Random Ramblings: Debate Edition

So, did you see the debate(s) last evening? I did and once again the first debate was the best one. Bobby Jindal nailed them last night, but good. The crowd at the Reagan Library was filled to the brim with establishment types who were most likely horrified by Ronald Reagan back in the day. They just LOVED when Pataki presented the "Supreme Court uber alles" argument about gay marriage and Obamacare and when Lindsey Graham whined about how helpless we all are unless and until we get a new "Republican" President. Jindal stole my brainwave when he said...

"I wish the Senate Republicans had half the fight in them the Senate Democrats did. They forced Obamacare down our throats even when they didn't have 60 votes. I wish Republicans in D.C. had half the fight of the Senate Democrats to get rid of Obamacare, to defund Planned Parenthood. If we can't defund Planned Parenthood now; if we can't stand up for innocent human life after these barbaric videos, it is time to be done with the Republican party."

Wow, I think that represents the CONSERVATIVE position rather well. When the conversation turned to gay marriage and the Kentucky clerk who stood up for her 1st. Amendment rights Jindal said...

"I'd like the left to give us a list of jobs that Christians aren't allowed to have. If we're not allowed to be clerks, bakers, musicians, caterers ... the first amendment rights -- the right to religious freedom is the first amendment of the constitution. It isn't breaking the law to exercise our constitutional rights."

Graham disagreed, saying, "in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, they have ruled that same sex marriage bans at the state level violate the 14th amendment."  

Gee, I wonder where the average GOP voter will come down on this issue? Needless to say Graham is probably done in politics. He hasn't a hope in hell of getting on the national ticket or serving in any administration in any capacity, that's a given. But he's probably ruined himself in South Carolina as well. He would have been a good VP for Gerald Ford (a crowd favorite no doubt). 

The second debate was pretty good too but a lot less spontaneous. There were moments though. Fiorina gave Trump what for and helped herself a lot (many say she "won") but she got it all wrong on "anchor babies" and the 14th Amendment. Rand Paul set her straight on that although he didn't hit the issue too hard. Huckabee gave an impassioned defense of religious liberty but it'll go unnoticed I'm sure. Chris Christie helped himself I'd say. I though he did well. Scott Walker and Marco Rubio both looked good but didn't stand out. Carson would put you to sleep. He's a good man but I don't think I could take four years of that halting speech pattern he's got going on. Jeb showed a little more life but his positions are way way WAY out of touch. He came off as the "transition" President, you know, the guy who would ease us into being the quasi-latin American country the establishment of both parties wants us to be. If he gets 5% in ANY primary I'll be surprised. Trump was, well Trump. Big on entertainment value painting in broad strokes but short on detail. He bitch slapped Jeb all over the stage. I was almost embarrassed for Jeb, he looked like a pussy.

All in all a good night. There was a LOT of talent up on stage. In my view there were only a couple I COULDN'T live with. At this point I just can't see any Democrat that could beat any of these folks. But for me the eventual nominee has to get immigration right! Otherwise this will be the last election we win forevermore. 

Democracy and transactions

Vox notices an old ad for George McGovern, and notes that it explains the appeal of Bernie Sanders:

Of course, the same points would equally explain Donald Trump's current popularity, although it would not be in Vox's nature to notice that. Never mind.

Lost in all the lamentations about campaign finance, "special interests," and ideological purity is this: Democracy is inherently transactional, because humans, who thus far constitute 100% of voters, are by their nature transactional. Some would say that is our great strength as a very violent species that might otherwise have killed ourselves off long ago. The more democracy you have, the more transactions you have. The United States has more democracy than anybody, given our almost unbelievable number of local, state, and national elected offices, so we have more transactions in the formation of our government. Those transactions range from the tawdry -- I'll introduce this bill if you give me or my SuperPAC a big contribution -- to the swapping of earmarks or substantive compromises in momentous legislation. Regardless, democracy as a system does not accommodate either moral or ideological "purity" because neither allow for the transactions necessary to resolve disputes within a democracy. The dreams of liberals and conservatives alike will be forever frustrated, just as the disenchanted youth who nominated George McGovern in 1972 or the rebellious conservatives who dumped Rocky for Goldwater in 1964 discovered to their horror come November. In our system, ideological purity always leads to defeat, as Lyndon Johnson and even the sainted Ronald Reagan knew very well.

None of that means that ideologues cannot change the terms of debate on some subject, but it can -- again -- only be done by transactional compromise. In Mitt Romney, the GOP had the most hawkish candidate on immigration that it is ever likely to nominate, yet a huge number of conservative voters stayed away because they did not like his religion, or his nuanced stance on healthcare, or any number of other imperfections. Will conservatives make that same mistake again?

I Don't Care! An Open Letter to Jeb Bush.

Dear Jeb:

By all accounts you did a good job in Florida. By all accounts you are a competent administrator. By all accounts you are a quality individual and an outstanding public servant. None of that means a thing to me this election. I don't care. I don't care because you are on the wrong side of history. I don't care because you are too willing to compromise. I don't care because you are a rich kid, a product of the best of the best and you haven't an inkling of what my life is about.

What we need is a conservative who will REDUCE the size and scope of the federal government rather than just manage it better than the opposition. We need a conservative who will get immigration under control, build a wall, institute eVerify, do away with "anchor babies" and put the American worker first. We need a conservative who will get rid of trade bills designed to give multinationals the flexibility to move capital and exploit labor on a global scale but refuse to acknowledge their responsibility to the American worker who built their companies in the first place. We need a STRONG conservative who will squeeze every last concession from the opposition and has the guts to stand up to a hostile media that will do every thing they can to destroy you. We need a conservative who will punish and intimidate the opposition as they have punished and intimidated us since 2006.

Jeb, you are NOT that man. You're father was not that man and neither was your brother. All good men no question about that, but good men won't do this time, we need GREATNESS! So you're right to try and channel Reagan into your campaign. But you're no Reagan.

Good luck, but you're just not the man for the job in 2016, I don't care what you say.

The Hammer

The Hammer's College Football Roundup: Week 2

Do you believe in ESP? You know, extra sensory perception like the kid in The Shining. Well I think CW and I have something akin to that going on because when Notre Dame's second string quarterback hit a TD bomb with 12 seconds on the clock to steal one from UVA in Charlottesville, well I could just feel this unendurable pain/frustration/hopelessness coming out of the Mary-Land eastern shore. I thought for a second it was the Russians setting off an EMP weapon or something. Then I realized it was just CW screaming into his embroidered "Wahoolia Rules" pillow he got for his fiftieth. It was a very powerful and disturbing experience for me! Man it was weird, instead of repeating REDRUM REDRUM over and over again he kept saying "WOLBEW, WOLBEW". Still ain't figured that one out yet. Cheer up CW, at least Marco is doing GREAT!

