.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Is it possible to recall a draft campaign?

In February of this year, in response to a discussion about the "no-confidence" war policy vote, a few of us on the John Adams Blog floated a "draft Festivus for Congress" movement. This admittedly under-the-radar movement was begun in the hopes that a tough-talking colleague would release his full arsenal of rhetorical weapons from the constraints self-imposed by party hackdom and devote his considerable talent to making political life miserable for his incumbent RINO Congressman.



It is with deep regret, in the wake of his ill-advised, "Ron Paul--Nutcase? . . ." posting that I must now renounce all ties to the "draft Festivus for Congress" movement, and acknowledge that Festivus is too impaired by the disease of hackdom to function effectively as a voice of righteous conservative indignation. Perhaps Festivus' RINO Congressman can mine his connections in the mental-health recovery community and secure a spot for him at a rehab clinic.



Ron Paul may not have the "take-charge" attitude and commanding physical presence deemed necessary for national campaigns in the soundbite era, and one can disagree with some of his tactical decisions when it comes to advancing conservative and libertarian objectives. Heck, I would go so far as to acknowledge that one could disagree with some of his objectives and still claim to be a conservative. However, to call this accomplished physician, veteran, family man, and elected public official a "nutcase" is to dismiss and marginalize him in a way that could only please the left-leaning establishment media and unscrupulous political operatives.



Ron Paul is guilty of letting more fringe characters support him, and of allowing a base of support that is so decentralized he can't possibly maintain total control of his message. Nevertheless, as long he does not lend support to the fringe characters' least-defensible claims, I find a departure from the dumb-it-down, race-toward-the-middle strategy refreshing. The cavalier disregard for civil liberties displayed by Guiliani, the capitulation by McCain to the open-borders and global-warming zealots, and the streak of opportunism that attracts power-hungry operatives like Vin Weber to Romney should be far more disconcerting to principled conservatives than anything Ron Paul has ever done.



Go to the writings and speeches of Ron Paul compiled throughout his years in Congress and you will find recurring evidence of an articulate, idiosyncratic conservatism quite detached from momentary passions, yet equipped to respond to the worst of them. I thought that's what the JAS asks of its adherents.

Blogger festivus said...

In my defense, not that I think I need much, "Nutcase" was followed by a question mark. When I posted that item, I had just read the posting by Captain Ed, and found it interesting. Do I personally think Ron Paul is a nut? No, but I think he is kidding himself if he actually thinks he can become President. I have serious doubts if he can even move the discussion, but if he can, it would be a good thing.

I am willing to take Steb at face value that Ron Paul neither wrote these words, nor does he believe them. If (IF!), however, these phrases appeared in a Ron Paul newsletter, and not some other publication that Ron Paul also happened to have an article in, I do think it goes to his (or his advisors') judgement. Indeed, it is difficult to talk about race in today's society without being labeled a bigot, but it can be done. This is clearly an example of how not to do it.

I do not doubt that Ron Paul holds strong conservative principles. I do not doubt that those who support him do so with the best of intentions and with the good of the country at heart. I do seriously doubt anyone who holds the view that Ron Paul has any realistic shot at securing the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency. Mr. Paul likely belongs with a 3rd party, as I think many of his supporters will not be happy with the actual Republican nominee (who I personally hope at this point will be Fred Thompson) and will want to vote for Ron Paul for President.

As a secondary item, I am pleased to note that those who were running the Draft Festivus campaign have now stopped their campaign.

9:58 AM, May 30, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Festivus makes a good point: Ron Paul is not a Republican and neither, for the most part, are his supporters. I would argue that neither is he, nor are they, conservatives.

Here is my litmus test: Among the ten candidates running for the Republican nomination, how many would you be reasonably happy to vote for? By "reasonably happy", I mean that you see that candidate as clearly better than any likely Democratic candidate. By that criterion, almost any conservative would be reasonably happy with at least five. My impression of most Ron Paul supporters is that the only one of the ten that they would be reasonably happy with is Paul. That's because they don't like conservatives or Republicans, they like libertarians.

Paul is a libertarian. He is not a conservative. He is not a Republican.

And as a side note, when, in his response to the follow up question in his scuffle with Guliani "are you saying we are at fault for 9/11?" he never, to my knowledge, used the word "no" not even as in "no, but". Sounds pretty nutty to me.

10:08 AM, May 30, 2007  
Blogger ReTorte said...

The "Draft Festivus For Congress" campaign ought not be extinguished before it has a chance to see the light of day in the Caucus. One can only wish for a campaign to give a ray of hope in such a dimly conservative Congressional district: Festivus, a fine JAS candidate. Therefore, I hereby assume leadership in the "Draft Festivus" Campaign.

2:26 AM, June 01, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Ron Paul - Nutcase? We report, you decide...

... or, more accurately, Capt. Ed Morrissey reports, you decide. Now I don't doubt that we'll find some way to explain away these statements as mere misinterpretation and mischaracterization by a liberal press, and perhaps that's true. But it is additional input into the equation for those vast numbers of people, be they measured by Gallup or not, who are considering becoming Paulites.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Dr. Paul did not write the alleged article. This buffoon should do his research. Dr. Paul has written numerous times about racism, and he clearly does not approve.

Ron Paul must be threatening someone's sweet ride. As Rush Limbaugh always used to say, you can tell you're winning an argument with a liberal when they call you a bigot.

I have better things to do than appease gradeschoolers throwing sticks. I'm outta here.

5:53 PM, May 22, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I have to agree with Scribbler on this one. Capt. Ed seems to take the easy way out and assumes Paul is automatically a racist for daring to talk about race. It reminds me of the typical liberal media hit job on a conservative and it is one of the reasons why so many republicans are voting for the immigration Bill. Capt Ed is a fool for falling into the PC trap on this one.

11:56 PM, May 22, 2007  

Post a Comment

Gallup Poll and Ron Paul

Ron Paul scored 0.0 in the latest Gallup poll. I guess that means the paullites do not answer their phones.

Blogger festivus said...

I think I know why. The people think the pollster is saying RuPaul, and this strange man would be a sorry President indeed.

