Whites In America Rejoice At Their Own OJ

So, after decades of negro oppression (see, you can’t even say “negro” anymore! I’m not racist, but I want to be able to call negroes negroes and they just have to deal with all of the baggage of that term so that I can have my freedom) white people may finally be seeing some justice in this country. Will it make up for all of the confiscatory taxing to pay for luxury vehicles for negroes who do no work all these years? or for the kidnapping of white children into schools with non-white kids? or for the fact that blacks like OJ Simpson can murder white girls at will, after raping them, for free? I doubt it.

And of course it won’t make up for the fact that illegitimate Kenyan socialist muslin terrorist Obama is the mongrel king of America!

But hey, the murder of an innocent black kid for wearing the wrong clothes in the wrong neighborhood going unpunished is something! He was 17 and once smoked pot. Why, I bet by that age he has even fathered several illegitimate children collecting welfare from all of the upstanding white slave workers!

But we obviously have a long way to go. We can’t say negroes in the open yet. And we must be ever vigilant lest we get techo-lynched like The Last Honest Man, John Derbyshire who was pilloried for having the courage to spout racist pseudo-science The TRUTH on the Internet. Except for his Chinese wife and mongrel children, he is a SAINT! All he was saying is that he didn’t want his children to get caught in a stampede of a tribe of negroes at the beach! Who would want that?

But, hey, just a few more of these and the shootings in Tulsa and whitey may be FREE AT LAST! (because MLK was a Republican!)

 

Hobson’s Choice

Imagine this.

You’re a Republican Congressman elected in 2010. Your seat is fairly secure, but you won’t survive a wave election of the kind that put your into power. But you’ve taken a few votes in this Congress that haven’t enamored you to moderate voters, as most of your colleagues have.

You’re in a meeting with the RNCCC. Someone mentions that your colleagues in the senate are pushing to retake that chamber and they have to win in blue and purple states to do it.

You want to get reelected. What do you do?

Here’s what I would do:

I raise my hand and say

They might take a numerical majority in the senate, but they are in no position to get a filibuster-proof majority, even if they won’t have to be buying off Angus King from Maine all the time, and even if they can get Joe Lieberman to shift to caucus with us. They won’t be able to legislate. Sure, maybe a few bills can pass by reconciliation.

Worse, if we do lose the White House and we lose the House and we can’t legislate in the Senate, we have nothing, really. The President can veto reconciliation bills and the Speaker can refuse to take them up.

No, we can’t stick our own necks out for either the Presidential nominee or for the prospect of taking the Senate. We’re just not that close to closing the deal. I can read polls.

I have to have my base show up. You made me take votes that alienated moderates. I took them. If we support Romney, my base will simply not show up. I will lose, and if I lose, dozens other just like me will lose and we will lose the House.

It’s not good for me, but it’s also not good for the Party.

Will Santorum lose 40 states? Probably. But the base will show up. They will reelect me, they will reelect others like me, and there won’t be any surprises in the Senate, even if we won’t retake it.

So, you tell me—what’s better for the party? Nominal control of the Senate with Obama back in the White House and Pelosi back in the Speaker’s chair? That’s what you’ll get with Romney.

With Santorum, you’ll have Obama back in the White House. It seems to me that ship has sailed. Some time this summer, he’s either going to have a treaty with Iran, or he’s going to bomb them. Then what? But we’ll keep the House because we’ll be able to draw a firewall with districts that are already gerrymandered and those that will be by the time of the election with our base.

Fuck the Senate. They can go it on their own, and fuck Romney he’s a terrible candidate. Santorum is a psycho and we have to keep him from being crowned the presumed nominee for 2016, but that’s how we get the base to turn out. Period.

It’s about the House. It’s about 2016.

Do you really want to overturn Obamacare? You can’t do it now. You can’t do it without 60 senators, can’t do it without the White House. And I don’t think you can do it period now. You need to wait for it to kick in in 2014 and have a bunch of people dropped from their employer’s health care. It’ll be a great issue in 2016.

