Medical Update - Warning: Graphic

Hey everyone! I thought you might like to know how close we came to a disaster on Friday. I guess I'm thankful to be alive. (This is graphic, so don't read this if you are squeamish.)

To help you understand the problem I've been having, I'm having tons of lymphatic fluid build up in my body and pool in my ankles in particular. This causes my legs to "weep" out this fluid because there's no other way to get rid of it. Over time, this has destroyed the tissue between my ankles and my knees, which is now torn, raw, bloated and severely damaged. It actually looks a lot like burn victim skin and it feels like my lower legs are covered in blisters. The pain from this can be overwhelming, which is why I need the pain pills, which keep me from writing, which is why I'm having a hard time getting articles done.

About a week ago, my doctor gave me a steroid cream he thought might help. I put this cream around the ankle, where it looks like someone yanked out chunks of flesh with a pair of pliers. At first, it seemed to help. Then it seemed to increase the pain and make things worse. I decided on Friday that I would stop using this stuff. Unfortunately, that was too late.

(Warning: Now it gets graphic!)

After a nice, but medicated Thanksgiving, I decided to just rest on Friday. So I sat in my favorite chair. I pulled up an ottoman, put a down blanket on the ottoman as a cushion, and then placed a bath towel on the blanket because my bandages are always wet -- the weeping makes them wet after about twenty minutes. I put my foot up on the towel. A few minutes later, I realized there were three drops of blood on my other leg. I asked my wife if she could see a source. I thought I might have cut the back of that knee, which feels sore. She didn't see blood there. Then she noticed something red under my left leg, on the towel. When I raised my leg, we saw that the towel and the blanket were drenched in blood... drenched to the point of dripping blood everywhere when you picked them up.

At that point, my wife pulled off the bandage to see what was leaking. As she did, a cartoon-like scene occurred as a stream of blood shot over her shoulder across the room. It didn't stop until she plugged it with the bandage again. Needless to say, I called 911. Fortunately, they arrived about a minute later and took over. They were great -- professional, calm and friendly. They were also very worried at first, until we got the bleeding stopped. The ER staff were not as great, but we did get it all sorted out and the bleeding stopped.

What had happened was that the steroid cream had thinned the already damaged skin and it just broke open right at an arterial point. (It actually broke on two places -- front and back).

I don't know how much blood I lost, but it was a lot. The bath towel and the down blanket were soaked and ruined. The carpet was drenched too and filled the steam cleaner three times before I got it all out. I would guess we are talking two pints for sure. And this was all in about 5 minutes. Worst of all, as there was no pain, it was pure luck that I even noticed. Had I fallen asleep, or had my wife been out shopping as was her intent, I would not be here today... I don't doubt that. And the thought of my wife and kids coming home to find that honestly makes me sick.

Anyway, I wanted to let you all know this so you know that I really am not just being lazy when I can't get articles done. The stuff I've been dealing with has been very serious, debilitating and at times rather scary. And I want to thank you all again for sticking with us as I sort my way through this. I do believe things are getting better, but sometimes there are setbacks like this.

Thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

This is always a great time of year to thank God that you're not a pilgrim. Just kidding, pilgrims. But seriously, this is a great time of year to think about what you should be thankful for. We live in the greatest, most free, most productive country in the world. We are surrounded by genuinely good people who believe in community, charity, and fair play, and millions of people work tirelessly to make everything a little bit better every day. Who can beat that?

Besides that though, we should all be thankful for our friends and family and for the chance to make their lives better as they've made ours better. It's a great time to remind them that you love them, isn't it?

Personally, I'm thankful for my wonderful parents and my great sister, my incredible wife, and my amazing kids. I'm thankful to be alive. I'm thankful that I get to see and experience everything this world has to offer. I'm thankful for e-meeting all of you. And I'm thankful that we can experience things like joy and happiness and contentment.

So what are you thankful for?

The Pathetic "Men's Rights Movement"

by Kit

Within the past year there has been a great deal of controversy over a group of men who call themselves "Red-Pillers" and "Pick-up Artists", especially with the Elliot Rodgers shootings and again with the recent attention on Pick-up Artist Julien Blanc.

They have gained increasing fame against the back drop of, and possibly fueled by, a resurgent radical feminism that is sees every minor inconvenience a woman has in modern-day American society as symptomatic of a widespread and universal "War on Women". The manosphere portrays itself as a rebellion against this resurgence (though they claim it never died) and, as with all rebels, it gives them a certain aura. But, as I hope to show, they are not an answer to the problems of radical feminism. In fact, they are in many ways, a masculine alter ego of radical feminism —though with lower aims. They both promote a War of the Sexes where one must win through Total Victory or become a defeated Stepford Wife or Henpecked Husband.

Now, in discussing them I am not talking about the Men's Rights Movement as a whole nor am I excluding them since the lines between the MRAs and the Red-Pillers/PUAs are often quite blurry. As they have been a rather influential part of the MRAs. This also has absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful blog, Art of Manliness, a website with a philosophy contrary to that of the Red-Pillers. In fact, the major Red-Pill site Return of Kings criticized Art of Manliness for "poisoning the concept of masculinity with Disney Lifestyle Advice" by promoting a pro-family, pro-fatherhood, and pro-marriage view of the world.