7:49 AM, May 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Ah, laugh while it's still funny. Below I asked you to look at the polls taken a week or two after the last debate. The poll you cite was taken May 10-13. Paul raised 1.5 million in the 4 or 5 days following the debate -- this from his campaign. So tell me what the polls say in another week, 'cause I don't read them. (And at that point, the 'unlikely voter' factor must be taken into consideration. See my comment on Ventura's election below.)

3:44 PM, May 22, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I agree with Scribbler. In fact, I believe ten times as many people will choose Ron Paul in the next Gallup poll as in this one.

3:45 PM, May 22, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Upon reading Harsh Pencil's comment, I thought "hmmm, 0.0 percent is probably rounded down, so 10x a small number, while still being a small number, is significant. Maybe Scrib has actually convinced another person to come on over to the dark side."

Then, I checked out the poll. It wasn't 0.0% rounded down - that would have scored him a big asterisk ( * ) like Duncan Hunter, Jim Golmore and Chuck Hagel. It was actually 0.0, meaning NO ONE in the poll supported Mr. Paul. Suddenly, the irony and intent of Pencil's math made so much more sense.

So for a belated laugh, Mr. Pencil, I thank you.

4:30 PM, May 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

:-p How about 10X the Zogby NH poll? Heck, I'll go for 5X or even 3X on that. And that poll was still taken before the debate. Tell me when Zogby's NH post-debate numbers come in. I'm too busy campaigning and contributing to check myself.

4:34 PM, May 22, 2007  

Post a Comment

Monday, May 21, 2007

Experienced

As everyone knows, Barack Obama at this point has a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Besides being one of the most liberal Senators in the United States Senate, Barack Obama could also be the most inexperienced Presidential nominee in modern times. Barack has zero management or administrative experience and currently has three years as a U.S. Senator and four as a state Senator. Looking back over the last 100 years, I cannot think of a more inexperienced nominee and certainly not a President.

Here is a sample list of Presidents and their executive and legislative experience:

Obama - US Senator 3 years, State Senator 4 years.
Bush - 6 years Gov of Texas. managing Partner Texas Rangers 5 years
Clinton - 10 years Gov of Arkansas
Bush Sr. - Vice Pres 8 years. Former business manager, congressman
Reagan - 8 years Gov California
Carter - 4 years Gov of Georgia, State Senator 6 years, successful farmer
Ford - VP 2 yrs, 24 years US House, minority leader 8 yrs
Nixon - VP 8 years, Senator and House 6 years
Johnson - VP 3 yrs US Senate 23 years 6 as majority leader
Kennedy - Senate 7 years, US House 6 years, War hero.

I could go on and on.....

I suppose TR had little political experience other than NY gov for two years and VP for a year, but he held all kind of exeuctive titles, such as asst secretary of the Navy, President of the NYC Board of Police, US Civil Service Commission (OPM), and was a war hero to boot. Sorry Barack, you are no TR.

In fact the last person of such inexperience to hold the office was Abe Lincoln. The problem with that comparison is that Abe Lincoln is Abe Lincoln. No sane person would attempt to compare themselves to Abe Lincoln - a self educated man who worked his way up in life through strenuous manual labor. Sorry Barack, you are no Abe Lincoln either.

Does it matter.....

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

It doesn't matter. That's what the cabinet is for. But don't despair yet: Ron Paul has surpassed Obama both in YouTube subscribers and in traffic to his campaign website.

4:49 PM, May 21, 2007  

Post a Comment

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Stuck on Stupid

Many say that the Republican party is becoming irrelevant. Much of this started in the 2006 election cycle with all of the so called "principled conservatives." You know the ones - those who said that we needed a good thumping to teach ourselves a lesson. You know the ones - those who refused to vote for Republicans and instead wasted their vote on the Constitution Party or stayed at home mired in pessimism. Now, after a good thumping, we are about to get amnesty passed for illegal aliens by the new Democratic Congress, and we got tax increase after tax increase passed by the state house and state Senate. Yeah... we are sure learning our lesson. Now these idiots are saying stuff like... "I'll never vote for a Republican again if this immigration bill passes." Whoa.... didn't they say we needed a good thumping? This immigration bill would be headed for defeat if it wasn't for our principled idiot conservatives who said we needed a good thumping. Now they complain that it might pass. What were they thinking? Instead of waking up, these principled idiots remain STUCK ON STUPID.

We just had Pawlenty, the "sell-out" none of these principled conservatives said was worth voting for, just veto a slew of tax increases. Yeah, tax increases. Remember in Minnesota, unlike the Feds, you need to raise taxes to spend money to create bigger government. But the stuck on stupids, they think..... maybe if government gets too big, then there will be a revolution and we will get the small government we want... STUPID STUPID...STUCK ON STUPID.

Thank god some Democrats voted for Pawlenty.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I've seen nothing to tell me we lost the last election because of low turnout of conservatives. It was my impression that turnout was good all around.

Conservatives have never been a majority in this country. Conservatives win when they get moderates and independents to vote for them. In the last election,
they didn't (strongly) because of fiscal overspending, the Iraq war, incompetence over Katrina and corruption. The Republicans in office were just bad officeholders and they
lost the independents and moderates.

And we will continue to lose until a major screw-up by the Democrats. The people decided the last election to give the keys to the car to the Democrats. Until they are perceived to have
screwed up, the people will give them a chance to govern.

1:15 PM, May 21, 2007  
Blogger courierjpa said...

I'm inclined to agree more with the Pencil than 'Saurus on this topic. Turnout intensity for conservatives was a problem last election, but it manifested itself more in conservatives' reluctance to defend the performance of Republican officeholders to others than in their refusal to vote for them personally.

Republican leaders, especially at the national level, had just done too many stupid things while in power to deserve continued loyalty from rank-and-file voters. Pawlenty escaped only because Hatch and Dutcher started looking like an even dumber, riskier choice in the final two weeks of the campaign.

The minor-party conservative, wasted-vote theory is a figment of imagination when analyzing last year's elections; few even got on the ballot, much less got any votes.