If we don’t get it done by then, in 2018 or 2020, people will love it. They’ll start to see savings and security. They’ll be addicted to yet another government plan.

So, gentlemen, what will it be? The House and our own necks, and the party, and a shot at repealing this socialist monstrosity—or a chance for the arrogant, backstabbing senators and their faceman from Massachusetts?

GOP Delegate Math

It’s pretty simple.

Mitt Romney needs 52% of the remaining delegates, only a maximum of 122 of which are available from winner-take-all states. If he doesn’t start winning delegate majorities now, he will not be able to win a first-ballot majority, and will probably have to put one of his current rivals on the ticket and make major platform concessions as well.

PPP is suggesting Santorum may be leading in Michigan, but Michigan has less delegates actually in play than Arizona and because it is proportional, whereas Arizona is winner take all (on the same day). If any kind of polling shows Santorum has a chance there, he should get there and try and claim the 29 delegates there, instead of seeing if he can get 15 instead of 10 in Michigan. It would also show that he is more than a regional candidate.

If Santorum can maintain momentum on that day into Super Tuesday, where Romney is running into trouble in Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio, Santorum could claim the actual delegate lead.

Will the Newt and Sanatorium Make the Spirit of the Mittens Strong?

The Bull Trout is an adfluvial apex predator native to Pacific Northwestern rivers and lakes.  Bull Trout are fairly “average” looking fish, but they are every bit the champions of their domain as wolves or lions are to theirs. Biologists have described them as the “Tyrannosaurus Rex of the river.” They can and will eat anything smaller than them. Even little birds. Their favorite snack is juvenile Chinook salmon. Of all the daft details of endangered species politics, managing for endangered salmonids and Bull Trout is, for self-evident reasons, one the weirdest. In a largely unspoiled ecosystem (in this case the  salmonids were slaughtered in fisheries to near extinction by the turn of 20th century and bull trout were purposefully retononed by federal and state fisheries agencies in the 1920s – 1960s in order to make way for more desirable exotic species, but I digress), however, there is a symbiosis between the two species. By eating many subyearling and yearling Chinook — presumably, mostly the less fit ones — as they rear in riparian environments the Bull Trout reduce spatial and food competition at every other stage in the lifecycle for the remaining, more fit Chinook. In addition, Bull Trout attacks teach the juvenile Chinook how to evade predators, which is likely a very useful skill for when they enter the ocean as little fish in a gigantic pond. In this case the obligatory American-Indian saying is sage: “The Bull Trout makes the spirit of the salmon strong.” (This advantage for wild salmonids is undermined by state, federal and, yes, tribal fisheries agencies who inundate rivers with genetically inferior hatchery salmon in order to maintain a fishery with an “acceptable” harvest impact on wild fish — generally about 25% of the wild adult fish; the ones that have proven by their survival to have the most fit genes, but I digress.)

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was Barack Obama’s “Bull Trout”: A full grown top predator that had long thrived in a brutish Darwinian political environment where Obama, a temporal fry by comparison, had just emerged from his redd. The Conventional Wisdom holds that by forcing Obama to compete for space (states), food (voters), and to evade or contend with a kitchen sink of attacks (Hillary pressed the full Nixonian resentment card against Obama — long the Conservatrons’ best tactic), Hillary assured that the Spirit of the Obama was Strong. Having overwintered in the Primary Reservoir to survive Salvelinus confluentus Clintonessus Obama was indeed a “Jumbo Smolt” when he finally smoltified and outmigrated to the General Election Ocean in the summer. Once there, Obama outmaneuvered the Humboldt Squids (a voracious predator whose unusual presence off of Oregon and Washington may have largely wiped out the Sacremento River salmon run in 2008) and non-charismatic megafauna of his Conservatron competition and was able to return to the great “spawning ground of ideas” of Washington DC as a powerful November Hog. A few of the conceptual eggs the Obama fertilized have hatched. The full Affordable Care Act is scheduled to emerge in 2014, although the Conservatrons will try their hardest to scour or dessicate it while it’s incubating in the meantime.