Their Worldview

The philosophy of the Manosphere and the Red-pillers can be described by these 4 pillars that I am calling "Female Psychology", "Alpha-Beta Male Dichotomy", "Feminism's Effects", and "Game". The first two describe their "scientific" view of basic human psychology that applies to all men and women at all times and all places, the 3rd describes that state of gender relations in modern society, and the 4th is the rational solution for men in today's world.

(1) Female Psychology: Women, ruled by a “hindbrain”, are driven by a sense of hypergamy to find the most uber-sexy, domineering man, an Alpha, over wimpy Betas, most of the other men because, as Xpat puts it, “Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.” This is a major part of their ideology, Rollo Tomassi (pen-name for the blogger at the Rational Male), makes it his 6th Iron Rule (he has 9), “Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.”

A translation: “Women are only capable of loving men conditionally, that is, if it benefits them.” Now, as with nearly all the best lies this one has a grain of truth to it. Hypergamy is a real thing, it is the desire of a (heterosexual) woman to select as a mate/spouse the highest quality man available with the man's quality hinging on a variety of traits. This can be proven by scientific studies and common sense.

The Pick-up Artists twists this, producing blog posts headlined "Hypergamy Doesn't Care", providing examples of the things Hypergamy doesn't care about:

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids."

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men."

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores."

And so on.

The interesting thing is that, according to every bit of available knowledge of science's understanding of hypergamy... THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS IT DOES CARE ABOUT YOU THICK-HEADED NUMBSKULL!!! They want a man who will be a great father, a great husband, who is caring, who is supportive, but tough enough to not be driven to a mess of tears by the smallest problems. Basically, they want a man. But, this is their world view. So what does "Hypergamy care about"? Well...

(2) Alpha/Beta Male Dichotomy: According to them, most men fall into one of two categories: Alphas and Betas. Alphas are the domineering aggressive men who make history while the Betas are the rest of them, the weak, docile, and pussy-whipped men who make up the vast majority of society. In this view, the quintessential Alphas are men like Genghis Khan and James Bond while a typical Beta would be Al Bundy and Ray Romano. It further states that women are attracted to Alphas.

Now, in theory this may seem ok. A bit black-and-white but with some truth to it. Most men may not aspire to be Genghis Khan but they don't want to be Al Bundy either so they seek the middle road. Surely there is a middle road, neither dominated nor domineering? Well, according to this worldview there isn't. One is either a domineering übermensch who is conquering women or weak and henpecked husband dominated by his wife. There is no middle road.

And Hypergamy, they say, guides women towards the Alphas. While they will "settle" for a Beta if there is no other alternative, they all pine for an Alpha and will cheat on their Beta husband if they find a willing Alpha —even if said Alpha is already taken, for "Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled by a faithful loser." If you want to see proof of this bubbling up in other sites, the big Red-Pill site website Return of Kings even had an article giving men tips on how to have an affair.

Now, in older days this was ok because, in the pre-feminism era, Beta Males did not have to worry about their wives getting cheating on them with impunity. But then...

(3) Effects of Feminism: Feminism, they claim, by upsetting the natural order of man and wife, has resulted in women developing a sense of entitlement that leads them to abuse and mistreat men. If this sounds like a bit of a leap in logic look at the above pillar; “Women love opportunistically.” If women can only love opportunistically and thus cannot be trusted to be loyal then it is clear that feminism has given them powers and rights with which they cannot be trusted. Women now have the power to abuse and cheat on their boyfriends and husbands (and even fathers and sons) with impunity.

This is very reminiscent, interestingly, of the radical feminist ravings about patriarchy and how under it men are given free reign to abuse and mistreat women. How women are not able to trust men to be caring and loving. That is because both are rooted in a worldview of an identity culture bred by a sense of victimhood. Like the feminists who claim that all women are suffering brutal and daily abuse under an all-powerful patriarchy they claim that feminism has created a situation where all men suffer. Remember the "Hypergamy Doesn't Care" article I mentioned? Well, it is rife with this. I chose the nicer parts, but almost every thing he lists that "Hypergamy doesn't care about" is written in such a way to portray women as evil leeches who will abuse and mistreat men with about as much empathy as a sociopath. Even their view of a once-great and wonderful Eden of Male Superiority has a feminist parallel in the anthropological myth of long-lost "Matriarchal Societies" where life was free and happy.

And, like all victimhood-peddlers they have a solution...

(4) Game: The logical result, they claim, is that men can no longer expect a happy life through marriage and fatherhood and instead must seek a fulfilled life by having as much sex with as many women as they can. To accomplish this they peddle "Game". "Game" is the method of seduction they sell to young men. The strategies they teach vary from the deceptive to the abusive. The most infamous, Julien Blanc recommend that men put their right hand around the girl's neck and go "Shhhhh". He also recommends using tactics of domestic abuse to keep girlfriends, tweeting a photo of a domestic abuse wheel that shows the methods of domestic abuse with the words, "Might as well be a checklist. #HowToMakeHerStay".

He is the most extreme version but one can find hints of this in the statements of other advocates of Game such as the Rollo Tomassi, who pushes a view of relationships that is based entirely on the prism of who has the most power with sex as the sole reason for the relationship, said "Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait."

It's a cynical, grab-what-you can ideology and it is the reason for it all. The Pick-Up Artists are trying to sell "Game" to young men. The reason for the previous 3 pillars is an attempt to provide "evidence" for the need for Game. Its a con. This is not too far from a man who claims that ancient alien souls sent into the bodies of cavemen by an evil alien overlord are the real causes of mental illness and joining his creepy religious cult is the only way one can "cure" oneself of mental health problems.