Pencil's conclusion that the Dems will be given a chance to govern until they show they can't sounds right, but begs a few questions about how conservatives should respond. Do we let them "screw up" and enact stupid policies, in the interest of regaining power in the long term? Not unless we view poltics and government as nothing more than a game, with no real impact on our precious liberties. Also, Pawlenty has seen to it that the biggest screw-up that will be enacted this year--the draconian, nanny-state regulations against smoking--will not be identified with any one political party.

Maybe the best conservatives can hope for is that voters take their decision to "give the keys to the car to the Democrats" literally, given the propensity of high-profile Dems such as Messrs. Metzen, Mondale and Rukavina to make stupid driving decisions.

1:15 PM, May 27, 2007  
Blogger Courier A said...

I couldn't have said it better...

1:21 PM, May 27, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, May 17, 2007

That New Immigration Bill

I don't know what to make of the new immigration bill. Unlike many conservatives I don't find myself invested in opposition to "amnesty." The current bill as proposed sounds like amnesty. Any crime which is forgiven with a less penalty than is just for the crime is considered amnesty. In this case, the penalty for being illegal should at the very least be deportation. Thus, any penalty that requires something less is amnesty.

Nevertheless, amnesty is a tradition in this country. We gave amnesty to the supporters of the crown during the Revolution. We gave amnesty to half a million rebel soldiers in 1865. The penalty for them was death. Robert E. Lee spit on his oath to this country. He should have been hung along with his entire army. Yet, we granted him amnesty. In fact the radicals in Congress despised Lincoln for his amnesty plan. Today we hail Lincoln for his compassion and credit him for keeping the union together.

I am not opposed to some sort of amnesty, however, the key to any immigration bill needs to be enforcement. Plan 1 is to stop any more illegal immigration. We can do this by building a wall, forcing local police to bust illegals, and putting employers in prison for hiring illegals. Regarding the illegals that are here I say we give them amnesty. I say we give them 3 months to register. After that they have 5 years to learn fluent English, not commit any crimes, and pass the citizenship test. If they accomplish this, they get a green card. If not, they and any of their dependents, including children born here, are immediately deported.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Details about this bill are coming out and they don't look good.

For one thing, I have heard that the bill makes 15 million people instanly eligible for welfare benefits. That is unnacceptable.
Who do they think will pay for that?

2:33 PM, May 18, 2007  

Post a Comment

Is Ron Paul Right?

In the debate this week ron Paul argued that it was our presence in the middle east that caused 9-11. The Scribbler (a supporter of Paul) cited this article below in the The Nation arguing that Paul is no kook, Paul is right.

Is Paul right?

Of course he is. America has spread its tenticles all over the world pissing off everyone. We are in the middle east because we buy millions of barrels of oil from the middle east. We are in Europe and everywhere else because we sell billions of goods abroad. Sure, we could withdraw from the world. We could stop trading, but then our standard of living could drop 50%. As President, Ron Paul would have to explain why 20% unemployment was worth a withdraw....

Hmm....

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The word from the campaign is that RP raised 1.5 million in the last week. Sounds "right" to me.

6:55 PM, May 21, 2007  

Post a Comment

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Look On Hannity's Face . . . Priceless

This is just a 25 second clip, so have no fear. Worth every second.

Blogger festivus said...

The look is not shock. It's likely his attempt to control his disdain for polls like this that are a part of the bread and butter of news networks like his when they show results like this.

All this 'poll' showed is that the Paulites are extrodinarily enthusiastic about their candidate and are able to organize. They ought to spend their time working on finding an electable candidate who shares their views. Ron Paul ain't it.

9:01 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Some commentator said that Ron Paul supporters were just very organized, and I fell to the floor laughing. No one would use the words "libertarian" and "organized" in the same sentence. We're notoriously independent and won't do what we're told. But we are passionate, and there's no one else speaking for us but Ron Paul. And we do have cell phones. But we don't answer outdated landline polls, so the spillover into so-called "scientific polling" will take some time.

Watch the clip of Hannity and Ron Paul in my comment below. The neocons still don't get it, and may never get it. But the majority of the general population understands. I'm afraid the GOP is set up for another loss in '08. I don't want that, but they refuse to open their eyes.

9:12 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Scribbler,

This is getting tiresome. Yes, all polls have problems in selecting a truly random sample of likely voters due to things like cell phones and people's unwillingness to respond to pollsters. And, yes, if not having a cell phone or refusing to answer a pollster's question is correlated with support for a given candidate, then this will skew the poll results against that candidate. But these things are quantifiable.

In order for a random sample poll to have Paul at 1%, but his support in reality to be anything above, say, 3%, these correlations would have to be unbelievably huge. I know Paul supporters are different than the rest of us, but they are not that different. If you actually believe that Paul's true support is higher than 2% then I truly worry about your sanity. Thus I choose to believe this is an act.

As for Republicans setting up for a loss, you are correct. Contributions are higher for Democrats, ratings for their debates are higher. As I read recently, Republicans could run the Risen Christ (and believe, Paul ain't him) and we would still probably lose.

9:30 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Check out this from John Podhoretz at NRO.

I'm not sure it works, since we insult Ron Paul all the time here, and our traffic doesn't budge.

10:07 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

From your link, ""Win a Dream Date With Ron Paul" contests." Where?
Where? I can enter contests faster and more times than anyone on the 'net!

10:38 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

There is still 500 days until the election. I wouldn't count anyone out.

6:46 PM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

One more time, Pencil.

Ron Paul supporters are not going to register on old-fashioned landline polls. And they don't have the formula to find the Ron Paul support. For one thing, many Ron Paul supporters, who WILL be voting for him in primaries, will not be considered "likely Republican voters" by the pollsters. Many are not Republicans. A lopsided college crowd, many have never voted before. And the vast majority of them are on the internet, don't have or don't answer their landlines, or have only cell phones. We're the "tech" crowd. These anomalies don't apply to historical candidates, or any other existing candidate. They con't have an existing formula to quanitify the very unique base of Ron Paul support.

9:10 AM, May 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

And check your "scientific" polls in another week or two. True, the MSM reporting of RP is lopsidedly negative, though the online buzz is still lopsidedly positive, but the papers and cable are now forced to at least mention his name if they want to report on their darling, Giuliani. You're not going to see a huge leap, but Paul will have seen at least a small bump among the "scientific" voters.

