If that's not defamation, then "barackhusseinobamarapedandmurderedayoun
After all, it's just satire, right?
* * *
Ann Coulter continues her excellent series on liberal lies about socialized medicine. I have to quote this chunk of text:
Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" – as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.Can you argue this? Can anyone dispute the validity of this point? Certainly no Democrats are thinking about trying the opposite of "more government"; it's anathema to everything they believe.
This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.
The only reason you can't keep – or often obtain – health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.
You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.
Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services – i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby – which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."
* * *
#4 is wishful thinking. #16 is, too: the Internet is the breeding ground of 9/11 "truthers".
* * *
ACORN helping pimp with underage string. Great.
* * *
How about Palin/Wilson 2012? Boorish it may have been, but damn it's nice to see that someone on our side has the guts to stand up and say something.
Obama was lying when he said that Obamacare won't cover illegals. It sure as hell makes no effort to prevent illegals from receiving Obamacare, and when it comes to law tacit approval is the same thing as offical authorization.
"I’m sorry that you’re going to be punished by Republicans for telling the truth. Then again, perhaps that’s just one more reason I think the Republican Party is going to the crapper."
* * *
A very good post on Eternity Road by The Curmudgeon Emeritus. It starts with Ann Coulter's latest post (linked above) and goes on to some interesting conclusions.
* * *
Sarah Palin's response to Obama's speech last night.
* * *
Economic recovery with job openings at their lowest levels in 9 years? Let me see: this is 2009, so...subtract the nine...2000! Job levels are now the lowest they've been since the Dot-com Bust.
Apparently "many economists" expect the economy to grow at a 3% rate during the second half of this year. Considering that October 1 will be the beginning of the fourth quarter, it's going to have to take off like a Saturn V pretty damned pronto or these economists risk being wrong.
(Hint: do not hold your breath.)
...or do they mean fiscal year 2009? FY 2009 is just about over, considering that it ends with September. Perhaps they mean FY 2010? I could almost buy a 3% growth rate in the latter half of FY 2010 if it weren't for that pesky $1,500 billion deficit they're planning for that year.
We're running the printing presses; do not expect that to pass without consequence.
And all of this assumes that we somehow avoid "cap-and-tax" and Obamacare. (Though, to be fair, once enacted Obamacare doesn't take effect until 2013.)
Figuring unemployment the way the media did during the Bush years, it's 16% right now. The number of job openings is where it was in 2000. The deficit and the money supply are exploding due to runaway Democrat spending. We're looking at tax increases when the Democrats let the Bush tax cuts expire; and the Democrats are looking at raising a bunch of other taxes as well. Mortgages are up but the forclosure rate is expected to remain up, too, and we can credibly expect 3,000,000 forclosures in the next year. Though the rate of contraction has lessened, the economy is still contracting. None of this indicates an economic recovery.
* * *
Honduras continues to uphold its constitution. Good for them!
The Obama administration continues to support the ousted Marxist dictator-wannabe Zelaya, but the Honduran government determined via rule of law that Zelaya was to be removed from office.
Once again, Democrats come down on the side of Marxist oppression and stand against the rule of law. There is nothing surprising here.
* * *
Karl Rove on "Obama's gamble". The fact is that--while red-state Democrats may lose their seats in the short term--in the long term, given Obamacare, the Democrats will run the show for a long time to come. With Obamacare, all they have to do say every election is, "If you elect the Republicans, you will lose your health care!"
They already do this with social security, medicare, medicaid, and the panoply of welfare programs. Obamacare will just make the net wider.
Democrats may lose seats in 2010; but once Obama's Census gerrymanders the Congressional districts (and counts illegals in order to move representation from rural to urban areas) they'll be able to win them right back again in 2012.
* * *
"Obama laments current state of journalism". He talks a lot about Walter Cronkite, and I have to say, Walter Cronkite was not the exemplar of journalism that Obama's words speak of.
Walter Cronkite was a fraud, a communist sympathizer, and a hard-core liberal, just like everyone else in the newsrooms. The standard of journalism evoked by Obama's words has not existed in America for a damn long time.
I emphasize "words" because while what Obama said sounded really nice, it had nothing to do with what he meant.