Conclusion

Yes, there are women who have cheated on their husbands and yet still soaked them in the divorce, just as there are men who have beaten their wives. Some people are simply narcissistic sociopaths. People who will mistreat others for no apparent reason, even when it would've been in their interest to be kind. But the history of human experience shows that these are the exception, not the rule.

In the ideologies of both Radical Feminists and Red-Pillers/PUAs we see them try to depict the world in stark black-and-white terms; casting the other sex as violent and depraved demons while painting their own sex as innocent and unknowing babes in the woods. They are cynical views of the world and with the Pick-up Artist community we see a cynical and nefarious solution with their pushing of "Game".

Yes, unlike feminism, perusing their websites reveals no real desire to change the world into a totalitarian masculine state, though many might like it. Their goals, as "Game" illustrates, are a bit lower. Simply have as much sex as you can. But that only means it is less ambitious. The bile, however, is still very present. They promote themselves as a cure to radical feminism in its modern-day form but they are not a cure. In truth, they are another strain of the same disease.

Immigration Order Open Thread

Today is the day that Obama will have his revenge for the drubbing he got Nov. 4. Yes, folks this is our punishment for rejecting the Black man in the White House. [Their words, not mine].

Although I have another theory...

Friday, the Ferguson grand jury will make their decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson and the impending riot that will insue either way. I know that it may be cynical of me, but maybe this is Obama's way of distracting the country. Or maybe he has chosen this exact moment ot distract from the whole Obamacare/Jonathan Gruber fiasco just as the open enrollment is being rolled out once again with the same problems as before. Like I said, I am cynical. Since we don't know exactly what he will do, we can discuss it as he makes his grand, imperial announcement. Maybe we'll be surprised.

Just remember these past words from the President when the Executive Order is announced...[I have added the highlights...]

Univision March 28, 2011:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

Univision on Jan. 30, 2013:

Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. The same is true with respect to the kinds of the length of time that people have to spend outside of the country when their spouses are already here for example.

Google Hangout on Feb. 14, 2013:

Jacky Guerrero of California: Your administration has deported a record high number of 1.5 million undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessor. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say that those efforts weren’t enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now until the time immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families aren’t being broken apart.

Obama: Well, look Jacky, this is something that I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.

And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals, as opposed to somebody who’s here just trying to work and look after their families.

What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done is, obviously, pass the deferred action which made sure that the DREAMers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, are American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

Having said all that, we’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important.

September 17, 2013:

“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Obama said. “So that’s not an option. I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there’s an out here — if Congress doesn’t act, we will just have the president sign something and that will take care of it, and we won’t have to worry about it. What I have said is that there is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

ABC News on November 16, 2014 while at the G20 Conference in Australia:

Jim Avila: Following up on immigration — in 2010, when asked by immigration reform advocates to stop deportations and act alone on providing legal status for the undocumented, you said, “I’m President, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In 2013, you said, “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” Mr. President, what has changed since then? And since you’ve now had a chance to talk since July with your legal advisors, what do you now believe are your limits so that you can continue to act as president and not as emperor or king?

Obama: Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities. There are certain things I cannot do. There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.

And this is just a fun montage:


Well, you get the gist. He was against executive fiat before he was for it. By the way does it bother anyone else that Obama was making statements about domestic issues while in Myanmar and Australia rather than making these statement before the American people while in the US? Please feel free to comment as Obama makes his announcement...

Lost Generation of Democrats

There have been a lot of articles lately about the Democrats suffering long-term damage from the recent election. I find this interesting, though I don't think things are that simple. I also think this problem actually began back in 2008 because of Obama.

The Democrats expected to do a good deal better in the mid-term elections than they did. In particular, they were shocked to do so poorly in state races for things like governor and attorney general. Even more shocking, these losses occurred in reliably blue and purple states. Even worse, the Democrats saw the people who lost as their rising stars, i.e. their future leaders. These individuals included people like Michelle Nunn in Georgia, the daughter of the respected Sen. Sam Nunn, Alison Grimes in Kentucky, who would be seen as a giant-killer for unseating Mitch McConnell, Mike Michaud in Maine, who would have been the first openly gay governor, Anthony Brown in Maryland, the country's only black governor, etc. But a funny thing happened... each of these candidates lost, as did many more supposed future stars.

As a result of these losses, the Democrats are now fretting about having lost everyone they saw as their future leaders. And the loss of these people is making many Democrats think they are now handicapped in national elections for maybe as much as a decade. Others think these people can run again in 2016, win, and restore the farm-team. But even those people agree that this has hurt the party.

I find this interesting on several levels. First, I agree that this has hurt them. No matter how promising a candidate may be, having a big loss on the resume can be a killer. At the very least, this has delayed these people's careers for another election cycle. Secondly, I note that these people are all minorities -- women, blacks, gays. Up to now, the Democrats have remained competitive by running white males who then pretend to be more conservative than they really are, see e.g. Harry Reid. This group of candidates would represent a real shift in strategy, a shift which may send whites and males to the GOP in even greater numbers as it become harder for the Democrats to pretend to be conservative and to pretend not to be a party in the service of minorities.

