Friday, November 07, 2008

Before I Shut the Fuck Up

First I'd like to definitively answer the Old Dog's query, and categorically state that the reason that I've stopped blogging is that I haven't dug myself into any alcohol-induced holes as of late (ladies). Well, until now.

I'm sorry if I've riled some of you up with my blunt assessment of Our Dear and Benevolent Leader (elect). There's a superb conversation thread in the comment field of the post below (if you haven't checked it out yet).

I just want to reiterate that:
A) I'm just getting it out there now, so I can gloat later if I happen to be correct in my assessment.
B) I hope that I'm wrong-as-hell in my aforementioned assessment.
C) I wish nothing but the best for Our Dear and Benevolent Leader (elect) and his minions.

All I know is that I've watched enough History Channel to know that when there's a charismatic cult-of-personality figure standing before countless masses that are chanting in unison and making obscure hand gestures, that the guy behind the podium is both lying out of his ass and up to no good.

Plus, It's never a good sign when our (already depleted) financial markets break through the floor in the days following an election.
I just can't picture the world's financial mavens saying: "Huzzah! Our guy won. This is the end of the tumultuous period that has plagued us mercilessly and stripped our houses bare. A new day is dawning, and we are now at the precipice of a great new era of bounty and prosperity".
--slight pause--
"SELL! SELL! SELL!"

Okay, I lapsed back into "sarcastic prick" mode there for a second, but I'm getting it all out now, because I promise to play nice and not say anything mean about Our Dear and Benevolent Leader (elect) unless he starts to pull some shit like he did back in his state Senate days (on July 2nd, 1998 - to be precise) when he advocated banning the sale or transfer of ALL forms of semi-automatic weapons.
For those not in the know, almost every single gun manufactured in the world today falls under the "semi-automatic" classification. Shotguns are semi-auto, Pistols are semi-auto, revolvers are semi-auto, most rifles are semi-auto. If this ban were to pass, the only guns that wouldn't fall under this classification would be antiquated break-action single-shot guns, breech loaders, muzzle loaders, bolt-action guns, and fully automatic weapons (which are already way-illegal).

You wouldn't give a wet shit, you say?

Well here's a thought experiment:
Let's suppose the the Bush Administration somehow finagled legislation through Congress that mandated that the right of free-speech guaranteed to us by the first amendment didn't apply to any form of communication that was invented subsequent to 1885 (the year the semi-automatic process was patented).
I wouldn't put it past 'em.
That means the first amendment wouldn't apply to anything produced with and/or utilizing the following technologies: Linotype typesetting, any Recorded Media (subsequent to rotating cylinder), personal Telephone, Offset press, Screen-printing, Film, Photocopier, Television, Telex, Computer, Cellular technology, the Internet, or (essentially) anything that uses any form of electricity in it's use and/or production process.

Would that be okay with you?

Let me tell you; I'd be unholy pissed. That would be a great time to have a stockpile of modern firearms, because it's damn near impossible to overthrow a totalitarian government with rubber hippie daisies and clever slogans.

Apples and oranges, you say?

Those are the 1st and 2nd rights bestowed upon us by the founding fathers.

The second amendment is misinterpreted, you say?

Talk to the Supreme Court - Their number is: (202) 479-3011.
Good luck with that. If you could, like, change their mind, you totally would, like, be on television or something.

All I'm saying is that once you start fucking around with the Constitution, you set a precedent for every single nut-job to strip away any right that they don't deem necessary.

That's not a good thing.

Okay, got carried away there again for a second.
I'm back on the nice now. I promise not to say anything more on the subject, unless Our Dear and Benevolent Leader (elect) does something that gets me going, or one of you unwashed heathens keeps me riled-up on this....

... although, I do have some personal thoughts and experiences I'd like to share with you on his appointed Chief of Staff....

...Wait for it.

15 comments:

OleKobe said...

I've read many times that the activity of the stock market isn't a reflection of what is happening now, but it is a forward-looking indicator. Wall St. has been pricing in an Obama victory for the past 2 months. The vast majority of Obamaniacs either weren't alive or were too young to remember the Carter-stagflation years. Welcome back?

suzanne said...

I am totally not gonna affiliate the other ((non) elect) party’s stance on the abortion issue with the current (elect) party's stance on semi-automatic weapons and what precedent overturning Roe v. Wade would set “for every single nut-job to strip away any right they don’t deem necessary” and just how scary THAT is. Nope, I’m not gonna even mention it cause I know we’ve already talked about that one (you say “state issue, yadda yadda yadda” I remind you “precedent” and say “domino effect” and look irritated, and possibly steal a cigarette before going to sulk over some bushmills) so I won’t even bring that up. I guess if you want the government to stay out of your body AND your gun cabinet it was pretty much a toss-up this time around (queue Nina Simone – “Either Way I Loose”).