The debate couldn't have worked out better for Ron Paul if he had choreographed it himself.

9:23 AM, May 17, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Ok Scribbler, a question:

Suppose it were possible to get everyone who is actually going to vote in a Republican primary to state who their current favorite candidate is. What percentage, today, do you think would answer "Ron Paul"?

9:45 AM, May 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I cannot answer that. The only way to answer that question is to change polling techniques. How? A more accurate kind of sampling, ensured through census data (?), integrating the internet and other methods. The two problems I see with what we consider "scientific polling" are 1) reliance on landlines, and 2) formulas on who is a "likely Republican voter."

A schooled pollster or economist should be able to work out a better method. But what they ARE currently using is inaccurate with regard to Ron Paul's unusual demographic. It probably registers just fine for most candidates.

10:12 AM, May 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Read this old Salon piece about Jesse Ventura's victory in '98. The very day before the election, the polls showed him losing to Coleman 29% to 36%. He was barely registering a few weeks before. The pollsters couldn't predict the unique demographic of unlikely and new voters.

And that was back when people were still answering their landline phones and weren't on the internet.

2:53 PM, May 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

Open thread for Ron Paul Debate discussion

That sound you would have heard as Ron Paul gave his "we asked for it" response to the 9/11 question would have been the air being let out of the Ron Paul campaign, if there was any air in it to begin with.

His response showed an utter lack of political skill. The nation simply will not accept a candidate that holds those feelings and is so willing to state them.

Buh-bye. Please fly with us again.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Not so fast cowboy. 70% of the American people believe we should be out of Iraq. National Review Online and some other sites -- can't remember after the flurry of last night's online activities -- said Ron Paul was right and that Giuliani both disregarded the facts and misrepresented Ron Paul. See also Dr Paul having it out with Hannity following the debate, aka Ron Paul Owns Hannity.

Oh, and did you get text-in, vote-once-only, cheater-proof numbers from Faux News?
You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results:
— 29% Romney
— 25% Paul
— 19% Giuliani

Don't know how they can spin THIS like they did Paul's poll wins in the previous debate.

7:35 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

For the record AGAIN, he did not say "we asked for it." That's where you guys lose credibility, when you misrepresent statements and malign anyone who disagrees with you. Why do you think support for the war is slipping away? Could it be that people are waking up to the fascist, bull-headed attitude of the "at any cost" crowd? Giuliani represented your dwindling numbers well last night.

7:39 AM, May 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Here's a good rehash of what Ron Paul said and the interruption by Giuliani, The Nation via Yahoo News.

8:08 AM, May 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Why Fred Thompson will be the next President (if he runs)

This is classic. It was put together in response to a challenge from Michael Moore to a debate on health care in and around Moore's trip to Cuba.

The cigar, the leather chair, the attitude and the not-so-subtle slam. This guy is good.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

Londanistan

Hitchens writes on Londanistan.
It's interesting that it should be authors from Muslim backgrounds—Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, the broadcaster and co-author of the Policy Exchange report Munira Mirza—who are issuing the warnings. For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias—or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term "Islamophobia"—in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment.

Outstanding.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Spam

I just received the below post on one of my rarely used email accounts. It's amazing that Kumarudeen was able to find me. Incredible! I already have some other accounts in motion, so I thought I would post this one here in case anyone is interested - but keep it close to the vest. It's time to give up your day job folks! Good Luck.


Hello friend,

I am contacting you from Africa. My name is Kumarudeen Yusuf. I work with the African Development bank group, Nigeria main branch, as foreign operations manager. Please do not get upset as to how I got your contact. I got your email contact from the Internet. Isincerely advise that you calm down to read belowproposal thoroughly and thereafter decide if we can dothe business together. It is no setup or one of thesehoaxes from Africa. This is a real deal and I meanevery word I speak here.

A UK citizen, Mr. Norman Anderson (from Aberdeen) hasbeen a customer of my bank since 1988. He opened adomiciliary account with us in June 1988. The saidbank account, which is at the moment in dormant, is inUK pounds sterling and has credit balance of 19.3Mpounds. Last transaction carried on the account datesback to September 15, 1999. I have been the accountowner¢s confidant and account officer until above datewhen he was last seen in the bank. And since this timeMr. Anderson has not been to the bank nor sent incheque for clearing. This became a source of worry tome and prompted my personal investigation as towhereabouts and business activity of this customer.Result of my investigation revealed that he was intooil bunkering and operated within West and CentralAfrica sub-regions. Further investigation proved thathe was one of the victims of November 1999 raid ofillegal oil bunkering merchants in Malabo Island ofEquatorial Guinea. However, I continued myinvestigation and further discovered that a UKtelephone number mentioned in our bank informationform, which he filled when the said bank account wasestablished, belong to a hotel in London. This is aclear indication that he probably has fed my bank withfalse information to protect his illegal oil deals. Ihave not disclosed these findings to anyone elseexcept this message to you.

After a careful study of the account file andavailable data to me, I have packaged a good deal asfollows; and will wish to carry it out with you.My Dear Friend, the deal here is that the money inthis account will be approved and remitted to anyforeigner who shows up as relation to Mr Andersonprovided such person has correct information to theaccount. I have such needed information and will handit over to you as soon as we commence the transaction.I will source all necessary documents and forward themto you for direct submission to the bank. With myposition as the foreign operations manager we willquietly remove this money from the bank withouthitches. I don¢t have any problem in regularizing allnecessary documents and transferring the creditbalance of the said account to your nominated bankaccount in overseas, but the problem is trust. I havespent months in trying to get an overseas reliablecontact. It is worthy to note that people areunreliable these days and even derive joy in tellinglies. On this ground I request your unreserved butsincere cooperation devoid of greed in carrying outthis transaction so that no one amongst both of usshall defraud each other at the end. I am prepared tosplit at 60%---40% for you, provided that mine (60%)will be intact at the end.reply me on my private email, (kumaru_17@yahoo.co.in) Awaits for your expected co-operation.

Best regards,Kumarudeen

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Yeah, I had the deal all set up with him, then he decided he couldn't trust me. But the whole time he was cutting a deal with you. Two-timing bastard.