In relevant news we had a couple of real surprises and a couple of barn burners. Tennessee was laying in wait for OU in Knoxville ready to assume their traditional role as a college football power. They came out smoking and had the Sooners down 17-3 at the half but gave up two TDs in the fourth to send it into overtime, where they lost. The Vols scored not one friggin' point in the second half! This one is on the offensive coordinator.

Auburn looked like absolute shit against Jacksonville State. Who's the hell are they you say? That's funny, I was asking the same thing. First I thought it was the old Jacksonville of Artis Gilmore and Rex Morgan (look it up) but I looked it up. It's in Jacksonville, Ala-Goddamn-Bama! I didn't know that shithole had a Jacksonville. Anyway the Gamecocks, that's right the Gamecocks (LOL) played pretty well, especially their QB and gave the War Eagles a scare. Eh, it happens. Wouldn't read too much into this.

Oregon went on the road to East Lansing (is there a West Lansing?) and were one overthrown ball away from an important road win. Sorry, with lots of graduations to make up for it's Ducks Limited this year. Boise State lost to BYU allowing three touchdowns in the fourth quarter. LSU got a nice win against Mississississippi State and Ohio State and the Tide both got wins although they looked a little disinterested while doing it. South Carolina lost to the basketball school of basketball schools Kentucky.

In ACC action Lewisville lost to Houston going 0-2 so looks like their season is screwed. Clemson, Ga. Tech, FSU and Duke all rolled. My beloved WolfPack kicked another junior college in the ass, this weeks chump was Eastern Kentucky. Next week Old Dominion and the week after S. Alabama...can't wait.

Well that's it. Not a bad week, just be glad you didn't go to UVA!

Perry Drops Out: How It Will Go From Here (GOP)

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry left the Presidential race yesterday; it just seemed that his candidacy couldn't get any traction.  Two factors I think contributed to his low numbers, both of which are to some extent tied to his perception in the mainstream media.  First, there was the issue of his disastrous, unprepared run in 2012.  He wasn't ready, and it showed.  Bill Clinton similarly beclowned himself in 1988 at the Democratic Convention, but he was a Democrat, and so his sins weren't remembered when he ran in 1992.  The second contribution to Perry's downfall was the plain fact that he was from Texas.  There is lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome among the cognoscenti, and so his twang, and his boots, mattered far more in their evaluation of him than did the plain fact that he was the most successful, best Governor in the union for 14 years.  It is a shame that he didn't do better, but the Presidency is only partially determined on merit.

So, here's how the rest of the GOP process will go, for those interested.

Three blocs will develop.  The first block is the "Outsider" bloc, made up of Fiorina, Carson, and he who shall not be named.  They will fight it out among themselves to see who will be the last outsider standing in February.  I believe it will be Fiorina, but you may differ.

The next bloc is the Jeb Bush bloc.  That's right, he's all by himself in this one.  His name, his money, and his damn good record lead me to believe that he'll continue on into the three way race once the primaries start.

Finally, there's the "Not Jeb" bloc, which is everyone else.  Cruz, Rubio, Walker, and Kasich will fight it out for the third spot in the three way race that will develop.  Cruz likes to think of himself in the first bloc, but he's really here--along with Rand Paul, whose failure to do better than he is reflects his ideological impurity to the libertarians, who just don't like him as much as they did his Dad.

Count everyone else out.  You heard it here first.

The Death of Europe

Europe is in a fix, and as is usual with do-gooder leftists they did it to themselves. Furthermore, again as usual, they will be asking their citizens to pay the price for their hair-brained schemes. Did I say "ask"? Just kidding.

The EU has done everything they could to erase all their borders for going on something like 20 years now. Used to be you'd be sleeping on a train going through Brenner and some attitudinal Polizei would roust your ass in that guttural, clearing one's throat language of theirs and DEMAND Ihren Reisepass bitte! And lookout if you didn't snap to, they might just go through all your shit just for fun. But those days are over. Now you just walk right in, sit right down and order your free lunch.

Merkel and the other Eurweenie states have two choices; they can round up all these people, put them on a suitable Greek Island somewhere and sort them out one by one.
Ok you're name is Mohammed bin Turd. You claim to be a war refugee from Syria and you're into Miley Cyrus, chicks w/dicks and Al-Farghani history comics. Great, political asylum granted.
Don't do this and a lot of very bad people will be crossing those borders. Plus there's precedence for this approach. The Australians had a "boat people" crisis a couple of years ago. They were getting every raghead bastard from Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma...you name it, riding everything but bathtubs to their country. Initially they tried camps and all the rest. Finally they adopted a policy of turning them away ("HEY YOU...YEAH YOU! Get your ass back to Kuala Lumpur!") or putting them up OUTSIDE the country to be processed. In 2012 they had 300 boatloads of human refuge, in 2015 they've had exactly ZERO.

OR...door Number Two, national suicide maybe twenty years down the line. Don't think so? Well consider...
•Muslims don't play well with others. Given the numbers they will take over. They have to, it's in the Koran.
•European leadership is weak and everybody from the Arabs to Putin to some second grader in Montevideo knows that to be true. There's nothing worse than a leader who acts in the best interest of ANOTHER COUNTRY'S CITIZENS rather than their own. I'm sure you can relate.
• Assimilation is impossible for a Muslim. Islam by its nature is incompatible with a modern democratic state. It is theocratic and authoritarian, and it likes it that way.
•BEST CASE SCENARIO is they live on welfare and the police keep the rapes and honor killings down to a manageable level. According to Peggy Noonan 70%+ are men, mostly in their 20's. How many will get a job and pay taxes? How many will take European wives and start a family and invest in their new country? See the problem? Can you say Der Auslander brannte mein Auto??

Charles Martel is spinning in his grave.

McConnell and Boehner Have to Go

Who would you say are the greatest double crossing, backstabbing turncoats in human history? The spies, liars and rats? Off the top of my head there's Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Mata Hari, the Rosenbergs, the Cambridge Spy Ring, the post World War II American Democratic Party (featuring Teddy Kennedy on lead guitar), Jonathan Pollard, Aldrich Ames and now I'd have to include the Republicans Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Unless you've been under a rock the last week or two you've seen the columns blowing the whistle on these jerks, and don't think this is the fringe (like me) talking either, these are well respected writers at well respected news outlets.