Third, I think the real problem actually began with Obama's victory in 2008. It is often true that a president will harm their own party through things like protest votes registered at the mid-terms which wipe out candidates unexpectedly and by pulling strong candidates onto different career paths as federal agencies, where they effectively vanish into the federal black hole. But Obama has been worse. Obama's instincts seem to be to rid himself of potential competitors. Thus, he wiped out any possible challengers he could face by pulling them into the cabinet or ostracizing them. The result has been that the only Democrats who have appeared on the national stage since he took office have been either irrelevant to the future (e.g. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), treated like outcasts (e.g. Hillary Clinton), or kept at a distance far away from relevance (e.g. Andrew Cuomo). The most obvious proof of this is the utter lack of alternatives to Hillary Clinton. Are they seriously talking about Joe Biden as a contender? Wow.

All in all, the Democrats definitely have a problem. They have no viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton, who is not very popular with their base or the public. They also have few heavy-hitters left who can anoint someone after Obama's "purges" and the debacle of Obamacare leading to mass retirements. And they have no viable set of princelings after the midterms who can step up and replace the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Obama. Moreover, they have lost so many governor's mansions and legislatures that they have no realistic way to show off their ideas to build their brand.

Interesting times.

We Landed On A Comet!

In the middle of all the stupid stuff going on, including the indignity of a certain woman with no discernable talent whatsoever parading naked all over the newspapers, we landed a spacecraft on a comet! Well, by "we" I mean, the European Space Agency not NASA. NASA doesn't do anything like this these days. Long gone are the days of grand Presidential challenges to explore the universe and reach for the stars. Nope, NASA has seen its shuttle fleet scuttled and has been reduced to hitchhiking to the International Space Station they built years ago. But that doesn't mean that we can't still marvel at others and their amazing feats of human ingenuity.

And an amazing feat it is. In 2004, the ESA shot a spacecraft called Rosetta and Philae, the lander decribed as "the size of a medium washing machine" into space to explore the surface of a comet 4 billion miles away. Think about that for a minute. Ten years ago, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers calculated with pinpoint accuracy, the trajectory of a piece of machinery blasted into space and managed to land it on the surface of a comet on November 12, 2014 - 10 years later and 4 billion miles away. It is astounding what humans can do when we put our minds to doing stuff that advances human knowledge.

One would think the world would be calling for a parade for these scientists, mathematicians and engineers, right? Well, not so fast. Watch this clip and at 1:40 you will see what happened that has feminists around the country shreaking and fainting in horror...



You thought you'd see a giant space bug or large-eyed alien peering into the camera? No, they were shreaking and fainting because of a shirt worn by Dr. Matt Taylor, one of leading mission scientist, during an interview as the lander was making its decent. The fabric of this offending shirt that made especially for Dr. Taylor by a female friend was a montage of large breasted, scantily=clad cartoon women. Nooooooo! Feminists far and wide took to Twitter decrying "Who cares what he has done. How dare he demean women this way!" and "That shirt has done more damage to little girls than anything ever and why they HATE science!"

So, instead of heralding another giant leap for mankind, it has devolved into a social media feminist rage-fest claiming "this is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields." Seriously. They so bullied this poor guy at the moment of his greatest achievement that he ended up having to give a tearful public apology days later. Not one of those fake "I am sorry you were offended" non-apologies that we have become so accustomed to these days, but a real honest and tearful mea culpa. And yet these same women who think he has set women back to the 1950's will swoon with delight at the bravery of a talentless imbecile as she objectifies women to down to their ample body parts - no brains needed. What a great example for little girls! This is exactly why I cannot and will never call myself a feminist.

Anything to add, subtract, multiply or divide?

Obama Follows Lead of Dictators

So here is what Obama is planning vis-à-vis immigration, and it’s truly stunning. In fact, this is the first thing I’ve seen any modern President do that I would qualify as genuinely dictator-like. Indeed, the reason he claims he can grant amnesty to five million illegals is the precise kind of false legalism that only people like Hitler have tried, typically as they try to work their way out from under the restraint of law. Observe.

Obama is claiming:

(1) The Executive Branch has prosecutorial discretion in terms of who it will deport. Essentially, the Executive gets to decide which cases it will pursue and which it won’t.

(2) Prior Executives have granted protection to particular groups from deportation.

(3) The Executive Branch has the authority to grant work permits to the groups it seeks to protect.

(4) Ergo, the White House intends to use its discretion to extend this protection and to refuse to prosecute half the illegals in the US and to issue work permits to them in the process.

WOW! Let me explain how unbelievably wrong this is. First, prosecutorial discretion is one of those things that shouldn’t exist in an ideal world, but it does because this world is not ideal. The idea is that on a case by case basis, prosecutors should have the discretion not to prosecute someone who has technically broken the law but prosecuting them would lead to an injustice. But this type of decision is made on an individual basis and usually is only invoked where a significant injustice would result from prosecution... it has never been used as a means to nullify a law, as Obama is proposing now. In fact, doing so would be completely unconstitutional as it would give the Executive the power to ignore the legislature at its whim. To even contemplate this is dictator thinking and shocking.

Next, while the Executive has extended protection to some immigrants in the past, there has always been a very strong justification. Typically, these cases involve the protection of fundamental human rights or the preservation of life to protect these groups, such as where they are refugees from a war, ethnic cleansing or natural disasters, or where they face some sort of institutional harassment that borders on murder, e.g. gays in Africa, women seeking to avoid forced abortion in China, etc. Basically, it is to avoid returning them to a situation where they might be harmed. It has never been used as a means to circumvent the law or without a strong justification. Obama would be doing this on an unprecedented massive scale with no justification whatsoever.