7:38 AM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

There must be a lot of really dumb people in this country that makes it worthwhile for these guys to send such emails.

10:09 AM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Saurus,

No, no, no. You don't need a lot of dumb people. Just a few.

It's like the classic method for getting women to sleep with you. (I've seen this in action. I haven't done it myself). You just keep going to woman after woman in a bar and come right out after 30 seconds and ask if she wants to go home with you right now. It doesn't work for the vast, vast majority of women approached. Most simply say no. Some get really angry. But the guy simply moves on within a minute to the next one. And it only takes one to say yes.

Yes, yes, the guy who does this is a pig. But it does seem to work.

10:18 AM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I am not sure if the women wanting to sleep around is a valid comparison. There may be a significant pool of women out there hoping for someone to ask them for a one night stand. Therefore, the success rate with the one night stand question may be much higher. In contrast, how many people are out hoping to be scammed by a Nigerian crook? It's shocking that there are any at all...

Maybe I have a naive understanding of the useful idiots in our society. Do you recommend a book?

10:49 AM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

True the comparison isn't perfect. No one is looking to get scammed. My only point was that even if only one in a million people fall for this, it's pretty easy to send a million emails and you only need one.

What book would I recommend on useful idiots? How about "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" by
by Barack Obama?

1:02 PM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Excellent response Pencil. I was looking for some high quality wit with that one.

2:48 PM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

S'aurus was asking for useful idiots. You can find some of those on FoxNews before and following tonight's debate. Ron Paul's gonna rock the house! (I forgot to spam S'aurus today.)

4:22 PM, May 15, 2007  

Post a Comment

Friday, May 11, 2007

I can't make this stuff up.

From Greenie Watch:

On the morning of April 8, Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced a low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit. It was the coldest temperature ever recorded in Charlotte for the month of April. But if you think record cold weather is going to falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. On April 11, a Purdue professor told the Christian Science Monitor that "this is what you might expect of global warming," because global warming "isn't necessarily always a warmer climate, but a more variable climate." In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming is like a religious war. Conversion is only possible through defeat.

Our government.

This comment was made by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, this week tesifying before the Senate Finance Committee.

[t]he costs are staggering. In 2002, a full-day program in a pre-kindergarten offered by the Chicago public school district costs $6,500 a year -- more than the cost of a year's tuition at the University of Illinois.

Warren's comments were made to argue that the government needs to fund these programs because they are too expensive for average families to pay. Warren's whole speech was an argument that today's middle class family is hurting and the government needs to spend money to help them.

Still, $6500 for a pre-school program. What do they do there, go on field trips to Europe?

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Well then, obviously the government should start printing more money. In fact, they should print enough money to give each of us, oh, pick a figure, how about $200,000 a year? Then no one would have to work! (Except the guys running the money-printing machines, but we could make illegals do that. They'd have to print extra money for themselves.)

10:20 PM, May 11, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Milestone Reached: "Petabyte" Read

My eyes just now, for the first time, encountered the word "petabytes." It was only, what, nine or ten years ago that I first heard the word "terabyte," that directly from Vance Opperman who was discussing the newly available TerraServer (long before Google Earth was around), and just 12 years since I purchased my own gigabyte hard drive personal computer.

I don't know why I haven't encountered the word before -- I knew it existed, but not by what name. Now that it has been presented me ("How Much Does the Internet Weigh?" Discover Magazine, June 2007), I have looked up "exabyte," "zettabyte," even "yobibyte," leaving me little to look forward to in the next few years.

So how much does the internet weigh? Averaging forty petabytes in traffic per day, and considering that only about half of the capacitors are charged (the 1's) each with about 40,000 electrons, a total day's traffic weighs around 0.2 millonths of an ounce.

Addendum:

Same issue, different article, Discover asks "Does Time Exist?" It goes on to ponder that even if time exists (once we are able to prove Wheeler-Dewitt to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, we likely will find time does not exist), there is no law forcing it to only move forward. Theoretically, time should be able to move backwards, into the past. Yet it doesn't. Or does it? I reference my June 2007 issue of Discover, and it is early May. Hmmm.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

What, does no one think that whether time exists would make a good debate topic?

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

8:58 AM, May 13, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

No? That's okay. My feelings aren't hurt. Not much, anyways. It's not like I'm going to cry. Just a little aching around my heart. It's nothing, really.

2:18 PM, May 14, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I'm sorry, but I figured that if time doesn't exist, I can take forever to actually respond to your post.

I think you have just proven, by your impatience, that time indeed exists.

2:23 PM, May 14, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

It does APPEAR that time exists, but if you observe the subPlanckian realm, where matter becomes essentially waves, time muddles, as does space. All things exist concurrently.

As for your comment, it was transmitted, at it's most basic level, using bits charged by electrons, subPlanckian. So I don't know if you really did post it after my comment. Maybe you're psychic.

4:57 PM, May 14, 2007  

Post a Comment

Debate Discussion

I thought I'd open up a thread for those who care to comment on the debate last night. The resolution "We were a religious nation" passed by I believe 10-7. I voted on the losing side.

My favorite moment? Late in the evening right before the vote was called, after many fine speeches parsing the nature and meaning of "were", "religious" and "nation", someone piped up from the back of the room "But we haven't debated the meaning of the word 'we'". A classic, and perfectly timed.

A new tradition was also begun by the Chairman. He asked those voting in favor of the resolution to move to his right, and those voting against to move to their right. A brilliant move in my opinion, as in a conservative debating society, none of us should be asked to move to the left.

Many thanks to Chuck Shreffler for his very fine lecture prior to the debate.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I recall a question was asked to someone on whether a community should be considered a religious community or not a religious community if it voted to prevent the building of madrassas in the community.

The Speaker was puzzled and sat down.

I think the answer should have been a "non-religious" community because while a community may be made up of religious people, the community itself is not religious.

12:59 PM, May 10, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

I'm puzzled by your answer.

1:14 PM, May 10, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Although I did not speak at the debate last night, I would have argued that we are not a religious nation. I agree with Festivus that we are a religious people who reside in a religious nation.