I've known these guys were up to no good for a while and so have most people who've been paying attention. My question is why? Why run interference for Obama against your own party? Why work against your own party candidates? Is Obama blackmailing them? Do the powers behind the curtain believe they can succeed WITHOUT the, how will I put it(?) non-progressive wing of the party? Do they not care because the Democrat agenda is their agenda? Are these guys so insulated they either can't or won't see what's happening? Do they know the jig is up and they're just trying to do as much as they can for as long as they can before they are thrown out on their asses? What is the end game here?

Regardless, they are carrying water by the truckload for Obama's hair-brained policies and it's getting real. This Iran non-treaty is so over the top I really can't believe it. This thing has to be stopped otherwise we'll be paying for this one a long LONG time, and that's if it does what they say it will do. Worst case scenario is MIRVed ICBMs in the most volatile part of the world run by the most irresponsible leaders imaginable.

Hillary said last night this thing was the best way to monitor Iran's nuclear program. Here's a thought, maybe allowing a bunch of aggressive, radical, insane ragheads a fuqing nuclear program at all ain't such a good idea. No program no monitoring necessary. But thanks in part to our Congressional leadership, THAT solution is off the table, and make no mistake, they could stop it today if they wanted. Boehner and McConnell need to take the midnight train to Moscow (euphemistically speaking), they have been exposed and the Republican Party rank and file has lost confidence in them (to put it kindly). Donald Trump and Ben Carson are proving this reality as we speak. The point is who gives a damn what the reason is, they are not doing their job, they're damaging the party and the country and they HAVE TO GO!

New York, New York.....

The wobble of Amtrak 93 is a pleasing sensation as I return to Maryland for a night spent in the Big Apple.  The reason for my trip was an invitation from the New York Council of the Navy League to address their "Future War" series.  Never one to miss an opportunity to travel to New York, I quickly agreed.

I trained up yesterday afternoon, after a bit of a snafu.  My day was to have begun by driving to New Carrollton station and parking there, but then taking a Metro to the Pentagon to look in on some work there.  Afterward, I'd metro back to New Carrollton and jump on the Amtrak to New York.  But when I arrived at New Carrollton, I realized that I had forgotten my folder with my speech in it, my train ticket, and my letter of introduction from the Army and Navy Club to the Cornell Club (where I was to spend the night).  So instead of going to the Pentagon, I turned around and drove an hour back to Easton, grabbed the folder (and puttered around a bit), then drove back to New Carrollton to hop the train.

I splurged on business class for this trip, up and back, perhaps the most wasteful travel habit I have.  Business on a train isn't much better than coach, but it costs a lot more.  I arrived at Penn Station at 4:30 and was to meet the Navy League folks for dinner at 6:30--so I walked the twenty minutes or so from Penn Station to the Cornell Club.

Before Hammer calls me an elitist and Tigerhawk accuses me of slumming with the quasi-Ivy League folks, I chose to stay there because that is where the breakfast event I was to speak at the next morning would be held.  My room was very nice, smallish, and equipped with a Murphy Bed, the first time I'd stayed in such a thing.  

I walked to dinner in the steamy New York gloaming, to a little Italian joint on 42nd street.  I met my two hosts, one an octogenarian and the other one year shy of it.  They were spry fellows, quick minded and very patriotic.  We had a delightful dinner (steak, natch) before I headed back to what turned out to be a delightfully comfortable Murphy Bed sleeping experience.

I arose at 5 to listen to my speech again (I generally record a version perfectly read, listen to it a bunch of times and then try to riff it from there), scan the interwebs, and drink coffee in my little room.  After showering, I dressed and headed to the included breakfast buffet, before joining the Navy League crowd at 0745.  I spoke for thirty minutes and then answered thirty minutes of questions.  Good people, very interested, extremely good questions.

After saying goodbyes, I checked out and Ubered down to the 9-11 Memorial.  I had really only one objective, and that was to lay my eyes on the Kitten's husband's name at the memorial.  I thought about going into the museum, but then decided that 1) I didn't want to be a blubbering fool and 2) I didn't want to have to go through a proctological examination through security with my traveling bag.  So I completed my objective, then sought a quiet place to think about that day, and what his death has meant in my life.

Needing to go to meet a Navy buddy for lunch, I summoned another Uber (Black, natch), and headed to a little steakhouse near Penn Station that I had read good things about.  My buddy and I went to XO school together in 1999, and he is retiring in a month after a 30 year career.  A great career, a great American.  We both ate large ribeyes, and neither batted an eye at the size of the other's meal.  Dudes.

Now I'm headed back to New Carrollton to grab my car and head to the Naval Academy, where I will attend the opening of an exhibit at the Naval Academy Museum called "Warrior Writers".  You can see a news story about it by clicking this link.  I'm one of the "warrior writers" in question, and there's a little bit of the exhibit with my name on it.  Then it's on to Easton, a bit of sleep, and then back to the Pentagon in the early morn.

New York is a wonderful place.  I really, really, would love to live and work there someday, but I fear such a thing would mean a hard break from The Kitten, who is justifiably not a fan of the city.  So I figure I'll just keep nipping up now and then and grabbing little bits of it, like last night.  I realize it is cliche, but there is huge energy there, and you feel it as you walk down the street.  I don't get this feeling in DC...

Brotherhood and Solidarity

Yes friends, in the spirit of brotherhood and solidarity the Muslim world has come together and decided... NOT IN MY BACKYARD!

QATAR, the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES and SAUDI ARABIA are increasingly criticized by rights organizations, which say the wealthy Persian Gulf countries have not offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The nations have contributed to humanitarian aid, some generously.
LA Times 9/8/15

Oh yes thank you, thank you very much for your generosity! The ultra-wealthy oil kingdoms are throwing a few bones at the ultra-stupid Europeans who are currently being flooded with welfare seeking juhadis from all over the Islamic world, but somehow the House of Saud just can't bring themselves to take any in. These "refugees" have either Syrian passports, fake Syrian passports or no passports at all but claim Syrian citizenship (we're refugees from a war zone don't you know) so if you're a humanitarian you must give us political asylum... according to YOUR rules. By the way, these "refugees" refuse to be settled in Greece (they're bankrupt) or Hungary (too far from the media spotlight plus they HATE Saracens from way back and were raised communists, so they're not soft). No, they want Germany, but will take Sweden if that's all you got.
Merkel has agreed to take 800,000 many they know absolutely NOTHING about, JUST THIS YEAR! 800k screaming, hungry, needy, potential suicide bombers, enough to populate Munich, year after year after year while the richest countries in the world, MUSLIM countries, refuse even one.

But come on, why would they take any? They're not stupid. They don't live by the rules we impose upon ourselves which basically say anything we do in our own self-interest, most especially if it conflicts with the interest of minorities or people of color whatever their circumstance or nationality, is by definition racist. No they live by the rule...what's in it for me? From their perspective they're thinking we're rich and we don't need a bunch of po-asses taking our money and fomenting rebellion. Nothing wrong with that. In my view a very reasonable approach.

