atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#3335: I'm in a very bad mood.

No, I don't know why. But while playing WoW this afternoon, I suddenly found myself getting inordinately pissed off at stupid niggling things that ordinarily don't bother me much, if at all.

The last straw was when I saw two morons arguing, in general chat in Stormwind, over whether or not lorebreak is permissible on an RP server.

("Lorebreak": Ignoring established game canon. In this case, it was because some idiots had formed a guild and called night elves "Drow". There are no Drow in WoW.) (Damn, I'm a poet.)

Someone neatly put it into perspective: "Does that mean I can form a guild of Draenei and call them mindflayers?"

* * *

Obama's new energy plan is chicken shit. That's right! We're going to burn chicken crap to make energy!

* * *

Jon Lovitz is surprised that his liberal buddies are mad at him for saying bad things about Obama. After all, no one got mad at him for saying bad things about George W. Bush! he really that stupid?

The left ain't gonna tolerate anyone saying this about their boy: "This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is fucking bullshit. And I voted for the guy and I’m a Democrat. What a fucking asshole." But especially someone famous.

Him saying bad stuff about Bush, that was fine because the lefties hated Bush. But you can't say bad things about Obama! (Especially if they're true.)

* * *

A recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative or zero GDP growth.

Obamanomics has been unsustainable from the get-go. Obama's economic policies have revolved around a simple idea that never works:

Fool the consumers into thinking things are better than they are, and it'll become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The massive deficit spending, the "stimulus" programs, the quantitative easing from the Fed, the disastrously low interest rates, the temporary tax breaks like the "payroll tax cut", the number-fudging and the lying and the sloganeering and the statistical fiddling--all this was meant to convince the American public that the recession was over, because if consumer confidence could be raised, then people would start spending again.

Problem: even if you game the numbers to make unemployment look smaller, it doesn't actually decrease unemployment. The map is not the territory and most people are smart enough not to spend money they don't have. And if people aren't working, they don't have money.

Obamanomics is predicated on, "Every time we exit a recession the economy comes roaring back!'s coming, just be patient!" That's why they tried selling "The Summer of Recovery" last year. (Or was it the year before?) But the problem is that the economy is not roaring back because the issues that caused the poor economy have not been fixed.

The financial industry has been allowed to take a shit all over "rule of law" because bank failures would make bad headlines for Democrats. And because of this, the economy has not been able to seek its bottom; and without that, recovery cannot begin.

Too much of that "bottom seeking" will amount to reduced Democrat power, and the Democrats would rather see us lose a couple of decades the way Japan has than give up any of their control over us.

(I say "Democrats" but it also applies--to a lesser extent--to the Republican party as well. The GOP leadership doesn't want a smaller, less intrusive government any more than the Democrats do.)

Besides, the D.C. insiders are all rich people. They won't suffer even if the economy coughs up a bucket of dicks for the next fifty years. They've got their piles.

* * *

Perfect example of that. Elizabeth Warren is worth somewhere between $4 and $15 million, yet claims not to be "rich".

She's also claimed to be a minority--part Indian--but I don't know; applying the standard that was applied to George Zimmerman, she looks awful f-ing white to me.

* * *

Karl Denninger patiently explains why the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bad idea.
The law now on the books carries a presumption of military detention for suspected terrorists because the top priority is to find out what they know. War fighters need to learn what a terrorist has been plotting, where he has been, who his co-conspirators are, and what else is planned. The priority in civilian court is assessing guilt and punishment, which can come later.
Who's a suspected terrorist? Anyone the government says is? And what check and balance is on that? None, right? Never mind that it's damn hard to appeal when you're dead.
I don't like this. I really don't. I don't trust the government any further than I could piss an aircraft carrier; I don't care who's warming the chairs right now--I don't trust them with this kind of power and I sure as shitting don't trust the unknown dickheads who'll warm those chairs next year.

The reason the TEA parties and the ACLU are united in opposition to this craptastic extrusion is due to the fact that IT'S A BAD LAW. The Wall Street Journal says, "This modest law has sprouted a burst of political delusion in several states and Congress."

Libertarians view Abraham Lincoln as the unqualified worst President in US history because of the things he did to prevent the secession of the CSA. It wasn't just the trampling of the 10th Amendment; it was other things, like suspending habeus corpus--stomping on civil rights with big hobnail boots. They make a compelling argument, let me tell you.

The NDAA is not the answer to the problem. People who are all for this shit would have been steadfastly against it had it been proposed by Bush; and apparently they don't seem to understand that if it's signed into law now, someday their political enemies will be in charge of enforcing it.

Maybe they think that the passage of Obamacare means we'll never elect another Republican President. Maybe someone is telling them, "We're just going to ignore the results of the election if it doesn't go the right way." Maybe there's something else going on--who knows?--but I honestly don't understand how these people can look at a law like this and not get at least as upset at this as they did over the Patriot Act.

What I do know is that if we give our government the power to hold anyone for any reason we're gonna have the devil's own time getting that power back.

It sounds all well and good so long as "suspected terrorist" means "Mohammed Saheeb Skyhook" or "Mahmoud ibn Falaal ibn...." or "Zeke 'Crazy Fucker' Ibrahim". But when "suspected terrorist" begins morphing into "Bill Smith, the pastor of the local church" or "John Jones, president of the local gun club" or "Ed Hering, unemployed blogger", then what?

If the police get to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't, what's to stop them from deciding you just might be a terrorist when they stop you for speeding?

Could this have led to me going to Club Gitmo if it had happened a few years from now?

In the course of his post, Denninger says this:
Yes, we've had a couple of nutballs yell "Allah Akbar!" as they start shooting people, including one at a military base.

But our government didn't call that terrorism or the alleged perpetrators terrorists, did they?

Why not?
Emphasis removed.

...but why didn't our government refer to obvious instances of islamic terrorism as...well...terrorism? For all that these incidents were not the result of terror organizations but individual decisions, they nonetheless were attacks by muslims who were doing it in the name of islam. (Else why yell "allah akbar!" before opening fire?)

* * *

None of this shit is helping my mood. I think I'll go to bed and take a nap. Maybe that'll help.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.