Not a Literal Connection, Dude

A lot of people are all up in arms about some anti-colonialism comment in some article written by D-Souzie. He thinks colonialism isn't something we should be against? I dunno. I've been too busy writing down anti-american names so that – when we finish up in SandNiggerstan – I'll be useful in directing our flying killer robots at home where they are still so desperately needed. Enjoy your wedding party, libtards!

I managed to get far enough into the article to find this beautiful, beautiful peace of logic:

More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?

I was confused by this at first until I realized that Dinesh meant it was strange that a professionally intellectual would argue that excessive use of oil would never lead to reckless exploitation of oil resources.

I may finish the article, in which case, updates will go below.

Update:

Yup, as predicted.

Obama's foreign [Uh, what country is New York in again? -ed.] policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

I guess missing blatant connections is just this guy's thing...

Update II:

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

Uh, Dinesh, if I might... uh.. borrow some idiocy. I don't see any connection there!

My New Career

Megan's stupid. I've decided to become an internet sensation instead of worrying about her. Here's my first go at it. I'm pretty sure it will be the most popular video on the internet in a few hours.

A Brand New Low

It takes an astoundingly bad comic to strip off all of the sympathy from the scene of a young dog being struck by a pick up truck. What, in God's name, is happening in panel 2? Invisible bicycle?

If You Can't Beat Them, Call Them Poopyheads

Shorter Ross Douthat:
Six Hours of Hot Air!

My peers have no intellectual capabilities and act like little children. My opponents are jerks for pointing this out and no one should get healthcare because of it.

In the article, he actually says that Obama is "too professional." Yeah, we need more leaders who fly headlong into decisions based on gut reactions. Screw this thinking shit. It has never worked.

Megan's website redo seems to have messed up my Google reader, as I haven't been seeing any of her posts. I'm too lazy to go to her URL, click on the read more button and then actually read her drivel, so, fuck that. This might be the end of me. Go over and read her columns yourself, imagining a smug ass guffawing and calling her stupid periodically, and you'll have an experience similar to what you get when reading me. A quick glance shows she has an article about the killer Shamu, which has got to be amusing. Apparently she's qualified to discuss marine life now. Those MBAs are fucking handy.

This One Doesn't Even Have Guns

Breaking News! Leaked transcripts of secret NBC discussions regarding Olympic coverage:

NBC Executive: Should we play women's gold medal hockey today or women's cross country skiing?

Total Moron: Cross country. Nothing's more exciting than that.

NBC Executive: Well, you're the brains of this outfit. Let's do it!

I knew it!

Back on the Horse

Hey, check it out! Uninformed musings from a delusional idiot with a following about the uniformed musings of a delusional idiot with a following! It's like looking at a mirror in a mirror in a mirror in a....

Ann Althouse suggests that liberal magazine sales are down now that Obama is in office. From what I understand, that's not exactly surprising; the conventional wisdom around here is that political magazines do best when their party is out of power. On the other hand, there is this recession on, and I don't know that conservative magazines have seen their circulation rise. Personally, I just decided not to renew our subscription to Harper's, not because it's run out of anti-Bush hate, but because I've been reading it less and less. On the other hand, I guess you could argue that Bush hatred infused the magazine with an energy that it's now lost.

So, Megan, tell us about the magazines you read!

And -- so as to save brad the trouble of making the note -- as far as we know, neither Megan McArdle, nor myself, nor brad, nor M. Bouffant, nor Connor Friedersdorf, nor Ann Althouse is, in fact, Ann Althouse.

Update: She doesn't even read her own links (like me!)! From the Vanity Fair article Ann Althouse links:

The year 2009 was a tough one for magazines in general, with circulation down 2.23 percent overall, according to ABC (the decline in advertising revenue was far greater and more detrimental, but that’s another story). The three leading liberal political magazines, however, fared particularly badly. The Nation’s circulation in 2009 was down 7.4 percent from 2008, Mother Jones was down 6.7 percent, and Harper’s was down 5 percent.