Although Mittens has spent time rearing in the Primaries and Massachusetts habitats, he has not proven fit enough to outmigrate to the General Election Ocean. Resident Conservatron Suckers, (invasive) Crappies and Redband trout do not appear to like him or trust him. This has provided openings for other competitors to challenge him. The hope in Conservatron Land was that, after South Carolina, the Newt would be Mittens’ “Bull Trout” as Hillary was Barack’s back in 2008. The Newt is an experienced, tactical hack. The Newt’s hypocrisy is so paramount that he doesn’t even hide it. The Newt’s brand of confrontational hatefulness, pomposity, gimpy pseudo-intellectualism and Racism Lite rhymes with the Conservatron zietgiest. The Newt kinda’ looks like a Bull Trout, too.

Indeed, Mittens’ vertebrae appeared to calcify in response to the Newt. He was coached into being an aggressor in debates. He usurped a taster of the Newt’s trademark Nasty™. Mittens won Florida. Mittens won Nevada. It appeared that a swift Mittens was finally ready to strap the dog to the roof of the family car, undergo smoltification and outmigrate to the General Election Ocean. Then Mittens was felled by Sanatorium — Sanatorium! The Frothy Human Punchline! — in Colorado, Minnesota and Missourah.

The Conservatron illiteratti hasn’t whispered about Sanatorium being a potential “Bull Trout”. While co-opting a bit of the Newt’s Nasty™ was a necessary adaptation, having to out-wacko Sanatorium on social issues will force Mittens onto the opposite side of anyone that has ever been sexually active (or hopes to be) once the Conservatron elders finally truck Mittens to the estuary and he flip-flops into the General Election Ocean. After all, we’ve all befallen from several eons of fornicators, and despite the presence of lamprey-like Creepers such as Sanatorium most of us would prefer to enjoy fornicating safely, just as we evolved to do.

So why is it that the Newt and Sanatorium are not making the spirit — or at least the poll numbers versus “King Salmon” Obama — of the Mittens strong? It’s simple. Unlike Hillary, the Newt and Sanatorium are not noble “Bull Trout”. They are invasive, venal Smallmouth Bass. Smallmouth Bass are native to Southern warm water ponds, but have been introduced by bucket biologists and, of course, state fishery agencies to Northwestern reservoirs. They evolved to ambush spiny-backed, large resident fishes. Smooth-backed juvenile salmonids don’t have a chance against them, no matter how fit they are. Because Smallmouth Bass are fetishized by sun stroked license-purchasing yahoos they are managed by state fishery agencies as a sport fish (catch and release only), rather than a nuisance species to be eliminated (bounty fishery). While their periodicity with salmonids is temperature dependent and the extent to which they overlap is not entirely known as that would require state fishery agencies to monitor the impact of their management decisions, they certainly compete for food and space with native fish. When exotics are “flushed” out of a well-managed reservoir, salmonids immediately grow to be larger and more plentiful.

The Republican Party is a poorly managed reservoir full of invasive bass, crappies, channel catfish, legacy pollution and other Things that Should Not be There that Fuck with Everything that Should. Much as these invasive fish are managed by a state agency that profits from selling licenses to catch them and yet has a mandate to preserve the native species that these exotics destroy, so is the Conservatron bubble overseen by a media that treats the nonsense (evolution schmevolution, global warming is a hoax, austerity is expansionary) that emerges from its effluent as one side of an argument even as they claim to be crusaders for truth. As a result this years’ slate of Conservatron candidates has included jokers like Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Michelle Bauchmann and has been laughably weak (especially compared to the august Democratic field of 2008) because they have evolved to survive in a toxic cess pool with other sheltered meanies rather than developing the talents to outmigrate to the General Election Ocean.