Some leaders we have in the West. Traitors and cowards the lot.

Kevin Williamson Puts Labor Day In Perspective

A virtuoso performance.  Read it all.  

The Hammer's College Football Review: Week 1

Now, let's say you're heading to the West Coast to get even against one of those Beach Boy teams out there, whatta you do? First thing is realize who it is you're playing. The West Coast is a different country almost. Every week they watch ESPN and it's all east coast, mid-west, SEC. They've got a bit of a chip on their shoulder, therefore they are highly motivated. So you have to take the wind out of their sails first series. Knock 'em in the mouth, tell 'em you hate everything California including the weather but you do like their women of which you intend to wade into up to your gonads as soon as you're finished kicking their blue and gold ass. And then do it.
Here's what you don't do. You don't get cute. You don't  show up in uniforms designed by Project Runway. No, you storm out in the darkest, meanest, most intimidating uniforms you got.

Come out in this?

 UCLA sees this.

Another thing, you gentlemen know my thoughts on the sorry state of college cheerleading. Now we've got a real world example of how certain intangibles can affect the outcome of a game. If you're a young guy fighting the good fight, tired and bleeding, what keeps you going down in the trenches?

Something like this?

                                                             

 Or something like this?

Hot cheerleaders matter! I'm not saying have strippers in cheerleading outfits like 1990's Florida State. What I am saying is the takeover of college cheerleading by hardcore gymnasts is bad for the sport and certainly ain't doing anything for lecherous old bastards like me.

Ok, editorial over, let's get cracking. Since we're talking UCLA/Virginia let's get it out of the way. UCLA's quarterback had a career game yesterday, so the hype was true. Josh Rosen threw for 350 yards, 3 touchdowns while completing 80% of his passes, all against a veteran secondary. Particularly embarrassing for the Wahoos, this was HIS FIRST GAME! UCLA's leading receiver only had about 60 yards so it was a well balance attack.
Ok enough's enough, it's over. Maybe next year... but shit, these clowns made the league look bad. Maybe Va. Tech can regain the ACC a little pride Monday night against OSU.

In other action this was tuneup week so no big surprises. Everybody keeps talking about Stanford's loss to Northwestern but damn, same old same old. Stanford always did run hot and cold. They beat teams they're suppose to lose to and lose to teams they're supposed to beat. It's in the DNA.
Bobby Petrino at Lewis-ville needs clock management remediation but then again his judgement always did suck...riding on a Harley with a 25 year old hottie (too friggin' cool!), getting caught (NOT cool at all). Texas A&M looked impressive but they're just like Stanford, they'll probably lose to SMU next week. Notre Dame looked good against a hapless, hopeless Texas and 'Bama looked GREAT!

Well that's it, sorry for being so hard on UVA CW, but it's all in good fun. I'll leave you with the hit of the day.

Rubio Fund at $1000*

Folks--great news--while the fund is currently at $1000, I received a $2700 check last week that I've mailed off to the finance office....so as soon as that shows up on my online "Tab", I'll claim it here.  Print this form, fill it out, and mail it in!

Hope Springs Eternal

My beloved Wahoos have traveled to Tinseltown to take on UCLA today, a 3:30PM game on Fox.  I have no illusions this year--I think we will earn three, maybe four wins.  But--we could steal this one today.

Next week, Notre Dame comes to Charlottesville, a game I will miss.  But the following Saturday, I'll make my first trip down for the season.

Basketball season starts soon, I hear.

A Little Civics, Perhaps?

In our system, the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws, and there is no higher authority than it.  When it gets things wrong, as it sometimes does, it does so with no less finality.

The Supreme Court adjudged the continuing denial of state sanctioned marriage to same sex couples to be unconstitutional based on equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.  The decision was controversial, and it was poorly rendered.

An official of a county in Kentucky believes that she cannot in good conscience, provide same-sex couples with marriage licenses, as it is her responsibility under the law, to do, as long as such other laws as are in force in that jurisdiction are followed.  She is neither following the law or doing her job.

The complication here is that there is a religious practice issue, one worthy of respect.  The official in question refuses to grant same sex couples licenses on religious grounds.   The law under which she previously in good conscience, performed her duties, has changed, and its constitutionality has been validated.

And so, this official must A) issue licenses or B) quit.  There really is no middle ground here, I'm sorry.

One can cite all sorts of other instances where public officials aren't following the law (Obama immigration, DC open carry, etc), and one would be correct in pointing out that these are also unacceptable.

What is most dangerous of all to the continuing function of our democracy is the degree to which previously clear thinking individuals now believe it is acceptable to pick and choose among the laws we follow of which we approve.  Worse yet, is the "they are doing it, so why shouldn't we" mentality that often accompanies this behavior.

Conservatives are special, and useful, and dare I say, correct--in no small part because we tend to embrace principles while eschewing the emotion of the moment.  And while it may be initially satisfying to call for resistance and take to the barricades over a local official standing her ground against the immorality of the federal government, the truly conservative manner in which to view this situation is the long view, one in which we think CLEARLY about the long term consequences of allowing government officials to pick and choose laws to  enforce.  Some of those laws are likely to be among ones conservatives value.  And because those with whom we disagree seem to have decided to make this practice of selective enforcement a habit, in no way requires us to do the same.

In other words--don't come bitching to me about Hillary and her servers and her email and her TS/SCI traffic on unclassified channels if you in the next breath, support the actions of a county clerk to deny legally able citizens their right to marry.  Both actions are wrong.  And we must not become confused about this.

Let's Play DEMOCRAT Roulette. When WE Lose We Pay Nothing, When YOU lose, YOU Pay Double.

Ads that turn me off

Every now and then I see a commercial with characters that so annoy me that I resolve not to buy the product or service because I cannot stand to think that I might be like the dudes in the ad. This commercial from Interactive Brokers, which runs on CNBC's "Squawk Box" relentlessly, is my current, er, favorite.

Douche. Bags.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's got you glum, Basil?  Your week off of social media create an "inmates running the asylum" quality to your blog? Did the world not seem adequately impoverished without your constant Facebook and Twitter insights?  Complain here, all who seek solace!

I will officially return to social media this evening, after one week's hiatus.  The time off enabled a good bit of reading and leisure, as I conducted a "staycation" here at home.

Sadly for you Hammer, we're over two months past my 50th Birthday weigh in goal of 159.9 lbs, and I weighed in today at 155.8.  So sorry to be thus far depriving you of your desired ballooning.