(...)

What about the conservative magazines? The most prominent and biggest-selling, The National Review, definitely seemed to experience an Obama-hatred bump in 2009. Paid circulation was up a solid 4.8 percent from 2008, and was 16 percent greater than the magazine’s 2003-2008 average. The Weekly Standard rose by 8.4 percent, with an especially big spike in the second half of the year. As for relative newcomer Newsmax, which has less name recognition than the Standard but a higher circulation (an average of 101,370 copies in 2009 versus 77,470), its circulation held steady.

Ha Ha?

Blah:

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks that Google Docs might be very useful for managing wedding planning tasks. The Official Google Blog notes all the ways in which they're trying to help you plan for that very special day.

However, Google's entry into the wedding planning business is uncharacteristically, almost comically, inept. These tools are free. This is not how wedding planning services work. The way they work is, they charge you $50 for things that are normally free, escalating rapidly if there is actual work or materials involved.

So either she's making a stupid joke about how ridiculous weddings are while she talks endlessly about hers, or else she's too stupid to realize that just about everything Google does is free to individuals.

One thing is certain, it's retarded. And by retarded I mean FUCKING RETARDED. Baby Trig, I'm looking straight at you! Across the hypotenuse!

Wow, I seem to have spelled hypotenuse right on the first try. Go me.

Well That Explains It

I have often wondered how it is that Megan can be so incompetent about so, so many things. I think this provides some insight into that:

State Department vehicle hits journalist, breaking his knee, and gets the MPD to cite him for jaywalking. Note to State Department: if you hit a pedestrian walking anywhere near a crosswalk, you were at fault. The accident is bad enough. But trying to blame it on the victim is appalling.

Now, as usual there's a lot of stupid in there. The first is that, of course, she doesn't care about the jay walking. She's pimping this 'cause (and I'm hazy on the details on account of who fucking cares) this was some right wing guy and he was hit by a member of socialists Obama's government cabal so obviously coverupscandalomg. There's the fact that she, almost certainly, has no idea what actually happened and yet is sure the pedestrian is not at fault. That's not what I'm here for though. I'm here for the part that says:

if you hit a pedestrian walking anywhere near a crosswalk, you were at fault.

Which is like, really? What the fuck? Who told her that? What part of her brain is missing that she can't realize how stupid such a law would be? Does she not notice that people don't just walk out into the intersection no matter that status of the light or the traffic, confident that they won't be hit by cars? Does she really think that avoiding pedestrians is always the responsibility of the less maneuverable, larger, faster, lower field of vision having party? Fuck, planes aren't supposed to fly over active parachuting areas, but I can assure you that we still check for traffic before we fucking exit!

She continually blows my mind with the ignorant, poorly thought out nonsense that escapes from her fingers. I don't know which is more unbelievable an explanation; that she is so partisan even her views on jay walking are bent to fit the political agendas involved, or that she is so stupid she actually thinks that the car holds sole responsibility for avoiding pedestrians.

Update: Oh, yes, the explanation part. The point is that this clearly indicates that she is not in the same world that the rest of us are in. I don't know how she switched dimensions, and I'm not sure what part of our reality bleeds into hers and what part of her reality bleeds into ours. I just hope that they have nice music wherever she is, for her sake.

Then Bill of What's?

I think Megan is trying to out liberal the liberals here, or something. I don't fucking know. She's just free associating as far as I can tell.

In a recession, the problem most people and organizations face is too little money. But clearly, that's not the case with the ACLU, which apparently has ample time and money to sue to prevent a charter school from unconstitutionally promoting Islam.

The ACLU litigating a case about religious promotion by the government. Jeez, they must be loaded to get involved with a case that relates to their core principles and widely affects lots of people. Crazy times. (Whattaredaodds that the ACLU got involved in this case before the recession. I'd say higher than "1.")

