Midwest are against it. But what could you expect from them, anyway?

The sophisticated media elites don't categorize their beliefs as liberal but simply the correct way to look at things. They think they're middle of the road — raging moderates — while everyone else (the people who live in the "red states" George W. Bush carried) is on the fringe. It's scary to think that so many people who bring Americans the news can be so delusional.

(Bernard Goldberg, Bias: A CBS Insider Expose How the Media Distort the News [Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002], 30-31)

Woman falsely accuses eight men of rape; gets no jail

"Hi."

"How's it going?"

"Funny weather we've been having."

"Did you just rape me? I'm pretty sure you just raped me."

The lack of jail time can be attributed to the fact that 1, it's Britain, where I'm not sure rapists even get jail anymore, and 2, the fact that she's crazy as hell.

Why is rape the only crime where the accused has to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution proving his guilt? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It turns the justice system on its head. Can someone explain this to me?

Richard John Neuhaus on Conservatism

I was asked the other day to contribute to a national symposium on the changing meanings of liberal and conservative. I declined. I rather dislike the business of defining political or ideological labels, although it goes on and on and maybe even serves a necessary purpose in some way not readily discerned. James Nuechterlein, former editor of FIRST THINGS, would regularly, with a wry smile, sum up his philosophy: "Change is bad." He is given to wry smiles. British prime minister Lord Palmerston is reported to have said, "Change, change, change! All this talk about change! Aren't things bad enough already?" A later prime minister, Lord Salisbury, contemplating developments in the Middle East, remarked, "Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible." Then there was my father of revered memory who said of a colleague, "He's so conservative that, had he been present at the creation, he would have voted for chaos." So you can see I didn't have much to contribute to the symposium.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [October 2006]: 65-84, at 75)

Rush Limbaugh on legislating morality

How many times have we heard the hackneyed slogan, "You can't legislate morality"? Liberals have twisted the intended meaning of this phrase to suit their purposes. It has been misused so often that the incorrect meaning is now accepted as the norm. The phrase was initially adopted by conservatives of the sixties, such as Barry Goldwater, to describe the reality that peoples' attitudes, prejudices, character, and integrity cannot be altered by well-meaning legislation. For example, this society can and did outlaw discrimination based on race, etc., with the civil-rights laws of the sixties — and fortified those laws with remedial enforcement mechanisms. Although the law did and does prevent acts of discrimination (and this is good law), it does not change the hearts of the people. Though we have less racial discrimination, we don't have one less racist as a result of these laws.

The feel-good generation of the me-first liberals co-opted the phrase and use it as a credo to legitimize their advocacy of unlimited freedom without responsibility. Thus, when arguing in favor of abortion on demand, for instance, they chant reflexively, "You can't legislate morality."

Mere superficial analysis reveals the folly of their reasoning. Of course, society can, and it is morally imperative that it does, legislate morality — if by that it means that the law proscribes certain immoral behavior. In fact, that's what our entire system of criminal law is — the codification of societal restrictions on human behavior that is accepted as being immoral. Our traditional criminal laws prohibiting murder, and other violent acts against persons or property, for example, are laws prohibiting certain acts coupled with criminal intent. These laws do not seek to change the personal morality of those who violate them; rather, they seek to prevent the proscribed acts and to punish actors for their wrongs. Interestingly, it has only been liberals through the years who have sought to use the criminal justice system for the purpose of rehabilitating the wrongdoers. So don't fall for this notion that society cannot enforce moral codes because of the misunderstood slogan, "You can't legislate morality."

(Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So [POCKET BOOKS, 1993], 85-86)

Monday, November 12, 2007

Science tosses equality out the window

Our rights are predicated on the existence of God. There is no scientific basis for equality of any kind:
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases. At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. . . .

Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.
Note the usage of the term "presumption." Isn't it funny how liberals, including scientists, are reacting in precisely the same way they imagine those bucktoothed religious hicks would act when the scientific evidence contradicts their religious beliefs? "Stop," they beg, "just stop."

So much for that romantic notion that "many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades" about race being "a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution." So much for going where the evidence leads. Liberals are the champions of science until its their ox getting gored.

Equality only exists with God. We are all equal before God, and only God; without God, there is no such thing as equality. There is only the law of the jungle.

Journalistic tone

Why is it "abusive lending" rather than "stupid borrowing"? What does it tell you about The New York Times?

Shocker: Harvard study finds Democrat media bias


Even Harvard finds the media biased:
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
I know, I know; it can't possibly be true. There has to be sampling errors, bugs in the software, malfunctioning Ouija boards or something.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Veteran's Day


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan

This ad enrages me

This terrible, terrible Ford SUV ad is almost single-handedly responsible for my return. It is so bad that I had to write about it on the spot lest I spontaneously combust in a rage-fueled explosion. And now you have to watch it.


Some questions come to mind:
  • Why is that horribly smug girl so oddly thick?
  • Why is that dad totally cool with dropping his horrible daughter a block off from the theatre?  She's spoiled.  Also, I'm positive she's going to see a "play," not a movie.
  • What city has "a part of town" where "people are riding bikes and driving hybrids and stuff"?
  • Why hasn't a terrorist organization attacked that city yet?
  • Why haven't I attacked that city yet?
  • Why does her dad come off as such a miserable person?  "I don't know what a hybrid-hybrid is."  It's probably a hybrid that manages to get better gas mileage than a Honda Civic from the 1970s.
  • The daughter was saying, "Why didn't you ever talk about that before?"  Wow, come on.  A daughter that wishes her dad was as much an insufferable douche as her friends' dads from "that part of town"?  Too much.  (Don't worry, dear.  He is.)
  • Who is this ad targeting? Assholes who hate people with Priuses but who still kinda want to spend more for a car?  Or assholes that hate the environment but love irony?  I just don't know.  "Never thought I needed to talk about how much I should kill myself."
  • Why can't this go on for five more seconds and end like this video:

Guess who's back

Back again. After that traditional several month hiatus, of which nothing significant has transpired, save a seeming turnaround in Iraq. Liberals, beware.

And so the next great campaign looms over the horizon once again. I'll try to churn out some posts now and then for now, but we'll definitely be going back to full force as the campaign hits its stride.

Oh, and comments will require approval from now on; I'm tired of deleting spam. If your comment is remotely intelligent then it will get through. And don't hesitate to comment! I want to know what you think.