Finally, let’s just square the circle by pointing out that if Obama thinks he has this right and power and that it’s justified, why only apply it to half the illegals? How does that make sense? What he is basically saying is that these people need to be protected from some evil that will befall them... but he’s only willing to help half of them. That discredits all of this even more. It shows he has no justification for protecting these people or he wouldn't leave half to suffer. It also shows that he bizarrely thinks that by only doing half, he can somehow sneak this through... incredible. And it shows that he's not acting on principle, he's acting deceptively. Even more importantly, it shows that he does think like a dictator and that the Constitution and rule of law mean nothing to him. In fact, this idea is so rotten that a great many liberals are freaking out that he may actually do this.

What has liberals most freaked out about this is something Obama apparently hasn’t even considered. Specifically, any future administration can use this same outlandish argument to invalidate any law they choose... or to apply it only to individuals and groups they dislike, e.g. why not exempt ____ from tax laws?! This is crazy! See, what Obama is doing is turning the US into a Banana Republic, at best, or a nascent Nazi Germany at worst. Once rule of law is rendered meaningless, it could take generations or bloodshed to restore it. It took our country almost 150 years to truly become a nation governed by laws rather than a nation controlled by powerful politicians who manipulate a graft-riddled government. This would undo that.

Thoughts?

Back Next Week...

Hi everybody! I wanted to apologize for not being around much the past couple weeks. Unfortunately, there was just no way I could write anything. Fortunately, however, I think I'm finally on the healing side of things, so I hope to be back full speed next week. Thanks for your patience and thanks a ton to Bev for all her help in stepping up as I've been out! :D

Obamacare and those Stupid American Voters...

So what do the Democrats do when one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act admits that they pretty much had to lie to get the bill passed? No, they don't blame Bush...not this time. And what do the Democrats do when this same architect refers to them in terms of "the stupidity of the American voter"? Well, they blame the messenger Rich Weinstein. Who is this guy anyway?

Well, here's the story. Rich Weinstein, described as a "mildmannered investment adviser" from Philly, went on a mission to figure out why his insurance policy had been cancelled and his new improved ACA policy premiums had dramatically increased.

“When Obama said 'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period'—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said 'period,' there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!” - Bloomberg

Mr. Weinstein searched hours and hours of videos of "David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel, Jonathan Gruber and people like that" and listened to what they had to say. All he did was listen. Then he hit on this clip from ACA architect and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber from a UPenn conference in September of 2013...



Did he just admit that the bill was purposely written is such a way that the CBO wouldn't be able score it as a tax? And did he just admit it was the lack of transparency that was the political key to getting the bill passed? Well, yes and they could do it because of the "stupidity of the American voter or whatever".

Needless to say, this video hit the Web-verse and has gone viral. Mr. Gruber realized he had been caught, so he went on Ronan Farrow's MSNBC show (the least watched show on TV) to explain that he spoke "off the cuff" and his remarks were "innappropriate". LINK

Mr. Weinstein says he has more video to refute the claim that Mr. Gruber's remarks were "off the cuff" gaffes. But Weinstein's over-arching issue was how did he, just a regular guy looking for information, manage to find all of this and not one journalist even tried? And I have to say he is right. With all the high-minded Woodward and Bernstein wannabe's out there looking for the gotcha moment, why didn't they track down these videos?

Though beside the point right now, the Supreme Court case that Farrow and Gruber are referring has been brought by several states that hinges on a small phrase that says "people qualify for tax credits to help pay insurance premiums when they buy a plan on an exchange “established by the state.” The dispute is whether the federal government can subsidize insurance when a state opts out of creating their own state run exchanges and whether that phrase were just a "typo" as Prof. Gruber describes them or a huge flaw that kills the federal exchanges and possibly the ACA.

And as an final point: When will it dawn on the Democrats and liberals that the stupid American voters of which Mr. Gruber is referring is them?

So here we are. Any comments or would you rather look at videos of animals doing cute things?

What Is Net Neutrality?

I am feeling "stupid" today. Maybe it's that new virus that scientists at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the University of Nebraska accidentally discovered or maybe I am just naturally stupid. But can someone explain "net neutrality" to me?

As our ever-pivoting President published today, he wants to focus his attention on "net neutrality" instead of...say...just about anything. Granted, my level of trust in this Administration has already gone into the negative numbers (as in -100%), but this just sounds like it is titled to do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do...

I apologize in advance that this message from whitehouse.gov makes your ears bleed, but it is blessedly short...



You are all bright people and probably have not yet been infected by the "stupid" virus, so someone please explain!

And for our brave "Band of Brothers and Sisters" -
This is Veterans Day, so as a tribute to honor you brave men and women who have worn the uniform of our military throughout the generations, here is the best speech about going to war ever written performed by a wonderful Shakespearan actor:

:-D

Life is good when your nine year old sends you a copy of this... unsolicited.

The Tingle Is Gone...

I don't know about you, but I am tired. But here are some other election wins of which you may not be aware. Not only did the Republicans take the majority in the US Senate, but they increased their majority in the House from 233 to 243. And for the first time in 141 years, all the US representatives from Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas are Republican. And Hillary batted zero in the places where she campaigned on behalf of candidates including Arkansas. That may not bode well for her Presidential aspirations. And to add to the Dem drubbing, Gov. Scott Walker won handily in Wisconsin which means he won three decisive elections for the same position in less than 4 years and is the only Governor to ever survive a recall election.