In a way, this is very good to hear, because it makes it easy to direct my giving to organizations with more urgent needs.

Uhhh, is Megan actually trying to get us to believe that she ever gave money to the ACLU? 'Cause I don't usually donate money to people that I whimsically pontificate annoying for fun.

After my much-regretted decision to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, I've kind of been sitting on the political sidelines. I'm pretty sure I'll hate whoever gets elected. Rudy might be funny just to see the ACLU get all misty and nostalgic about the current administration

That's just me, though.

On the other hand, what the hell is wrong with the leadership at the ACLU? In theory, for all I know, it unconstitutionally promotes religion.

Anyone who can tell me what "it" is wins a years tuition to the religious school of their choice. Also, in theory it's unconstitutional, but who cares about that little thing?

The establishment clause was supposed to prevent a minority from being oppressed by a majority, not to prevent a minority from oppressing itself.

Yeah, that's why it says right there in the constitution separation of church and state only the biggest religion in the country should be excluded from public education.

OK, wait, no, this one requires more time than that. I know I asked this two posts ago, but, seriously, HOW CAN SHE BE THIS FUCKING STOOPID??? "Separation of church and state" is like, the second fucking political thing we're taught after the Pledge of Allegiance. How can you be so fucking dumb as to add imaginary qualifying language like "the church that has the most influence?" How can you be so historically ignorant. She fucking blogs about politics when she's clueless about the meaning of what is commonly regarded as America's CENTRAL FUCKING TENET OF GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY. Who the fuck reads her shit and decides NOT to fire Megan? How can such a person exist? What's next, is she going to claim that right to bear arms means she can wear a fucking tank top? Where the fuck did she come from? She has to be a joke. This blog is actually the biggest sucker in the planet, falling for what is obviously an elaborate parody. She's not real. She's dumber than a random sentence generator. It would take her longer than a million monkeys at a million type writers to generate anything close to a coherent thought. WTF!!!! How is the earth that I live on?! How are there people whose DNA is essentially identical to mine and yet can barely figure out how to fucking fall down? This is like not knowing who fucking Obama is! For fuck's sake! WTF!?!?!? I can't take this shit anymore. The fuse on my head is just about up.

I admire a huge amount of the work that the ACLU does on issues like habeas corpus and wiretapping.

Oh shit.

<Head Explodes>

Why, then, do they so often seem intent on turning the organization into the highbrow edition of Stuff White People Like?

<Crickets>

Failing at Life

I don't understand how you can be this fucking stupid and have gainful employment of any kind, let alone moderate notoriety and perceived authority.

Well, my fourth bike was stolen this morning, out of our backyard, which has a seven foot stockade fence around it. I have never managed to hold onto a bike more than six months in an urban environment--the previous two times, they left the bike lock, as if to taunt me with its inadequacy. I think I'm done with bike commuting. I'd rather just hand out $100 bills to random people on the street; at least I wouldn't be rewarding theft.

It wasn't an expensive bike, either; it was the cheapest hybrid available in my size. But the fact is, if you own a bike in this city, it will be stolen. I'm willing to brave weather and entitled motorists. But I'm sick of funding donations to the bike theft brigade.

I bet ten million fucking dollars she forgot to put her bike away behind her "seven foot stockade fence." It's prolly sitting outside the bar she drunkenly forgot it at right now, taunting her in real life as the left behind locks taunt her imagination. (As if the thieves would take with them a lock they know first-fucking-hand is inadequate.)

You don't lose a bike every six months ANYWHERE unless you're too fucking stupid to lock it up properly. I've lived in urban environs most of my life as well, and had bikes stolen only when I did something idiotic. How does she get her over-sized pants over her gargantuan ass every morning without falling down and getting a concussion?

brad adds:

It would have clashed with the decor for Megan to bring the bike inside the house she rents, which would obviously be worse than needing a new bike.

Fried Chicken and Watermelon in the Oval Office?