Religious nations are those who have as a founding authority, the laws of a particular religion. The problem with this is that while the religion itself may be infallible when interpreted properly, the men interpreting the religion are fallible. In a religious nation the only check and balance against error made by these fallible men occurs in the after-life. Thus, a religious nation will not prosper and will remain corrupt such as with the Moslem nations or the Byzantine Empire.

However, if the religious men are checked by secular institutions for their corruption and crimes in this life, the nation and the people in it will prosper in this life. The only way to have this check is to have a secular nation that rules over this life along side a religious nation that rules the world after. In otherwords, religion can co-exist within a secular nation, but secularism cannot co-exist within a religious nation.

Along these lines, The Unites States is not a religious nation because our religious people are accountable to secular laws.

1:17 PM, May 10, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Did you mean to say that "we are a religious people who reside in a NON-religious nation"? If so, I agree. Well stated.

1:23 PM, May 10, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Ron Paul on a religous nation:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

The entire article may be found here.

10:44 AM, May 12, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

JAS DEBATE MAY 9

The John Adams Society

Roger L. Belfay, Chairman
John J. Pope, Secretary
Larry Colson, Chief Whip
Marianne Stebbins, Chancellor


May 2007

"… bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel." – Benjamin Franklin, September 1782


RELIGION WAS THE BEDROCK OF OUR FREEDOM. As a nation affording freedom of worship, the door was open to freedoms in general. Free commerce was thereby an offshoot and with it the Puritan regimen of colonial America led to a general prosperity and the ability to enjoy more freedom. Not that the founders had much choice about religion in the new country. A great number of remote little despotisms had long evolved in the colonies with rigid religious orthodoxies of their own by 1776. Several colonies were explicitly Christian. These would never join together as a nation under any authority other than that of themselves. Thus, just the common thread of deism would be expressed by the founders in the US Constitution.

Now that individual reasoning has fallen aback the liberal agenda as implemented by many of our public institutions and much of the media, our First Amendment freedoms are stretched and distorted. Only in a non-religious/un-free nation would the high court of one of its states rule that a private charity must cover birth control in its health care plan despite the charity’s moral opposition. But, does anyone notice or think about it? While the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, what seems to crowd most minds nowadays is not godliness, but mesmerization by one electronic medium or another.

ON THE OTHER HAND, we were never a religious nation to begin with. Article VI of The US Constitution states: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States." And The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” People came to America for religious freedom, often fleeing religious persecution elsewhere. Naturally, Christianity flourished because the Christian’s notions of salvation by free will are congruent with America’s freedom. It is a paradox that, unlike in most of Europe where religion was imposed and secularization prevailed, America’s religious liberty led to a resistance to secularization. Only with a secular government are a variety of religions free to coexist and only through freedom do individuals experience the glory of God to become in their hearts religious.

The Chairman, much appreciating the old time religion via HDTV, calls for a debate:

RESOLVED: WE WERE A RELIGIOUS NATION

The Debate will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The debate will begin at half past seven p.m., following a lecture at six o'clock by Chuck Shreffler. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at 651-222-2782 or the Secretary at 952-486-8059.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Monday, May 07, 2007

Lileks and The Strib

Last year I paid $264 to subscribe to the Minneapolis StarTribune. There are two reasons for this

1) My wife insists. She believes a literate household must subscribe to a newspaper. It is a good example for the kids.

2) I like the comics. I pay $264 per year to read Get Fuzzy and Pearls Before Swine. Get Fuzzy alone is worth twice that. (I should really post an ode on the pure genius that is Get Fuzzy.) (Yes, I know I can get them on the internet.) And I do read almost every other comic as well. Aren't you worried about the girls in France in Judge Parker?

I can't be the only one on the verge of canceling. The Strib lost almost 5% of its readership in the last year alone. And classified ads are simply disappearing thanks to Craigslist. So they are in deep doodoo.

Their strategy? 1) Fire 250 people, 50 of them in the newsroom which is now under 400 people, so that's over 12.5% of the newsroom staff.

2) Tell all the columnists they are now potentially demoted to beat reporters. They have already done this to Lileks. I suspect that they can't fire them due to union restrictions, so they are trying to simply get them to quit.

Hugh Hewitt is up in arms about Lileks. I love Lileks and read his Bleat everyday, but I'm not sure how I feel about this. The fact is, I hardly ever read Lilek's Strib column since it wasn't the best format for him. His Screeds are the best (and the only thing he doesn't have archived on his site yet).

So this is my question: (Yes, long rambling post with supposedly no point, but there is one and here it is)

Everything I like about Lileks seems to make him no money (his Bleats and Screeds) whereas everything I don't enjoy is how he actually earns (or earned) his money (his Strib column and his books). Likewise, I don't think any local paper has figured out a way to actually make money from their online edition.

So here it is: Is there any way to actually make money from this Internet doohickey (other than porn)?

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I cancelled the trib some years ago. Mostly because I could not stand the reporting. I think the future of newspapers will be to pander to a particular audience, just as newspapers did years ago.

Right now I subscribe to my local eden prairie paper. It has stories about Eden Prairie and doesn't appear to have much bias. A paper like that if properly managed could weasel itself into the Strib's market with an alternative voice.

12:49 AM, May 08, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Love, love, LOVE Lileks. I only remember to check his Screedblog once or twice a month, ditto for his Strib column, which was cut back a while ago.

But I got rid of the paper version a few years ago because 1) I don't like black smudges on my fingers, 2) I don't want more paper in the house, 3) Now that my seven-year-old is reading, I don't need him getting all the crap I kept him out of public school to avoid, and 4) I get all the news I don't have time to read on the 'net.

Horse-drawn carriage makers had to find another livelihood a century ago, as incandescent bulb makers now will. Commie reporters are not immune to the market, despite their convictions.

10:23 AM, May 08, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Lileks also has fantastic collections of old photos on his site. I could spend hours browsing through his picts of Fifties art deco motels and dining halls, or turn-of-the-century photos of NYC.

6:45 PM, May 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

ABCnews: The Ron Paul Effect

ABCnews today, besieged by Ron Paul supporters, grudgingly acknowledges the "Ron Paul Effect" in this story.

With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.

His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 "friends." Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.

(Correction: Ron Paul is now running ahead of Paris Hilton at #5. They also left out that Ron Paul's website is running three times the traffic of Rudy or Romney (see chart), or that he is #1 on YouTube today.)