The Hammer's College Football Preview

That's right sports fans, The Hammer's favorite sport is back...COLLEGE FOOTBALL! God I love this time of year! Where else but America can one witness the grandeur, the spectacle and the pageantry of young women with the sex appeal (and figure) of a fencepost, cheering on semiliterate ghetto-rats, hicks and steroid junkies engaged in acts of brutality and barbarism not seen since the days of the Roman Circus? Only in America can we pay through the nose for endzone tickets to see a state school play in a state owned stadium, all funded by taxpayers mind you, and watch as fatcat boosters enjoy their 50 yard line box seats with their three year old grandchildren playing on iPads while we can't see a third of the field due to our lousy, overpriced seats. American Exceptionalism...believe it!

Ok, let's get this out of the way first. UVA is at the Rose Bowl in Baja-Mexico Saturday to play the UCLA Bruins. The Wahoos had a rough time last year with UCLA losing 28-20 at home and putting CW in such a funk he ballooned up to 210lbs. He's just recently gotten back on track (bless his Yankee heart) with (rumor has it) the help of gastric by-pass surgery at the Chris Christie Institute for Fat MoFos of Lower New Jersey (just off 95 next to the ITT Computer Institute of Trenton). But we could have a jellyroll relapse 'cause things don't look that good for UVA. Last year UCLA won their last 4 out of 5, Virginia lost their last 4 out of 5, but that's not the issue. UCLA has a dynamite freshman quarterback going up against a pretty good veteran Virginia secondary. So defensively UVA is in ok shape but the Wahoos better learn to score, that's all I got to say. Especially, ESPECIALLY when they play nationally ranked Boise State and Notre Dame later this month.
Here the deal, UVA can come out of September with a #5 ranking and the greatest month in the history of the program or be 1-3 and positioned to lose to damn near every team left on the schedule. We'll see.

Now...tonight we've got the Clinton Foundation of college sports, the North Carolina Tar Heels playing the South Carolina Gamecocks in Charlotte. As you may know Charlotte is a UNC town thru and thru, but if I could remember all the games the Heels have lost to the OTHER Carolina in the Queen City I wouldn't need all this B12. Anyway the Heels return nearly all their key players on the offensive side of the ball, however they weren't that good last year. On the other side of the ball the Tar Heels defense was so bad last year I'd say THEY WISH they didn't have seven returning starters. But Coach Fedora brought in Gene Chicik to get 'em back on track so I'm sure they'll improve.
The Cocks defense last year sucked shit but they return most of their starters, offensively...eh, but Spurrier doesn't lose openers too often.
By the way, about 20k empty seats are expected for the game. Apparently they're charging PRO prices for tickets and Charlotte ain't quite as Carolina blue as they thought. Maybe they should have made it a "LGBT" appreciation night and given the unsold seats away to Diesel Dykes, Lady Boys and Caitlin Jenner types. Take THAT you South Carolina redneck pieces of shit! I'm sure no one in Chapel Hill would complain. They could call it a "Squeal for the Heels" night.

In other games they're mostly tune-ups with the exception of TCU at Mini-soda. TCU doesn't play that well on the road and the Big Ten is feeling their oats so I wouldn't be too surprised if the Horny Frogs got upset. Texas/Notre Dame, Louisville/Auburn and Wisconsin/Ala-Goddamn-Bama all could be interesting, so keep an eye out. Plus on Monday OSU is in Blacksburg to maybe avenge their only loss last year.

Well that's it, so put your seats in the upright position and get focused damn you!

The Finlandization of the Republican Party

Fin·land·i·za·tion

ˌfinləndiˈzāSHən/

noun

historical

1. the process or result of being obliged, or at least not oppose, the interests of the former Soviet Union despite not being politically allied to it.

Substitute Democrat Party for "former Soviet Union" and I think we have a pretty apt description of the Republican Party establishment. 

Did you see McConnell's comments on defunding Planned Parenthood? "Gee, you know it's like really impossible to do anything around here. The Democrats are really mean and gosh I can't do anything without them and then there's the President darn-it. If he gets mad then he'll call us racist and we could like screw up the election for Jeb." 

Way to show some guts Mitch! 

Let's face it, we're just unlucky (to be kind) or idiots (to be accurate). We got this old fool running the Senate and our Speaker is a drunk. Plus what really sucks is he's not a MEAN drunk, which could actually come in handy. No he's a sobbing drunk. You know, one of these guys who sits in the corner crying about his long lost girlfriend from college and how in the world could he have married this evil bitch who has turned his kids against him and spends his money like it was water blah blah blah sob sob sob! Jesus, just mention to Boehner that his dad was a bartender and #1 he'll grab a bottle of Jack Black #2 start bawling like the Wehrmacht marching through the Arc de Triomphe. 

I've said it a thousand times: GOD HATES A COWARD! Plus, remember what Coach Lombardi taught us, winning is a habit and losing is a habit. When you're a loser it takes ten units of effort to achieve one unit of good. When you're a winner it takes one unit of effort to achieve ten units of good. Our drunk and our tired old man haven't the strength, the character, the courage or the smarts to oppose the Democrats. Furthermore we certainly don't need another ass-wipe of a President to go along with these conciliatory clowns. 

Lies, Damned Lies and Demographics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

This is a turnout/percentage simulator and the numbers you see are from 2012. I urge you to go to the site and play with it a bit. You may be surprised by what you find.

2016 will be a lot different. I don't need to tell you the black vote will likely "normalize" with turnout and percentages. Since 1964 it has only been above 60% three times, and two of those times were...do I have to say it? Plus there's an untapped treasure trove of Black conservatives our progressive/establishment dolts haven't a clue how to attract. "Blacks, in OUR party? Oh my, what would father say!?"

Here's a very possible (and conservative) scenario in my view, as you can see we don't need the illegal vote. What we need is a few more black votes, a higher turnout and our share of the millennials which is still up for grabs thanks to BHO. Anyway, have fun and stop believing the MSM media and the Republican consultant class'  bullshit about how we NEED Hispanics. We don't...at the moment. Dick around on immigration and you might consider learning spanish.

What does the sole of a sensible shoe taste like?

Hillary's emails may or may not amount to evidence of a crime, but they certainly make for some fun reading. For example, suppose you were thinking that you were not good at ingratiating yourself with people in power. You know, you always wanted to lick the boots of greatness, but you never really got the chance. Well, now you can follow the example of great Clinton friend Lanny Davis (but be sure not to lean over your keyboard or anything else that might be damaged by vomit when you read the tweet below):

Lanny Davis asked Hillary to talk to a reporter writing a profile, and this is how the email started. pic.twitter.com/qHSyJZ4Opk

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) September 1, 2015

If we had good reporters, somebody would ask Lanny whether the soles of Hillary's sensible shoes would taste better with a little salt, or maybe even a strip of bacon?