Wow, The Atlantic really is fucking retarded from head to fucking toe. I don't know what the article actually says, but how the fuck could they not see how horribly this magazine cover could be interpreted?:

Seriously, why not just Photoshop [When verbing a proper noun, do you still capitalize?-ed.] an AK-47 in one hand with the other giving the black power salute? I wonder if there will be a media circus.

UPDATE: HOLY SHIT! Reading this article.... I... uh.. DEAR GOD it scream for a take down. I'm working on it. Check back later.

Calling Brad....

Dude, where brad at? Has Atlas Shrugged eaten him whole? I don't like having to work this much. Plus, there's a lot of stupid not getting the scrutiny it so deserves. Oh well.

For today's tidbit, let's take a look at one of McNotbasedinreality's latest pile of bullshit:

Alex Massie on the bailout:

The perception that GM and Ford and Chrysler build crappy cars is just another obstacle to recovery. And of course it's a perception that, even if out of date, is predicated upon the bitter memories of the crap cars they really did build. Turns out it takes a while for that perception to fade. One more reason why you shouldn't crap on your own brand. So the current crisis, driven by poor management and stupid unions, is also built upon the junk they spent years selling to gullible consumers taken in by the faux-patriotism of "Buying American".

Hmm, the perception is out of date, huh? Well, anecdotal evidence sure doesn't help that out. My 1996 Thunderbird was falling apart at the seems before it got totaled, with a new tranny, head gasket (twice), and other expensive repairs all before 80k miles. Compare that to my 1982 Integra which made it almost to 200k and then died when routine maintenance costss surpassed its worth. It was still getting 33 mpg highway at 13 years old. Now my 2003 Saab (now a GM company) is falling apart with less than 50k on it. Consumer Reports can give you so more concrete examples but it's pretty safe to say that American cars have been shit for the entirety of my 26 years. Maybe the new ones aren't going to get shredded by a stiff wind, but it'll take 10-20 years to find that out. So, yeah, she's starting off strong with her usual quoting-someone-who's-full-of-shit style. I swear she does this just to make what she writes look less stupid by comparison. Speaking of stupid:

That's one thing the "Car Czar" can't fix: the perception that the company apparently needs nearly unlimited access to government funds in order to prop up its failing operations is hardly going to restore America's faith that its automakers make good cars.

Um, by perception, you mean "actuality," right?

On the other hand, maybe people will buy them just to stop the tax drain. If they're going to take the money one way or another, you might as well get a car out of it.

Yeah, people might do that. There is a chance that people are as mind numbingly stupid as Megan is. Certainly could happen.

In another post, she rolls in some more bullshit:

One thing is clear about the bailout: congress intends to use it to push GM et. al. into manufacturing more fuel efficient cars.

Yeah, that's a horrible idea. Who the fuck wants a fuel efficient car these days?

When gas prices were high, a lot of people blamed Detroit's troubles on the fact that they hadn't learned to make awesome small cars. But Toyota isn't so successful in the US because of the Yaris and the Corolla; its core business, like Honda's, is American-sized sedans, station wagons, luxury cars, and so on.
(...)
But they're not making their money on gas-sipping hybrids and compacts, either. They, like Detroit, are making their money by selling cars that will need a pretty big refit to pass the new CAFE standards. The top selling cars in the US last January (midway through the price spike in oil, before the financial crisis):

1. Toyota Camry: 31,601
2. Honda Accord: 23,957
3. Nissan Altima: 21,635
4. Honda Civic: 20,993
5. Toyota Corolla: 20,736
6. Chevrolet Impala: 17,544
7. Chevrolet Cobalt: 17,310
8. Chevrolet Malibu: 14,105
9. Pontiac G6: 13,942
10. Ford Focus: 11,600

The Impala gets about the same MPG as the Camry, the Accord, and the Altima--actually, slightly better (32 rather than 31 highway).