Obama doesn't want real journalism any more than he wants a Republican Congress: real journalists would ask him hardcore questions about his experience and ability and policy decisions; real journalists would be investigating his czars and his questionable past with Tony Rezko and his connections with ousted Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Real journalists would take him to task for...well, just about everything he's done.
What Obama meant was that he lamented the loss of the days when NYT ABC CBS NBC PBS were it for news in the United States, when the "national debate" was controlled by liberals and when it took someone exceptional to get a conservative message out despite the leftist slant of the media. That's what Obama was mourning; he was mourning the fact that the Internet makes it a lot harder for Democrats to control the flow of information.
* * *
"Liberal columnists...have failed to identify any 'birther' who occupied a position in the Republican firmament comparable to that of [9/11] 'truther' Van Jones in the Obama administration."
* * *
Someone expects tomorrow to be quite a day: "...[T]he next terrorist attack will involve suitcase nuclear bombs that will be detonated in small, low-flying two-seater private airplanes manned by men hanging onto the belief that, like the 9/11 hijackers, they are about to die as martyrs and enter paradise."
The idea of a "suitcase" nuke is a little too much "Hollywood" for my taste, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a portable nuclear weapon could be fit into a large light aircraft. I think it'd have to be a twin-engine plane, probably something on the order of a Beech King Air.
You're definitely not going to carry much of a nuclear weapon in a Cessna 152, that's for sure, not unless you get your hands on something like the SADM. It weighed 68 KG--put it in the copilot's seat and you're good to go--but that was only good for about a kiloton or so. Even airburst, you're just not going to do much damage with one of those. It'll spew radiation everywhere, though, which would probably be enough for muslims worldwide to fire their AK-47s in the air.
Now, an MADM was good for 15 kilotons--about the power of the Hiroshima bomb--and the warhead alone weighed about the same as the SADM at 68kg. That would make for a bad day.
I have my doubts about terrorists managing to get their hands on enough suitcase nukes to do this to "...New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles," though.
If I were a terrorist with a handful of suitcase nukes, my target list would be, in order of priority:
* Washington, D.C.Notice that the places I would prefer to hit are primarily coastal? These places deal with shipping (except for D.C.) and crippling a shipping port is a strategic "win": not only do you scare the everloving shit out of Americans, but you deny them the use of a major shipping terminal, thus making the economy suffer.
* New York City
* Los Angeles
* New Orleans
* San Diego
* Saint Louis
(D.C. isn't a major port but, C'MON, you decapitate the country if you pull it off. What more could you want?)
Chicago and Saint Louis are major transcontinental shipping hubs. You could substitute "Kansas City" for Saint Louis and have about the same effect; if you have enough nukes, take out KC as well.
To be honest, I have to wonder if there will be a major terror attack tomorrow. The numbers are right and the conditions fit--new President, eight years since the last attack, etc. We certainly have done nothing to close our borders, so God alone (at the moment) knows what the hell we could be in store for tomorrow.
"Nothing" is the way to bet, but it is not a sure bet.
* * *
Yesterday afternoon I put a lot of parts on the Escort engine.
Putting the cylinder head on was nerve-wracking, what with those torque-to-yield bolts. TTY bolts are designed to be used once, and you have to follow a very specific sequence to make sure they're on right.
I understand why they're used: cast iron block, aluminum cylinder head; iron and aluminum have different expansion rates and TTY bolts help prevent head gasket failure. I get it.
Problem is, they feel wrong.
In the case of the Escort, you crank it down to about 44 ft-lbs--in a specific sequence--and then loosen the bolts two turns in the same sequence. Next you retighten them to 44 ft-lbs, again following the sequence.
Tighten 1/4 turn from the prior step, in order.
Tighten another 1/4 turn from the prior step, in order.
...and while you're doing the last two, you can feel the bolts stretching. It's not a comfortable feeling when you're used to bolt stretch being the last thing before that painful ...snap... which means you're utterly screwed and have to start over.
Anyway, there was no ...snap... and after I put the head on, I put on the valve cover, timing belt, timing belt cover, passenger-side motor mount, and accessory bracket. It's starting to look like an engine again!
I still need to put the manifolds on, and some other miscellanious stuff, but it's getting close to being done! And then all I have to do is pull the old engine from the car and put this one in.
"All I have to do". Heh.