Reparations? Not in This Life!

Mere de Hammer with brother Cliff 1949

Cliff 1950 on grandparent's front
 steps

Grandparents 1955

Mom and Cliff  on grandparent's swing1954

"When Clyde Ross was still a child, Mississippi authorities claimed his father owed $3,000 in back taxes. The elder Ross could not read. He did not have a lawyer. He did not know anyone at the local courthouse. He could not expect the police to be impartial. Effectively, the Ross family had no way to contest the claim and no protection under the law. The authorities seized the land. They seized the buggy. They took the cows, hogs, and mules. And so for the upkeep of separate but equal, the entire Ross family was reduced to sharecropping."

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Here's another family of the same generation that was "reduced to sharecropping". I doubt very much their standard of living was any higher than Clyde Ross and his family. But some would have the descendants of Tobe and Prudence (my grandparents) pay REPARATIONS to the descendants of Clyde Ross. Why? Because Clyde was poor? Because he couldn't pay his taxes which the author implies were not owed? The fact is I don't owe Clyde Ross or his family a damned thing, and if I'm forced to pay I will exercise my God given right to defend my rights. If YOU choose to throw your money away out of some misplaced guilt then that's up to you. Keep me out of it!

"Conservatism" is NOT Serving Conservatives!

Have Republicans suddenly gone stupid? They can read a poll. They know what Trump's candidacy is all about. They know what the base wants but yet they resist. Plus, oddly, much the same thing is going on on the Democrat side, but that's another post for another day.

So what's the end game here? A couple of months ago Jeb, (the quintessential establishment, monied, out-of-touch, disingenuous, elitist prick) was thrilled about Donald Trump. The thinking was he'll bloody the small fry while Jeb flies above the fray. WRONGO! Jeb might be the first out... and why? Because the people who control this party ain't the party. They might control most of the money but they don't control us.

There are already signs that a few of these candidates are starting to get it, IMMIGRATION is the key. They're still very tentative, this is the age of Obama after all, and they don't want a trumped up charge of racism to kill their candidacy. But it's encouraging that a couple have stuck their toe in the water. If their numbers go up look for every last one of them to try to "out wall" the other. Our goal is to SHUT DOWN THE BORDER COMPLETELY, impose a moratorium on ALL immigration for 10 years so as to "digest" the legal immigrants that have flooded the country for 20+ years as well as institute a visa system that TRACKS tourists and students etc. that are responsible for 40% of illegal immigration. Also to do away with "anchor babies" which any honest, thoughtful and reasonably intelligent person knows is not a Constitutional right.

So, don't be fooled by "conservatives". John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are "conservatives". They are of course false-flag progressives and the immigration issue is just smoking them out. So let's keep it up and we may just win this party back...and an election too!

A post about Elizabeth Warren, but not politics

In the morning mail we find this story, in which Elizabeth Warren, granted the great boon of seeing Pope Francis address the United States Congress, offers her granddaughter Warren's one and only "guest ticket." Granddaughter declines, because school.

Huh? A once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a pope -- even a Commie pope -- address the United States Congress, and freaking school is the conflict? This is elevating a given day of school, which for almost everybody, including no doubt Warren's granddaughter, is trackless hours of nonsense punctuated by occasional real learning, to a status it does not deserve.

It is tempting to pin this on Warren somehow, since I am sorely tempted by any opportunity to pin anything on her, but the ugly truth is that a huge proportion of aspiring and educated parents of the striving class would make the same foolish decision (recognizing, because the milk of intellectual honesty flows through my veins, that I actually have no basis for knowing why school was a conflict in this case -- perhaps it was on the day of a stage production for which the granddaughter was to be center stage, so to speak, or some shit like that), regardless of the consequences for actual learning, curiosity, or, most importantly, the urgent and permanent need to acquire stories with which to entertain kith and kin over the decades.

That is all.

Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist TooBy: David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, January 03, 2001

One
There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

Two
There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits
The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.

Three
Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

Four
America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

Five
The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

Six
The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination
No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites ( and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

Seven
The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.
The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?

Eight
Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?

Nine
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?
Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

Ten
The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.
America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

"The Case for Reparations"

In the category of confronting one's own predispositions, for me a life-long endeavor, consider reading Ta-Hahisi Coates' essay "The Case for Reparations" if you have not already done in the year since it was published. With a few qualifications -- I think Coates unnecessarily weakened its otherwise considerable power with a pointless digression on climate change toward the end -- I found it persuasive.

Among the many things that might be said, and have been said, about Coates' essay, there are several worth mentioning.

Coates distinguishes between establishing the fact of the debt for which reparations would be owed and the means by which reparations might be paid, and offers no detailed or even useful solution to that end. One might say that the means of the reparations and the case for reparations are intertwined with no hope of separation. If reparations were cheap and easy, surely we would have done at this point. It is the probability that they would be vast, after a true accounting of the value stolen from American slaves and their descendants, that makes this such a difficult discussion. Of course, if the unspoken fear of the scope of reparations keeps us from a full reckoning of the underlying injustice, then we stand at the brink of admitting its enormous scale. But only at the brink.

Coates' solution is to support HR 40, a bill that John Conyers introduces every year. According to Coates, HR 40 would establish a commission to study the feasibility of paying reparations, including their size and the device for making payment. It is easy to dismiss Coates for signing up for what seems like a dodgy way around the feasibility question. It is also easy to charge that a reparations commission would become just another means for stirring up Democratic constituencies. I disagree. I think Conyers bill has not gone anywhere, even in Democratic Congresses, because it would fracture the Democratic coalition, of which more later.

The greatest value in Coates essay, and the reason intellectually honest Americans of good will ought to read it, is that it teaches that African-American poverty and social pathology have extremely deep and aged roots, were exacerbated by government policies from the left and right for 100 years after emancipation, and that expectations for their rapid amelioration are woefully misguided. A further exploration of this history and its consequences for African-American social and economic parity would be, I think, the greatest value in a reparations commission, at least if it demanded rigorous standards in the history it produced.

If Coates' essay has a glaring flaw, it is that he argues for African-American exceptionalism -- that oppression of African-Americans was and is unique in scope, duration, and consequences -- without exploring the consequences for other groups that make claims against the privileged. If African-Americans have a unique claim to a remedy that we have mostly ignored, then what ought our response be to claims from blacks not descended from American slaves, Latinos, LGBTs, women, and other constituencies important to Democrats? One suspects that even Democratic Congressional leaders have bottled up Conyers' bill precisely because there is no politically useful answer to that question. If we were to decide that African-American descendants of slaves (and perhaps Native Americans) deserved reparations and nobody else did, the required distinction between the proposed recipients and other groups would blow away the justification for a huge number of big government programs and other legal preferences for ethnic constituencies. And, worse for the academics, it would establish a "hierarchy of oppression," which is anathema to the ideologues in the field.