But the good news doesn't end there. In the state elections, Republicans will now control 67 of the 99* state legislative bodies. That is a change from 59 to 67. But wait there's more. Republicans now will hold the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature in 24 states. Not only that, but they will hold a supermajority in 16 of those states. The Dems will hold the same in only 7 states. In the other 19 states, Republicans will hold at least one chamber or mansion. In New York and Washington where Republicans held a tenuous control on the state Senate, they now will have the decisive majority.

And to think that in 2008, James Carville declared that the Republican Party was dead. Let's not screw this up...

Oh, and just to rub it in a little, here is a montage of Mr. Tingle-Up-My-Leg's reaction last night during the MSNBC's election coverage last night...

Any questions?

*Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature, but is unofficially Republican.

Some Thoughts On The Election

Last night felt good. It's always nice to see the Democrats go down the drain, and it's even nicer to see the public flip the bird to Obama... again. It's nice too to see the sedate/depressed looks on the faces of the MSM journalists as they spin a clear repudiation of Obama and his Democratic allies into a general anti-politics malaise. D-E-N-I-A-L. Anyways, here are some thoughts.

● Nothing Really Changed: Sadly, not much changed last night. There was no evidence of a political sea change in the country, meaning the public didn’t throw the Democrats out or embrace a new way. There certainly wasn’t a wave like we saw in 1980, 1994, 2008 or 2010 giving the outside party the chance to fundamentally change the direction of the country.

Even worse, this election, like most off-year elections, was about voter turnout. Blacks, the young and other Democrats didn’t turn out. The gender gap shrank last night. Generally apolitical people didn’t turn out either. So basically, this election involved hardcore partisans and those seeking to send a message to Obama. That won’t be true in 2016. If minorities and casual voters showed up last night, the GOP likely would have lost most of the races they won. That bodes poorly for our chances in 2016. In other words, this is not a victory so much as a chance to win the trust we need to win to earn a victory in 2016. That means, we need to be smart from hereon out.

● Democratic Response: Look for the Democrats to become insanely hostile. For one thing, they understand the demographic issue with their loses last night being the result of voter turnout, and they know that if they don’t change a thing, they are likely to win big in 2016. Hence, their primary goal will be to frustrate the GOP. Meanwhile, it will pay for them to have Obama push hard and fast to the left at the executive level now, which will let them reconnect with blacks, feminists and young voters while appearing to triangulate Obama for the middle class.

The one interesting question will be if they try a new approach to the “war on __” meme. Democrats need to reconnect with blacks, feminists and young voters and it is obvious that their attempts to smear the GOP on abortion and voting rights didn’t turn these people out. Basically, a full-court “war on __” press didn’t work, so they will need to try something new.

I think this means they let Obama do a lot of dirty work over the next year and a half as they comment carefully to avoid their positions being witnesses by the public at large. First up, immigration. Other examples include Executive Orders requiring equal pay for women, banning corporations from giving to politicians, imposing a severe carbon tax, tax hikes on the rich, gay marriage, backing racial gerrymandering, etc.

● The Obama Drag: CNN noted that Obama spent his time going to states where the Democrats were supposed to win, like Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Every one of those states except Pennsylvania either went Republican or was unexpectedly close. Interesting. But remember, 2016 will not be about Obama.

● The Agenda: I’ve been saying for some time that the GOP needs a real agenda. Many people will now demand that the GOP put just such an agenda into place (others will demand a harsher agenda). The problem is this, however: it will be impossible for the GOP to pass anything with Obama having the power to veto whatever he wants.

At this point, the smart move will be for the GOP to put together the happiest sounding, most popular parts of an agenda and send them up one by one for votes every couple weeks so that (1) the public will begin to associate an agenda with the GOP, (2) the public will see the Democrats standing in the way of an agenda they like, and (3) it will make Obama and the Democrats look like obstructionists.

Also, anyone who accuses the GOP of failing to implement anything needs to be savagely beaten about the hear and shoulders with a frozen penguin. And it will be impossible to shut down the government without the blame for that falling on the GOP. Hence, the key will be to market an agenda rather than trying to look macho.

● Blah Blah Blah: By the time you read this, talk radio will no doubt be spinning this election as follows: The RINOs told us that if we trusted them, they would win a landslide election. We trusted them and they barely won last night! Moreover, almost all the RINOs got destroyed. If it hadn’t been for good solid conservatives winning their elections by a landslide, this would have been a RINO disaster. So stop listening to them. We need to foam at the mouth and force our agenda through. We need to investigate Obama’s crimes and shut down the government.

Uh... no.

These people lost. They lost because you can’t win the public by pushing fringe ideas and by being angry about it. In losing, they did their best to wage a war against the GOP for the past 3-4 years. They tried very hard to destroy most of the candidates who won easy re-election. They said things that made it easy for the Democrats to turn out their voters. They spent money attacking the GOP, but never spent money helping the GOP – even after the primaries were over. They didn’t vote because they wanted to prove that the GOP could not win except with their candidates.

But the GOP fought back and crushed them. These fringers lost, and in the process made themselves irrelevant. It is stupid to listen to the people who did nothing by try to sabotage tonight’s victory on how we should proceed next.

And don’t let them create a false narrative either. Do not let them tell you that somehow the “RINOs” (read – anyone they dislike) blew this election. It was moderate, sane candidates who went out there and won the public’s trust. It was guys like Cory Gardner who defused the “war on women” attacks, not Ted Cruz, and who took down the best the Democrats had to offer. It was our silence on angry issues that denied the Democrats what they needed to take down the GOP.