Starting in 2004 Democrats are 9 and 0 in Presidential election debates. I am counting Obama’s 2010 impromptu confrontation with the Conservatrons in this tally. It is the most striking example. Obama was ambushed by the Conservatrons, he had no allies in the room, Conservatron Mike Pence (who looks like he was carved out of a pencil eraser) was the moderator. Even in the most hostile of circumstances Obama obliterated his opposition because ideas and skills that are developed by the non-native species in the Conservatron cess pool bubble are no match for those honed to compete for the votes of everyone else. Faced with someone that would actually challenge the basis of their concepts, rather than treat them as a “he said/she said,” the Conservatrons folded one after another in the face of Obama’s rebuttals and Fox News cut away rather than watch Obama continue to dunk on the Conservatrons in garbage time.

The Consrevatrons don’t breed Presidents. They concoct invasive predators with an unnatural advantage over their prey, designed to grow large and just healthy enough to absorb the toxics in their crumby habitat, until they become too poisonous to tolerate and only the ignorant would want to keep them. On the occasions when one of these creatures slimes or steals its way into the “spawning ground of ideas” in Washington DC, as Generalissimo Bush did through his putsch in Florida in 2000, the results are horrendous: asleep at the wheel for a disastrous terrorist attack, an unnecessary nine year war, fiscal mismanagement, torture, hundreds of thousands of needless dead people and countless maimed American troops, and the Great Economic Collapse.

The longer Mittens spends in the Conservatron cess pool the more inbred he will become. For the Spirit of the Mittens can Never be Strong because his stock has no soul.

Wow!

But where was that in 2009?

Missed opportunities under the bridge, I guess. Obama squared every circle and appears 20 times the hominid as any of his rivals. Absent any vicious deus ex machina that destroys the economy, Obama will win. Perhaps the Conservatron implosion will be complete enough to give him another congressional majority……

Newtmentum

The problem with the NYT so often is that they won’t call it like they see it.

The whole meme that the GOP establishment badly wants to beat Obama is true. They want to beat him up. They don’t want to win more than they want to beat him. If they wanted to win, a guy like Romney or Huntsman would have been carrying big majorities in the polls leading up to the primaries. Instead, the latest candidate to throw the biggest bombs has surged into the lead each time. Now that the alternatives are milquetoast-might-win Romney and the Attack Newt, who do you think they prefer?

They want red meat. They want anger. And they want these things more than they want to win.

This is such a basic, simple observation about the GOP electorate right now that the presumed paper of record is scared to make because it might get called “biased” that it is continuing to render itself irrelevant.

They even go to the lengths of feigning confusion over South Carolina voters thinking Newt is “electable.” They don’t mean “everyone will like him.” They mean “he will bring holy vengeance upon Obama.” Why is this so hard for the so called liberal media to understand? Why are they so wedded to portraying angry voters as angels? Why are the minority of people who live in empty spaces considered “real Americans” and the rest of us who live among our fellow citizens not?

Did Obama Just Clinch Reelection?

It seems pretty undeniable to me that at this point, the biggest winner of tonight’s GOP primary in South Carolina was Barack Obama. Mitt Romney seemed very vulnerable this week on issues that will matter to voters in the general election—issues that Mitt would have to win on to convince the electorate to throw Obama out, specifically, the economy. Any notion that Obama can be attacked on defense issues simply ignores one thing: Osama bin Laden. (Also, for the 5-10% who are unapproving of Obama at the moment from the left, he gets to say we’re out of iraq.)

It still seems to me that Romney will be the nominee, but after a bloody battle that only mires him deeper in accusations of being a bigwig insiderish “vulture capitalist” (thank you, Governor Perry) because in the end, it will probably be money and the GOP establishment that help him pull this off. And those resentments can be used by Democrats to either flip voters or keep them home. And it will cost him money to do so.