For my part, I have long regarded reparations as the only sound basis for demographic preferences in hiring, contracting, or university admissions because, well, all the other rationales make no sense at all. That view is extremely unpopular, though, because it requires liberals to admit there is no real basis for preferences for constituencies other than African-American descendants of slaves and Native Americans, and it requires conservatives to acknowledge that African-American poverty and social pathology depend heavily from slavery and Jim Crow, those ugly stains on the American virtue that conservatives hold so dear.

Regardless, it cannot hurt you to read "The Case for Reparations." Or can it?

Who's On First, Who's Out First?

Ok, those of us who follow politics closely have had a chance to see what's out there, so let's do a little critiquing shall we? Who is looking good with STAYING POWER, who's just staying afloat with money and who's on life support?

1. Trump: Who woulda figured? But I still don't see him going anywhere. As I've said repeatedly, he's riding ONE issue and his support is no more than a clarion call to the establishment; GET IMMIGRATION FIXED! Some are still too friggin' dumb to see this simple fact and, well, money can't by me love and if you think crossing a border for money is love then your ass is grass.
2. Bush: See previous. But I am enjoying the slow burn of the country club Republicans! I hope it hurts!
3. Carson: I like Ben Carson. The man has good ideas, his politics are right on and he's brilliant. But smarts ain't enough. Although he's a quick learner, politics at this level requires a skill set few possess. I doubt he'll be able to keep up but if he can then I'm onboard all the way.
4. Rubio: Marco is the best politician in the bunch. He comes across as being genuine without pandering. I can see him winning but I still don't trust the guy on immigration. If he nails that down it's off to the races.
5. Walker: After what he did in Wisconsin Walker was a lot of folk's early choice, including mine. But he's kind of bland on the stump. Dullsville might play in Racine (Cheeseheads in general are very subdued, unless they're playing the Vikings) but he's got to show some fire along with the ice.
6. Cruz: I think Ted Cruz is deceptively brilliant. He's been careful not to criticize Trump and is even cozying up to him a bit. His views on immigration are nearly identical but a lot less bombastic. I think he's positioning himself to pick up the pieces when Trump does finally implode.
7. Huckabee: The religious fundamentalist's candidate. He's gonna pull 10% just about everywhere apart from Greenwich Village, Chapel Hill, Provincetown and the Maryland Eastern shore, but that's it, he's maxed out. He's an also, also ran.
8. Fiorina: I LOVE THIS WOMAN! If the Tickbite primary were today I'd vote Fiorina President and Earl "The Squirrel" Odell for mayor (the man is to squirrels what Mini-soda dentists are to lions!). I like her style, I like her demeanor, I like her policies and I like her guts. Politics is funny. As a woman she could turn the tables on Democrats and get through a lot of things a man perhaps couldn't. Choosing her would put identity politics in our corner for a change.
9. Paul: Trump nailed him, too WEIRD!
10. The rest: Kasich (Bush clone) Christie (sell by date expired) Perry (retread...with holes) Jindal (too nerdy) Gilmore (who?) Graham (fat girl in a bikini, can't bear to look at him) Pataki (a New Yorker, really?) Santorum (a Yankee version of Huckabee).

Now, nobody here gets your putter to flutter? There are others you know. Let's have a look.
•Andy Martin; a lawyer from Connecticut. He has a long history of litigation (as a defendant) and some view him as an anti-semite. Too bad, he coulda been in the hunt.
•Kerry Bowers; ECU educated and Nevada resident, Bowers is a 30 year career military guy and from what I read a quality conservative through and through. But come on dude, you might want to start off with something a little more attainable than President. Just the fact you're running calls your judgment into question.
•K. Ross Newland; in a nutshell a religious zealot.
•Jack Fellure; this guy is hilarious. He's been running for President since 1988. Part of his platform is to bring back prohibition and criminalize homosexuality. He'd do well in Tehran I'm thinking.
•Jefferson Sherman; gee, the name is so schizophrenic, anyway he's a garden variety, small government conservative.
•John Dummett Jr.; a self-described small government conservative who feels "disenfranchised" by both the Republicans and Democrats. I can relate John.
•Shawna Sterling; hates GMOs and vows to ban them from school cafeterias. Pennsylvania Avenue here we go!
•George Bailey; black preacher with heart disease. He needs to talk to Dr. Carson I'm thinking.
•Mark Everton; hates the federal reserve and advocates a one term limit for Presidents. Sounds right to me.
•Estaban Oliverez; a Geraldo Rivera Republican. He needs a show on MSNBC, he'd be right at home.
• Michael Bickelmeyer; I LOVE THIS GUY! He, and I quote "takes a dim view of terrorists and drug traffickers...and wants to fry them from orbit". Holy Shit Batman, this dude is happening! Damn! Where can I send money!
•Bartholomew James Lower; solar power nut.
•Eric Cavanagh; favors a 100% "porn tax" and would "wipe away" all criminal records after three months! Hmmm, wonder what this guy's life experiences have been? No idea but I sure don't want him moving in next door I don't mind telling you.

Jesus, anyway what with the dogs and the kid and Sgt. Major yelling in my ear (Blogging again!? That's it, I'm getting a new car) I forgot what I was posting about.
By the end of September the first out will be all of #10 starting with Gilmore and Graham with Perry not far behind. The rest might hang on a bit longer but you won't even know they're there. By Christmas we'll have maybe five or six solid candidates, and guess what? Jeb might not be one of them.

Well that's it. I report and you can piss off.

Joseph Nocera thinks his readers are idiots

This is an old school TigerHawk post, insofar as I bash The New York Times just because. I know, I know, it is small of me to do, but not all blogging grows from greatness.

In this morning's column, Joe Nocera denounces a particular analyst's humping of Tesla (TSLA) stock, and darkly suggests it is akin to Henry Blodget's bull call on Amazon in 1998. Fair use excerpt:

Do you remember when Henry Blodget first became famous?

No, it wasn’t when the then-New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, unearthed those notorious emails Blodget wrote as Merrill Lynch’s Internet analyst, the ones in which he privately disparaged companies he was publicly touting. That came later.

It was 1998, the height of the Internet bubble. Blodget was then an analyst with CIBC Oppenheimer, and the “it” stock of the moment was Amazon, which had as many detractors as it had boosters.

One day that December, with the stock at about $240 a share — and with no change in Amazon’s fundamentals — Blodget, an Amazon bull, raised his price target to $400. That day it popped more than $45; within three weeks it hit Blodget’s target. Some months later, I wrote an article about his coverage of Internet companies. It was titled “The Cheerleader.”

