...I suppose $30,000 is "affordable" now. Twenty years ago you could get a Mustang with a V8 for about $17,000 if you were careful about options. (I nearly bought one myself in 1992. In some respects, I wish I had.)
The average family car runs $20,000. Muscle cars used to be priced comparably--but not anymore. Automakers figured out that they can charge a premium for fast cars, and people will pay it.
So if I want a car with a powerful engine, I'm going to have to build it. *sigh*
Incidentally: at his appearance for Martha Coakley's campaign, Obama said, "Anyone can buy a pickup truck!"
Anyone can not buy a pickup truck, and Obama's policies are to blame for it. Take me, for example; I can't buy a new car because I'm unemployed, and I'm unemployed because of Democrat economic policy.
* * *
CHEAT TO KEEP THESE BASTARDS OUT!
Noted left-wing talk show host Ed Schultz says he would cheat to keep Republicans from winning elections.
He would, he says!
If you look at Democrat ideas for election law you see, generally, a push for an election system which can be rigged.
"Cheat to win" has been a Democrat strategy for a long, long time.
We see it in the election of John F. Kennedy in 1962, when Richard Daley (the first one) delivered Chicago for Kennedy in an obviously fraudulent manner. We see it in the Democrat machines that run large cities all over the country. We see it in the Democrat-controlled Congress now.
Democrats aren't interested in preventing vote fraud; if they were, they would not oppose--every time it's proposed!--the photo ID requirement for voting. Democrats want vote fraud to be as easy as possible because vote fraud always works in their favor.
Democrats want illegals to be able to vote, illegally or not. Democrats want people to be able to "vote early, vote often". Democrats want the ballot boxes stuffed with pro-Democrat votes.
Democrats do not care about the legitimacy of their elections, as long as the elections look fair. They will take any victory they can get, any way they can get it. They would rather win an election by cheating than lose one fairly.
That's why I'm not optimistic about the race in Massachusetts. The Democrats know what's at stake--ObamaCare--and they are not about to lightly let go that level of government control of the individual just because of what the voters say.
When the smoke clears, Coakley will win...whether she actually got a majority of real votes or not. The ballot boxes will be stuffed with Democrat votes. Massachusetts is a hard-left Democrat stronghold, and if Martha Coakley loses the election, Democrats lose their supermajority and socialized medicine goes away.
* * *
Joe Biden says the filibuster is anti-Constitution.
When George W. Bush was attempting to appoint judges, we were told that the Democrat filibuster of his appointments was perfectly constitutional: Congress is supposed to "advise and consent" to Presidential appointments, and whatever method Congress has to use to prevent the confirmation of an "undesirable" appointee is perfectly within the bounds of the role of Congress as set forth in the Constitution.
But now, when total control of health care is within the Democrats' grasp, now suddenly the filibuster is standing the Constitution "on its head."
"'This is the first time every single solitary decisions [sic] has required 60 senators,' Biden said. 'No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.'"
First off, Mr. Biden, the United States is not a democracy. It's a representative republic.
Second, your "decisions" need a supermajority because they're bad for the country and just about everyone knows it. Democrats aren't interested in debate, compromise, or bipartisanship; Democrats want their policies enacted the way they want them, and they've done their damnedest to keep Republicans out of the process. Republicans are using their only remaining tool for putting the brakes on Democrat totalitarianism.
The entire debate over socialized medicine has been a continuous Democrat attempt at steamrollering any and all opposition. The Democrats can't get it enacted any other way, and so they buy off their holdouts (Louisiana, Nebraska) and make end-runs around the law (Massachusetts, in the wake of Kennedy's death) to get their way.
* * *
I am linking this piece from Dennis the Peasant because of its final paragraph:
You know, my little Democratic friends, the people did not vote you in so you could sit around and whimper about how tough things are. "Hope and Change" implied that you were intelligent and resolute enough to do what it took to put things right. To collapse into a snivelling heap of whiney pussytude when confronted with difficulties isn't going to be mistaken for leadership any time soon. Someone might want to forward that insight on to Bambi...All we hear from the Obama administration--when someone asks a hard question about the failure of a Democrat policy--is that it's George W. Bush's fault. All the bad stuff going on is still Bush's fault, even a year after Obama's inauguration. It's Bush's fault the economy is messed up! It's Bush's fault the Pantybomber nearly took out an airplane over Detroit! It's Bush's fault Haiti is a mess! It's all Bush's fault!
...but as Dennis correctly points out, the instant you finish your oath of office, you own those problems. Instead of whining about it, why don't you do something useful?
* * *
Steven is impressed with Scott Brown's speechifying. I wish I shared his near-optimism about the race, but I maintain that the Democrats cannot afford to lose that race...and so they won't, by hook or by crook. (Mostly "crook".)
* * *
"World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown," goes the headline of this piece.
n the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.Believe me, the world is not just being misled over this little bit of "science", but indeed over the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
* * *
Concentrate on this sentence: "The federal agent was never disciplined and was allowed to retire."
What was he "never disciplined" for?
For losing his pistol in an airport and not noticing it was missing.
Let's say I have a concealed-carry permit. (I don't; I live in Illinois. I wouldn't be able to get one as I'm not a Democrat politician. But let's say I do.) Let's say that the unthinkable happens and my gun falls out of my holster while I'm taking a dump, and I don't notice it. The gun is found and traced to me.
I probably go to jail. I certainly lose my CCW permit.
...but this guy--because he was a federal agent near retirement age--wasn't even reprimanded for his stupidity.
* * *
After I finished Pretty Cure--Max Heart I stopped following the PreCure series. I see that it's up to some ungodly number of episodes now.
Let me see:
Pretty Cure 49 eps
Pretty Cure Max Heart 47 eps
Pretty Cure Splash Star 49 eps
Pretty Cure 5 49 eps
Pretty Cure 5 GoGo! 48 eps
Fresh Pretty Cure 50 eps
Heartcatch Pretty Cure (coming 2010)
That's close to 300 episodes, excluding whatever is coming in the "Heartcatch" series.
It's true that the series following Max Heart aren't in the same continuity. Even so, it's insane. And this doesn't include the movies!
Damn but that's a successful franchise, particularly for a series which didn't start as manga.
How long is "just right" for an anime series? I'd say 300 eps is probably a bit much, though it probably depends more on the series than anything else. There are several series that I wish had been much longer than they were (K-on! and Seto no Hanayome come to mind) but I don't know if I wanted them to be 300 eps long.
300 is, as I say, a bit much.
Urusei Yatsura was one of the big anime powerhouse series of the 1980s, coming to 195 episodes--and at that, it got long in the tooth.
Well, what the hell; if they're making money off the stuff--and there wouldn't be three hundred eps and counting of the stuff if they weren't--more power to 'em. I don't have to watch it.