Of course, if Gingrich is the nominee, we can start talking about “50 state strategies.”

When Paulphecy Fails

In the classic 1956 work When Prophecy Fails, social psychologists study a reclusive UFO cult in Chicago. When its doomsday prophecy fails to come true, the group suddenly seeks publicity and converts. The study is about cognitive dissonance and it leads you to adopt a seemingly paradoxical conclusion about human behavior: the less a group believes in something the more they proselytize. The theory is that people need a new group of believers either to comfort them in their loss, or, perhaps, to give social proof to refute their doubts.

So, when a candidate attracts a group of mostly young, mostly secular, and mostly white and male people into a years’ long affair, you start to wonder. The reason shouldn’t be that surprising. Whatever else it may be, our public schools teach an ideological history, especially of America. American history is seen as a clash of ideals. Sure, this is partly true, but this is mostly left unexamined. Did these ideals deliver on their promises? Were there ulterior motives for preaching them? This kind of critical thinking is not well presented.

So, your typical butthurt dweller type left without a regular religion adopts a kind of worship of the free market, which promises its followers relief from the unfair oppression of social interactions where their “intelligence” isn’t rewarded with friends, sex, or followers. If only society would break down to this level, a messianic age of no wars, a strong economy, and a recognition of the Galts of this country would dawn.

And of course today, their prophet is Ron Paul. The first dissonance you have to deal with is that Paul is a Republican. This does not fit with the “rules don’t apply to me” speeding-in-a-school-zone and doing-coke-in-the-privacy-of-my-own-home ethos of the typical young Jedi libertarian. But they just decide he’s a maverick, even if he does vote for John Boehner for Speaker.

For the most part, as long as Paul remains a fringe candidate, this is just fine. They can exchange apropos quotes and dream about the future where reading comic books will get you all the chicks in technoutopia.

But once Paul began to rise in the polls, the media turned its gaze on his record. The Prophet was pretty quickly revealed to be a false one, and this was a critical moment. If you remain true to the religion of free markets and “liberty,” how could you support this man, who, ended up being a standard Republican after all, just of the 1920s type? With a nasty touch of Bircher and white supremacist too! Race and sexuality aren’t supposed to play into the perfect Logos of the Free Market!

Those who believed in the religion more than the Prophet would abandon him on this evidence, but that wasn’t to be with most. Instead, attacks on the character of the reporters, the witnesses, and other outright denials ensued. Articles started pouring forth on how and why Paul will win the election, why he is the best candidate in the modern era (best as in campaigner, not as in best ideas) despite the fact that Mitt Romney has just about sewn the GOP nomination up as of the date that article was written.

It’s a painful thing to believe in something so much and to see it as a salve for the pain of your life and times to break down as a lie. But, for those who seem to think “logic” and “intelligence” should play such a great role in things, they are utterly human after all and subject to the same psychological quirks as the rest of us.

Ron Paul will be forgotten, but I doubt his psuedo-religion of libertarian delusion is going away any time soon, partly because it will never been falsifiable in its “pure” state, but partly because it’s conclusions have been falsified over and over again, giving even more fervor to its believers.

The Media Chafes At Iran Assasinations While Cheering War

Because Private Jones from Flint, Michigan’s life isn’t worth shit and the elites, even of enemy societies, are sacred and protected by “International law” the media wags its fingers at the apparent assassinations by foreign governments of Iranian nuclear officials. They act like there is some sort of alternative where nothing happens.

The left is somewhat correct to be suspicious of another Middle Eastern war, but they should consider whether the need to stop nuclear proliferation isn’t more important. The right is incorrect to want to invade Iran and try and remake its government from without the way we did in Iraq. So where does this leave us?

With sanctions, diplomacy, and covert operations being a fairly good alternative.