During the current six-year bull-market — a market that has also seen its share of excess — a new “it” stock has emerged: Tesla Motors. Led by the charismatic Elon Musk, Tesla is a company that makes beautiful, and thus far very expensive, all-electric cars, vehicles that are so fantastically well made that Consumer Reports just gave the Model S P85D sedan its highest rating ever.

Tesla is also, however, a company that eats through cash, loses money on every sedan it sells, routinely overpromises what it will deliver to Wall Street and is regularly in need of new funding.

That’s not to mention other factors impinging on Tesla: the falling price of oil, for instance, which diminishes demand for electric cars, or the fact that a number of traditional luxury auto brands are poised to get into the electric vehicle game. It’s not hard to make a case that, at around $250 a share, Tesla is as insanely overvalued as any Internet stock in the late 1990s.

And guess what? Just like the Internet stocks of yore, Tesla has its own Wall Street cheerleader: Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s auto analyst.

But here's the thing. Amazon is up 10 times since Blodget made the call that Nocera ridicules, or 988% vs. around 200% for the Nasdaq and the Dow, notwithstanding the popping of the Internet bubble in early 2000. I know this in part because I shorted Amazon in 1998 for basically the same reasons that Nocera attacks Tesla now. It was a very useful learning experience for me.

The point, of course, is not to vindicate Henry Blodget or rescue Adam Jones, who is more than capable of defending himself. Indeed, Nocera seems to have justified Jones better than Jones ever could. The next Amazon, you say? Bring. It. On.

But how do you write that column, and how does your editor publish that column, without a whisper of a hint of an acknowledgement that, well, people who acted on their belief in Blodget in 1998 (and had the discipline to maintain their conviction for a few years) are far happier today -- or at least wealthier -- than people who believed Nocera? We don't even get a single "to be sure"?

You need to read the NYT so you know what is going on inside the lefty echo chamber, but it is very hard to believe anything on its editorial pages at face value. Otherwise, for example, you would think that Joe Nocera can distinguish a good securities analyst from a bad one.

Addendum (10:47 am ET, Aug 31): In a very down morning for the stock market, TSLA is up. There are no doubt many explanations, but some of it probably has to do with Nocera comparing it to AMZN in 1998. At least that's my theory for purposes of this post.

On Anchor Babies

Jeb Bush got into a little trouble with the prone to fainting crowd this week in his embrace of the term "anchor babies".  I find nothing objectionable in it, and I am glad that he has not repudiated himself on its use.

This morning, I came across this headline on Twitter:  "Hate Label "Anchor Babies" enters 2016 Playground"  ,  and I nearly fell out of my chair.

There you have it friends.  "Anchor Babies" = "Nigger".   Why?  Well, because someone or some group finds it offensive, and they deem it "hate" speech.  Now I know that the story doesn't equate the two, and even mention the hateful word I used above (note: I do not use "N-word".  I am an adult.) But as soon as you begin to throw around the term "hate speech" you move quickly and invariably to the most hateful term of all, a term that DOES in fact have a great deal of meaningful negativity behind it--rather than the straightforward meaning of "anchor baby" which in absolutely no way, shape, or form denotes particular ethnicity.

Drip....drip....drip....

Marco Rubio News

Marco Rubio was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last night.  Below, please find a link to a 15 minute or so interview with him, an interview that contains some great stuff on the state of the Navy and his plans for it.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/wp-content/uploads/08-28-MarcoRubio.mp3

Also--there's no reason to fret about the GOP front-runner---Howard Dean had better numbers in 2004 at this point....

Get out those checkbooks and give until it hurts!

BIG FAT Free For All (or if you're a Lib, fee for all) Friday!

Just saw something on the Interstate that makes the new NCSU vomit machine seem redundant? Donald Trump licking the red off your candy and Mama won't make him stop? Hitch your wagon to a falling star and now the future looks very...rural? Then let's hear about it. But just remember, unless you've just been shot down with a Glock 19 on live TV, you're having a better day than the Clintons.
Peace be with you.

Social Issues to the Rescue

YES!

So, now we have a Republican Party which refuses to talk about, confront, even acknowledge social issues and their impact on American politics. We have thrown up the white flag of surrender on gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism (whatever the fuq that is) and just about anything MSNBC deems a "freedom". Apparently you have a Constitutional right to abort your 30 week "fetus" (at government expense) and Planned Parenthood (half a billion a year in taxpayer subsidies) has a right to part it out like a Southern California chop-shop... for even more money. What you don't have is the right to bitch about it. Just shuddup and go along, you're gonna screw up everything, we don't want to hear it Redneck.  

Do you guys remember Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Probably not, I doubt you even remember Nixon. Anyway what Nixon did from the '68 election (which he won by a whisker over arguably the worst candidate who ever lived Hubert Humphrey) to the '72 election, which he won in a landslide, was peel away the Southern, white, Protestant vote and the Northern Catholic social conservative vote. He went from about 48% to 61% in four years. Not too shabby. Anyway Nixon did it by appealing to the "silent majority" of patriotic, God fearing, hard working Americans who weren't smoking dope and listening to Jimi Hendrix (and even a few who were, present company accepted). Hell he even got a lot of union endorsements. As you might imagine that shift scared the Holy living shit out of the Democrats and played a major role in their "shoot the moon" strategy to get Nixon at all costs, and they pulled it off.

So, tell me again how a socially conservative Republican Party will hurt themselves? Will it hurt with Southern whites? No, I think not. Will it hurt with Catholics? No, I don't think so. Will it help attract all those "naturally conservative Hispanics" Republicans are always yapping about? I'm thinking HELL YES!

Here's the thing. When Nixon put together this new coalition he lost the Republican left. The Rockefella, Jacob Javits, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lowell Weicker wing of the party was LIVID! They didn't have a lot of numbers but they had the money, and now they had no place to spend it. Well they've made a comeback (of course) and guys like GHWB, Bob Dole and yes Mitt Romney are THEIR kinda guys. In terms of direction and policy they aren't all that concerned about losing, they just want to control the money pot every few years. But what they absolutely DON'T want and will not tolerate is another Reagan.

So, now you know. Our brilliant Republican leaders have lost the Reagan Democrats, the Northern Catholics, and they're about to lose Southern whites. Go along with Jeb or one of these other Northeastern, Midwestern Republicans and you'll be no better off than with Hillary. The litmus test this cycle is immigration (the ultimate social issue). If they won't give us that then they don't want us and the Republican Party is yesterdays news.

Just Remember, Folks....

A government empowered to deport 11 million people is a government with a lot of power you might not want it to use elsewhere.