Anyone that can tell me what the fuck she's talking gets a free referral to a psychiatrist. She's saying they aren't making money on fuel efficient cars because their top sellers are getting 32 mpg??!?!??! And what fucking CAFE standards is she talking about? 32 is as high as shit gets when it's not a hybrid. Her Mini only gets 34!!!!! As a side note, including a number on those cars in a top ten listy is complete bullshit. People aren't buying those cars because they're any good. They're getting bought by rental companies and government agencies who get great deals for buying in bulk and don't give a fuck if their cars perform like shit.

It is true that when gas prices rose, there was a temporary surge in the prices companies could charge for hybrids and small cars, but though I think that the memory of recent price spikes will offer some support to the smaller car market, I also think we'll see that market head back down along with oil prices. In short, the small, fuel efficient car market is still not some sort of gold mine that the Big Three have stupidly overlooked.

Right, cause the recent surge in oil shows us that oil is always cheap. I'm sure the downturn of its price recently is proof positive of that and not the overreaction to the burst of a bubble combined with the crashing of an economy. No sir. Cheap oil is here to stay forever. The fact that oil is still twice as expensive as it was less than 10 years ago is completely irrelevant and you're a NAZI for mentioning that. OIL IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND WILL ALWAYS BE THERE!!!!

The question is, when the desire to make the companies refocus on fuel efficiency conflicts with the desire to make them profitable, which way does the Car Czar go? Because those goals are only reconcileable[sic] if oil prices shoot back up and stay there.

Duh, cause, people will always hate fuel efficient cars and not pay any money for them forever and ever and that's why GM is making so much money these days. They smartly realized this fuel efficiency thing is just a fad and that the real money is in the gas guzzlers.

For fuck's sake, she can't even be right about the fucking PAST! She's still clinging to the notion that GM can't make money on fuel efficient cars. How dumb is she? If that were true, their sales figures wouldn't be slumping like the fucking Hunch Back Of Notre Dame. WHAT IN THE FUCKING HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS STUPID WOMAN?

Because OT Posts are SO MUCH More Interesting than MM These Days

Two things:

First, I was thinking this morning in the shower about how Obama and Bush pare kind of similar in a way.

(ducks)

No no no, NOT LIKE THAT. What I mean is, in 2000 Bush played himself as a "compassionate conservative," essentially trying to say "yeah, I'm conservative but not too far out there" all the while sending signals to his base that he was, in fact, way way out there.

Obama has also presented himself as a left-leaning centrist, but, me, I'm pretty optimistic that he's a lot more liberal than he's been campaigning on and that upon entering the Oval Office Obama will rip the mask off and show the world just how liberal he really is, just like Bush did in 2001. I'm guessing a lot of other people further to the left feel somewhat similarly.

The fact that I hated Bush for pulling that shit but am almost banking on Obama to do the exact same thing is one of the biggest bits of hypocrisy I've ever noticed in myself, and I'm going to spend most of today thinking about it, I guess. (Update: I wrote the draft for this post this morning and then spent the rest of the day preparing my cryostat for a bake-out and pump down, completely forgetting to my early morning revelation. Damn you, grad school!)

Second, in a bid to become the next big "political analyst" I'm going to make this prediction about the election. I STAKE MY REPUTATION ON on the declaration that almost all of the polls will be wildly wrong. It's hard to say in which direction, but I'm guessing that Obama wins by an even larger margin than anticipated. Note my reputation is staked on the first claim. I'm not so sure about the latter claim.

If I'm right, I expect to be hired by the New York Times by the end of the week.

Just Fire Everyone

In the NYT today:

The Dow Jones industrials gained 485.21 points or 4.68 percent, to 10,850.66, halving the 777-point decline on Monday.

485.21/777 = 0.6245 or, just about as equally close to 3/4 (0.75) as it is to 1/2 (0.5). Why the fuck would you call that a "halving?"

Doesn't anyone know anything anymore? Or do they just want us to panic as much as possible?