Digg.com was buzzing over the weekend as ABCnews first left Paul off their online debate poll, and then out of a debate coverage story. Email addresses and VP cell phone numbers were passed around, with reports of ABC receptionists getting a little peeved at the response. (A recent sampling of Digg stories by Scribbler's "Digg friends" can be accessed here.)

ABC is clearly not happy about having to admit that Ron Paul has support, but we're just happy to know that the MSM cannot completely ignore us.

Any wonder why Ron Paul responded Thursday night to "Do you trust the mainstream media?" with, "Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more."

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

From CNN Research Corporation telephone poll, carried out Friday through Sunday (414 registered voters who described themselves as Republicans or as independents who lean Republican).

Giuliani 25%
McCain 23%
F. Thompson 13%
Romney 10%
Gingrich 9%
Huckabee 3%
Brownback 2%
Tancredo 2%
Gilmore 2%
T. Thompson 1%
Paul 1%
Hunter 1%
No opinion 8%

See here.

8:20 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

We've been through this before. Shall we just copy our remarks over to this post?

8:59 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Oh, come now, Pencil. The margin of error on that poll is probably +/- 3 percent, which puts Paul at somewhere between 4 and -2. Since we know that Ms. Scrib is a supporter, I'll stipulate that his support is > 0. 1 / 414 = .0024, which using a liberal round, is 1%.

See? One person CAN make a difference.

9:21 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I've read that the Paulites are like the mob on the internet. They send hundreds of emails and seem to be everywhere. Is this true?

9:27 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

We OWN the 'net. Fox caved in over including all candidates in the SC debate May 15 by our hand, and you can read the above story yourself.

Telephone polls are worthless anymmore. I don't know ANYone, certainly no netizen, who answers his phone. Phone answerers sit at home during the day watching Oprah. These are not today's voters.

9:33 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Scribbler:

Come on. Ron Paul has a few pencil necked geeks who support him (1%) and spend all day writing computer programs to rig internet polls and 99% of Republicans who either don't support him or don't know who the hell he is. This idea that Ron Paul is actually popular is a lot like him: Just Plain Nuts.

It does no good to the Republican party to dilute the debates with the Huckabees, Gilmores, T. Thompsons, Ron Pauls, Tom Tancredos, and Duncan Hunters. I have as much chance of being the next President as any of them.

The idea that just announcing for President gets you on the stage is also Just Plain Nuts. Can I get on the stage by announcing? What's the criterion to be considered a serious candidate? There has to be some rule and one that says that you must get %5 in a national random sample poll to get on the stage sounds good to me.

9:42 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Why would you want to watch Rudy, Mitt and John stroking each other onstage? It's not a debate without Ron Paul.

So who is a serious candidate is defined by the very media that decided who were the candidates in the first place? It's not your Grandpa's MainStreamMedia world any longer, fat cats. I'm turning into an internet populist.

Btw, I vote in every damn poll myself, no one I am aware of has written a program to vote online, and I would have gotten it if there were one, but we do pass around email addys and phone numbers of media representatives until we get some action. So far we've had some success.

9:56 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Btw, out of his 12,395 MySpace friends, I'm still on his front page. I think he likes me.

10:02 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Lew Rockwell posted a few minutes ago about the Ron Paul Revolution. If you're not familiar, unofficial sixties themed signs have been popping up in funny places all over the country. Rockwell provides a link to some of the vids, but here's one I like.

10:15 PM, May 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

Friday, May 04, 2007

Romney!

Romney did a great job last night. Why should we not support Romney?

Blogger festivus said...

Only because I'm still not sure exactly what he believes. May learn that over time.

10:22 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Like I said below, if you don't agree with him now, he'll probably agree with you next week, then with someone else next month. To say he is ideologically promiscuous wouldn't be nice, so I'll just say he's very flexible. (His government-mandated insurance program sure scares me. Has he changed his mind on that one yet?)

10:48 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I can't believe that you refrained from commenting on the handkerchief post......

10:58 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Scribbler, haven't you stated in the past that you will probably not vote for the potential nominee anyways unless it is Ron Paul. Just as you refused to vote for Pawlenty... {even though he just vetoed the Bonding bil).

11:44 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Right, but some numbskulls out there think Romney is a decent candidate. That's my purpose for hanging around here, to point out the obvious.

Now, do you have another candidate you wish me to tear apart? (I notice no one is talking about Giuliani after last night. So you guys aren't completely hopeless.)

12:31 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

I believe people can change their mind on abortion - I don't like it when it's 'convenient' to change, but I do believe they can change, and it's almost always in the pro-life direction.

I do believe that Romney and I have very different concepts of the role of goverment, especially given his health care initiative. The correct answer is that government should be completely out of the health care business (companies too, but that's a different issue). He clearly disagrees.

12:49 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger The Strongman said...

It seems that Scribbler is looking for an opportunity to tear apart Giuliani, so I thought I'd offer one. I believe he'll be the next President. Getting the nomination may be a tougher task for him than beating either Clinton or Obama, however I think given Democrat control of Congress, Republicans are as likely as ever to support the candidate perceived as having the best chance of winning in November '08 and right now, that is Giuliani. He has said he personally hates abortion and would appoint judges similar to Roberts and Scalia. Why shouldn't we support Giuliani?

11:42 AM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Lordy, where do I start? How about immigration? He sees no problem with its current status. Even in Minnesota, this far removed from the border-at-fault, we see the problem. I would guess he'd favor the North American Union, but haven't googled his position there yet.

Besides abortion, there are serious disagreements with the party platform -- my opinion aside -- on the Second Amendment, abortion, gay marriage/civil unions and open acceptance in the military.

Shall we even get into which number wife he's on, whether this one is a cousin, and what size bra he wears?

But of more concern to me is his view of the Fourth Amendment and related civil liberties, and how he laughed when Ron Paul, in last week's debate, stated he would never abuse habeas corpus.

3:51 PM, May 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

If you think he's just so-so on abortion, bear in mind that he donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 90's, at least six times, maybe more.