But, sure enough, folks like Juan Cole are calling it “terrorism,” mostly to scold the right for calling everything terrorism, not because I think he believes it and MJ Rosenberg is calling it “an act of war,” and today’s NYT piece has experts saying that such acts violate international law.

That’s all nice in theory; the reality is that the alternative, whatever it should be, is a full-scale war, where the soldiers and marines can get “assassinated” at every turn. But that kind of killing doesn’t violate “international law” so it’s ok.

If you stop and think: a well placed bomb might have killed Saddam Hussein and ended the Iraq war before it began. And many of these folks were left to face their arguments as reductiones ad absurdum when they tried to argue the killing of Usama bin Laden was against “international law.”

If computer viruses, explosions at military compounds, and the targeted killing of nuclear scientists—not exactly a work-a-day Tehranian—can get the job done, then let it be so.

I think some of these scholars and journalists think that some kind of world order preserved by these rules helps people and they are advancing their points in good faith. But they have apparently stopped asking why these laws exist in the first place and what function they are meant to serve. If an orderly, rules based conduct of wars like that in Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands are just fine and this isn’t, then something is wrong.

What I Wrote 10 Years Ago About Iran

We now have a stronger basis for invading Iran than Iraq than now. Of course, we don’t have a basis for regime change there, necessarily. We can just go wipe out these bases.

I wondered why, if we were fighting the war on terror, why we weren’t more interested in Iran. (I also argued against lowering interest rates which would just inflate another bubble.) Somehow, my stupid ideas never got heard by anyone and we fought a stupid war and killed the middle class.

Five years ago, I put this into the context of nuclear proliferation. And, as an aside, I also argued contra Rachel Maddow that Obama is not adopting the “Bush Doctrine” because the Bush Doctrine is not what it says it is. The real Bush Doctrine is an ill-conceived war of choice to line the pockets of cronies. The purported Bush Doctrine of preemptive war is not really all that controversial if coupled with an imminent threat, but Bush fraudulently convinced us of an imminent threat which didn’t exist.

The IAEA is telling us loud and clear that the Iranians are enriching Uranium beyond the point of peaceful uses. The EU is also imposing sanctions on them. There is no Hans Blix telling us he can’t find anything there. There’s stuff there.

The reason Iran can’t have the bomb isn’t that I don’t want smelly olive skinned Muslims to have nukes. I’m pretty sure that, coupled with lost property by big corps, is why the Republicans want to attack them, but it has nothing to do with me.

I’m worried about nuclear proliferation. Even if Iran only had a few weapons, it would trigger proliferation in the world’s most conflict-ridden area, probably forcing the Saudis, Turks, and Egyptians (at least) into producing nuclear weapons, and would force the Israelis to increase their arsenal, so too with India and Pakistan.

This is not good.

It’s true that we lived with the Soviets pointing thousands at us for decades—but how many different times do you think the Cold War could have been gone through that cleanly? There were times where only sheer luck prevented a nuclear exchange. Why is that proof of anything?

So, Michael Moore is now calling on the New York Times not to “lie us into another war.” And I agree, they should not. I agree that the facts must be solid, the international consensus must be strong, and there must be no occupation. Diplomacy must run its course, but there can be no nuclear Iran.

Invading Iraq and continuing the occupation in Afghanistan long beyond its freshness date have seriously impacted our ability to pull this kind of thing off both operationally, financially, and politically.

The tale of the boy who cried wolf is why you do permanent damage to a country’s security when you lie it into a war. When an entire generation cannot remember a major war that didn’t have bullshit as its basis, how do you fight the war that is real?

And I certainly don’t think nuclear proliferation is about oil, either. We all think terrorism is a problem, or the Israel/Palestine problem, or whatever. But we won’t think that when there’s a new nuclear cold war because the obvious facts are that since 1945, humanity has had the power to destroy itself in a fiery nightmare and we’ve walked on the knife edge too many times in that regard.