Don’t let these losers, who have been wrong and disloyal every single step of the way, now tell you that we should embrace their ideas in victory. Forget it. Don’t let these losers tell you that the things that doomed us in 2012 and drove us to near extinction in 2013 should become our agenda.

● Hillary Is Finished: Finally, this election was a repudiation of Obama, but not the Democrats at a whole. That sets up nicely for Hillary to come along as a return to the good old days of Democratic rule. That makes her a winner tonight... a big winner.

Only, it doesn’t.

I suspect this result will radicalize the Democrats even more and that will make Hillary the odd-man-out. If I’m right, this means Hillary is toast. Every time she’s tried to act like a radical, it’s blown up on her... with the latest being her embarrassing dance of shame to backtrack on her “business doesn’t create jobs” comment. This election will likely push the Democrats into the arms of their won radicals and away from their establishment types like Hillary.

All told, I think the odds of Hillary winning the primary just fell in half and will get worse and worse with each executive order Obama issues and each snide roadblock Reid tries.

Thoughts?

Election Day - DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!!

Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 4, 2014 - Thank God we are finally here! By all measures, the Republicans are poised to take over the Senate. But to do that Repubs need to pick up at least 6 seats to rid the world of Harry Reid. This means that maybe President Obama will finally learn how to engage Congress since he will have no one to run interference.

But let's not get cocky. It's not over yet and anything could happen. Hey, martial law could be declared or Obama could declare an Ebola quarantine on anyone who can locate Liberia/Guinea/Sierra Leone on a map or a sudden hurricane could strike like in 2012 or aliens could land on the White House lawn (most likely scenario since just about anyone can jump the WH fence and walk in the unlocked front door these days). But just in case none of that happens, here is what we should look for and where it all stands:

This info was extracted From HuffPo so it will be the most favorable to Democrats:

Solid Republican Wins predicted at least 98% probability:
South Dakota - Rounds (R) v. Weiland (D-Incumbent) = ROUNDS WINS - Second pick up for Republicans
West Virginia - Capito (R) v. Tennent (D-Incumbent) - CAPITO WINS - First Pick up for Republicans
Montana - Daines (R) v. Curtis (D-Incumbant)
Arkansa - Cotton (R) v. Pryor (D-Incumbant) - COTTON WINS - Third pick up for Republicans NEW!!

Senate races still in play with at least 80% probability:
Alaska - Sullivan (R) v. Begich (D-Incumbent) - This race predicted to be much closer and may not be decided tomorrow. No runoff possibility.
Kentucky - McConnell (R-Incumbant) v. Grimes (D) - GRIMES CONCEDES; MCCONNELL KEEPS HIS SEAT...

Senate races still in play with at least 60% probability:
Colorado - Gardner (R) v. Udall (D-Incumbent) -
Georgia - Purdue (R) v. Nunn (D) (Open race - Republican incumbent party) - If neither get 50%, there will be a runoff.
Louisiana - Cassidy (R) v. Landrieu (D-Incumbent) v. Maness (R/TP Independent) - With Maness splitting the Republican vote there will most likely be runoff between Cassidy and Landrieu if neither reaches 50% of the vote. Since the last days of her campaign, Landrieu managed to call her Louisiana constituents racists, she really has no hope even if there is a runoff.

Senate races still in play that are too close to predict:
Iowa - Ernst (R) v. Braley (D-Incumbent)
Kansas - Roberts (R0Incumbent) v. Orman (I)
North Carolina - Tillis (R) v. Hagan (D-Incumbent)
New Hampshire - Brown (R) v. Shaheen (D-Incumbent)

House Races -
Republicans are predicted to pick up at least 12 seats. I know there are many more, however these are three races to watch:
-Mia Love (R) in Utah District 4 is leading by 8% against Doug Owens (D). If she wins she will be the first black Republican woman to serve in Congress.
-In an open race in New York District 21 is predicted to pick up the youngest woman to serve in Congress - Elise Stepafik (R) against Aaron Wolff (D).
-And in another NY race - Michael Grimm (R/Staten Island) who is currently under a 21-count federal indictment, is leading his opponent by 19%. My feeling is that Grimm will be cleared on all counts eventually.

And just because it's going to be a long night -

Races for Governor to watch -
- Wisconsin - Scott Walker (R-Incumbent) v. Mary Burke (D) is too close to call. Walker is leading in the polls by 2.2% according to RCP.
- Florida - Rick Scott (R-Incumbent) v. Charlie Crist (D) and former Governor - This is so close (.6% RCP) that this may be decided by one of those famous Florida "hanging chad" recounts.
- Georgia - There probably will not be another Carter elected as Georgia Governor. Jason Carter (grandson to Jimmah) is in a three way race with Nathan Deal (R) and Andrew Hunt (L). Deal is leading by 4%, but this is another case where if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, there will be runoff. Most likely Deal will win in a runoff.
- There are races too close to call in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

And I just can't help myself. I have to add the Texas Gubernatorial race between Greg Abbott (R) and Wendy Davis (D/Idiot) even though Abbott will win by double digits. This has been one for the ages. See, this is what happens when a party hangs all its hopes on a candidate with one issue and not a very popular issue at that. First, there was the much touted bid by Make Blue Texas that was launched in 2013 to...well...turn Texas from a red state to a blue state. By all accounts it has been a wonderfully miserable failure. And then there's Wendy Davis who ran one of the most ridiculously stupid one-issue campaigns of any major party candidate that I have ever seen. The most ridiculous was her last ditch effort to smear Greg Abbott, she leveled accusations that Abbott wanted to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws in Texas.