8:18 AM, May 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Enough with Serious Discussion - What about Hankies

I was randomly reminded the other day about handkerchiefs and the fact that many people used to use them often and the fact that I have not seen one used for years. The whole concept seems kind of gross - blowing your nose into a hanky and then shoving it back into your pocket. I recall my dad used to use a hanky. He had a stack of them in one of his drawers and would grab a new one each day. Wife said her father also carried around a hanky. At some point my dad stopped using a hanky, but I do not recall when or why....

These days you never see hankies, except for show. I did an internet search for the demise of the handkerchief, but there wasn't much out there - just a few others making the same observation. So what happened to it... was it the advent of cheap and comfortable tissues? Maybe... however I wonder if my dad shoves a personal tissue pack each day in his pocket. Somehow I don't think so. Maybe people just don't sneeze as much as they used to. Maybe the demise of the hanky is due to better over the counter cold medicines?

Today I heard about a University in England measuring how fast people walk in various cities around the world. They found that people in Singapore walked the fastest - New York was No. 8 on the list. If a University can find funding for such a worthless study, they should be able to find out what happen to the hanky.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The handkerchief was just a way for men to pick up women without seeming crass. The guy would make the lady cry, then offer his handkerchief and she would need to take it home to launder and then return. So he gets to see her again.

Now that chivalry is dead, handkerchiefs are unnecessary.

12:27 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Excellent. I guess there is no longer any need for a woman to drop her hankie either... better to wear a mini skirt.

2:47 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

'Cause doing both at once is really obvious.

3:09 PM, May 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

I Can't Believe It's Really Here!

Today's the day! We've been waiting for months, and it's here! Today!

Like me, you all have been getting ready, talking excitedly with neighbors, blogging and Digging, running spreadsheets to score public statements for degrees of neoconism vs libertarianism, setting up databases to compare voting records vs campaign positions, the usual stuff. And tonight at 7 p.m. CDT, the GOP presidential candidates will each mount the Reagan Library stage, some with high hopes, some with dread, some with good hair, to face their adversaries. Some of the ten contenders have been heavily coached. Some will wonder who they are and why they are there. One that I know probably hasn't rehearsed at all. And all will be on display for the most avid political junkies, like puppies in a store window saying, "pick me, pick me."

Ah, 'tis the culmination of a long-awaited event, more exciting than Christmas to a seven-year-old, and I don't have cable.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Okay, I'm excited again. Politico.com will be streaming the debate live at http://www.politico.com/debate/. Too bad my sound card is fried. I'll have to pull out the laptop. Too bad the battery is dead. J/k on the battery. I will see and hear the debate tonight, so all is well. I can get back to work on the live graphs to map the candidates' position shifts during the debate.

2:28 PM, May 03, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Well... how was it?

9:35 PM, May 03, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Ron Paul did very well according to the MSNBC poll here. This despite the fact that he got less than half the speaking time of McCain as evidenced here.

7:46 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Yes, but how do YOU think he did?

I didn't watch it - I opted instead to take my boys and a friend to a pre-showing of Spiderman 3, for which I'm sure I garnered far more points that "Hey boys, let's grab some popcorn and our Reagan campaign buttons and watch the debate". I did catch a number of moments both on TV and on the web, and will likely watch a replay.

For me, of the top tier, Mitt is up, Rudy is way down, McCain is unchanged (he was unacceptable before and still is). I'm hoping like hell that Fred Thompson gets in.

Please make Tom Tancredo go away.

8:08 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I watched some of it too and read more of the transcript. I thought Romney did well. I am now leaning more towards Romney. However, I think all three of the top candidates have the qualifications to be President.

I am not sure if Paul has the qualifications. He has never been an executive before. It's risky to have someone go into a position with no prior executive experience. Being President is more about being a leader than having the right policy views. Although, I think it is good to have him in the debates.

8:48 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Experience is over-rated. Besides, none of these guys is going to win the White House in '08. Bush pretty much screwed things up for the GOP, you must admit.

Right now it's all about reclaiming the party. If we're about a pretty face with little inside the blow-dried head, Romney's your guy. Looking on the bright side, he'll represent absolutely everyone for a few minutes each. So if he doesn't stand for your ideals, just wait a couple days -- he'll get around to it.

9:49 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I'm far more interested in finding out about Spiderman 3 (which has a really cool trailer) than the debate.
How was it, Festivus?

10:54 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

A classic Pencil comment!

11:45 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I knew that's how you were going to react!

So it's not just me that's become predictable.

11:51 AM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

So you admit that you only post to get such reactions.... is that part of the John Adams Blog mission statement?

1:06 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I have a random question, and this seems to be the place to ask it. Am I neurotic? Ahem, no need to answer so quickly.

I'm switching my office for my son's smaller bedroom, and am finding all these old credit card offers, draft tax returns, etc. from over the past few years. I have to tear off each name/address or SSN block and rip each into 4 pieces to go in 4 different trash cans so they end up in different trash bags wherever it is they end up. (Yeah, I could shred them, but would have to put the shreddings into 4 different trash cans too.) Am I taking this too far?

2:51 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Hmm.. it depends. Have you seen Pencil hanging out by your trash bins lately?

10:04 PM, May 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I thought that was a big racoon. Wearing a pink shirt.

9:26 AM, May 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Hypnoanesthesia? No thanks

The publication for a Minnesota chapter of a group to which I belong arrived today, and while I was flipping through I spotted this eighth-of-a-page notice:
Volunteers Needed. The (BBC) is seeking volunteers who would be willing to undergo their scheduled surgery with hypnosis as their primary anesthesia. If interested, contact member Bill Xxxxx, hypnoanesthesiologist, at (952) 555-xxxx. Bill's services are at no charge for this study.
The last time I went to a gathering of this group, Bill Xxxxx, hypnoanesthesiologist, cornered me at the bar and whipped out the bloody pictures of his last surgery for which he administered his own hypnoanesthesia. (Most people show off their kids.) Having my wits about me, I launched an incendiary political routine and he stormed off.

Also in this publication are the new members, one being -- I will try to obfuscate google out of concern for the person's privacy -- "$ u b r a m a n i a n _M. _$ u r y a n a r a y a n a n" from the northwestern metro. I'd hate to ask what the "M" stands for.