She confronted him with a "gotcha" question "Do you support mixed race marriages?" When he wouldn't respond to the question , her campaign turned it into some kind of indictment. Yes, that was an actual question. Now, not that Abbott's wife is of a different "race", but she is Hispanic. My take on it is that it was such a stupid question to ask in 2014, that he did not feel he needed to respond. From the 20 point lead that Abbott has, I am pretty sure most people in Texas agree. Fortunately for Texas, Greg Abbott is actually a great candidate and will make a great Governor.

Keep us posted on what is happening in your polling area! Now get out there and vote early and often!

Kit Had a Problem With Buzzfeed and You Won't Believe What He Did About It!

by Kit

Buzzfeed and the similar site Upworthy has recently become rather famous (or infamous) for its over-the-top style and content. It also gained some press for being Pew’s “Least Trusted Name in News” as it was the only news source every group, whether liberal or conservative or centrist, listed it as “More distrust than trusted” —and that was only among people who knew about it as many had never even heard of it. Other examples of its infamy include The Onion setting up a parody site, Clickbait, and College Humor doing a series of sketches mocking them.

But what is it about sites like these that annoy me so much? Well, they have two particular aspects which on their own can be only barely tolerable but fused make these sites absolutely intolerable:

(1) Click-bait Headlines with Sentimental Stories.

Buzzfeed and its darker cousin Upworthy are largely famous the way their headlines are written. This is probably the most famous complaint.

You see, whereas traditional headlines often attempt to give you a fair deal of information about the story, for example, “Motorcyclists Arrive at Funeral of Gay Soldier to Thwart Westboro Protestors”, their headlines are more obtuse, giving very little information about what exactly happened except what in writing classes would be called the “inciting incident” promptly followed with an exclamation that you would have difficulty comprehending what happened next, for example, “These Anti-Gay Protestors Showed Up at a Gay Soldier’s Funeral and You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!”

A more honest version of that headline would be “CLICK ME! CLICKE ME!”

And the stories are almost always sentimental, with the heroes standing up to the evil meanies or a shocking exposé of some “evil” injustice that everyone with access to the larger world was aware of. This leads us to our next topic:

(2) Shameless Pandering to Liberal Demographics.

The demographic they seek, especially Upworthy, is a specific type of person; the urban left-of-center millennial who is very nostalgic for the 1990s (for some reason) and obsessive about pop culture but who fancies himself or herself as a progressive nerdy outsider and thus cares deeply about issues like women’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights. Also, an occasional fear of being seen as racist by one’s ethnic minority acquaintances. Not necessarily bad people, in fact a number of them are rather good, nor would I describe all of them as unintelligent but they do view themselves as very enlightened in their understanding of the world around them; a self-assessment that is actually highly debatable.

The result of the fusion of the aforementioned overly-sentimental click bait-style and their attempt to appeal to this particular demographic is what can only be described as a left-wing version of a pop culture-obsessed Drudge Report with more lists than an anal-retentive . Stories about somebody starting off a “monologue on acceptance” or standing up to mean old bigots or charts that reveal how backwards the United States is, such as this headline: “The Chart That Will Make You Laugh At Anyone Who Says Pakistan is ‘Less Developed’ Than The US” (the chart is one on mandatory maternity leave).

Such stories and articles are solely about making the readers feel good about themselves for being on the right side of history. For, on these sites, history is a great epic where the heroes of progressivism and liberalism do battle with the villains of bigotry and intolerance. And they will win because the heroes are wise and good while the villains are wicked, insane, or mentally deficient or some combination of the three and the battles largely consist in staging peaceful counter-protests in a free country or simply giving a lecture on tolerance to some old unenlightened bigot. Not terrible or bad acts, sometimes quite good, but they are put on a pedestal of “heroic” when very few risks to the physical body were taken aside from a bad cold due due to staging a protest in the winter at a time when a teenager in Pakistan can be shot in the head for trying to promote a girl’s right to an education.

Of course, that is not to say the sites are not solely political. There are lists such as “36 Things That Are Going To Make You Feel Ancient” and “25 Things All Basic White Girls Do During The Fall”. These sites also have a pop culture-savviness and ingrained celebrity-worship, with articles covering such topics as “The Hard Truths Maisie Williams Growing Up on Game of Thrones” (Ms. Williams plays Arya Stark) and “These Pictures of Jon Hamm’s Little Hamm Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity” (It’s just a bulge in his pants). These, especially the celeb-focused articles, add a sense of superficiality to the sites, attempting to give the most trivial things to a feeling of deep significance. The simple facts of life one learns while growing up as a teen are recast as “hard truths” and a photo of the bulge of a famous man’s little man in his pants is capable of restoring one’s faith in humanity.

Like the stories of people “standing up” to bigotry through a long-winded lecture or Facebook profile picture these articles carry a sense of hyperbole that raises the trivial to a level equal to the historic. “Bravery” is telling an room full of voters in San Francisco’s Castro District that Gay Marriage is good. There are exceptions, of course, but this seems to be the rule, with the occasional in-depth article being the exception and frivolous political propaganda and celeb-worship being the rule. Its emotional manipulation plain and simple.