Also, thank you doctor/Ms. Poppins for that spoonful of sugar with my medicine in the last response (post below)…I’m not gonna say I swallowed it but it did taste a little sweeter as I mulled it over (as to the that little analogy of yours, yup – that is why dear liar, I have almost always refused to discuss politics with you – right or wrong, you win out by familiarity with the ground plan and your well stocked debate arsenal, just keep in mind (if I may borrow from the symbols used in said analogy) that the text is not static, different readings exist of the same material – what I think is sheer crap may indeed do something/say something for someone else under said different reading – they may, even if they lack my experience pick up on something I missed and even if that is not the case it is possible that what rings true/is true for them though it may not be true for me, is not entirely wrong but a difference of opinion – it’s not just our educational background that influences us/enables us to make informed decisions kiddo, its our ENTIRE background and our current day-to-day, as such, it is impossible that there is one right answer to blanket ourselves with so in cases like this, we do our best to throw down our vote with the closest match, hope it’s a fit and realize that the majority always wins out and it occasionally even wins out for a reason.) And yes, I am hoping that riles you up enough to keep you posting.

Now Dear Prudence won’t you come out and play/get your ass back to the aforementioned D-town you claim to love so dearly for a visit sometime in the not to distant so that we can publicly berate you in person?

The Old Dog said...

I'm with olekobe on the market angle. You can bet that if the other party had won and the market tanked even further the next day (as was the case on the 5th), the headlines would have been "MARKETS PLUNGE AFTER MCCAIN WIN". No such headlines for Obama. Yes, I think that most reporters and editors are unabashedly liberal. It's no secret that starry-eyed kids go to journalism school with the idea that it's a path to political activism. So, don't call me a paranoid conspiracy nut. Just look around you.

As for the gun issue, I agree with the Liar. Obama should worry anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, or anyone who values liberty, for that matter. Whether you own a gun or even like them or not, it is not in your interest that they be illegal. I think that when Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security, not only was he creating a huge, stupid mess, but he might have created the instrument of the destruction of our second amendment rights. My guess is that gun crime in our cities will be declared to be a national security issue. The sweeping and ever expanding powers of Homeland Security will be used in an attempt to take our guns away. Do I not trust our government? No, I don't. Nobody should. That's why we have a right to bear arms, AS WELL AS a right to a well organized militia.

F1.4 said...

Sitting here sipping a beeer, thinking to myself "self, I bet Josh has something to say about our new leader (elect), and something I hadn't even thought of".

You didn't let me down.

Chris B. said...

I don't dispute the right to bear arms. I don't believe in owning a gun for myself, but I wouldn't want to take the ability to own a gun or form a militia away from anyone else. (I also find the idea of a well-organized militia overthrowing the government ridiculous these days.) On the other hand, are you saying that gun laws are perfect and there's no possibility to improve them?

Also, let's say Wall St. has been adjusting for an Obama win in the past few months - it's not like there weren't any indicators of difficulty six months ago, or three years ago. I think the election of Obama is an indication that, outside of consulting with a number of successful business leaders, corporations will no longer have top billing in the new administration.

It's possible that the biased news outlets would have had a lot to say about McCain and his effect on the economy (before taking power), but that didn't happen/isn't happening. In the meantime, you guys are doing a fine job of predicting inflation and the end of the constitution, and pinning it to a guy who won't be in charge for a couple of months.

For the record, I haven't heard one person attribute the lower cost of gas per gallon to Obama, either.

Chris B. said...

Also, I don't think you should shut the fuck up. I would rather hear a counterpoint from you, Old Dog, Olekobe, and other people I trust than from psycho web sites and the commercial media.

DC Liar said...

A couple of notes on the economy (as per Mr. Chris B's earlier comment):

As far as the economy is concerned, there is plenty of blame to go around, but from the political perspective, The Democrats in Congress hold the majority of blame when it comes to the financial meltdown. They were the ones that crafted the legislation that exacerbated crisis and were the ones that defended the failed policies of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

The Bush administration did little or nothing to reign in the financial markets (because the sub-prime loans were acting to over-inflate the economy and offset the administration's deficit spending), but the Republicans in Congress had been fighting these practices tooth & nail from the get-go.

I should know, I was there...
As a lobbyist employed by Fannie Mae.

Seriously.

They hired every single major government relations firm in DC so that the opposition wouldn't be able to hire competent government help without causing a conflict of interest. Exclusivity was the key to their government relations plan.
All I ever did for that client was sit through hearings and take notes - nothing more, but I every single hearing I sat thorough played out like this:
LINK

Crazy, huh?

Oh and on the gas thing - The fuel companies are part of the larger market. When the crude oil prices drop through the floor, so does the price of gas. It's as simple as that.

DC Liar said...

Oh and on the "I also find the idea of a well-organized militia overthrowing the government ridiculous these days" comment:

Is that why everything is going so swimmingly for us in Iraq right now?
The brunt of our top-dollar military is getting schooled in that 3rd world shit-hole.

They must be a poorly-organized non-militia.

Chris B. said...

I think if we were fighting a war with clear good guys and bad guys, we'd have already won in Iraq and withdrawn from the region. We're in the middle of an occupation (complicated by the equivalent of a civil war) which is much murkier. I think the schooling has more to do with protocol/planning than force. Interestingly enough, Cheney called it a probable "quagmire" years before 9/11 happened.

Will we ever defeat terror?

Don't you think that if a well-organized militia were to begin to form in this day and age, that they'd be tagged "of interest" and disbanded? I mean, there's no other reason for it than to topple our own government. That's terrorism!

Also, I got the dude who called from the NRA to speak in tongues last night. Seems like a crazy coincidence to get that call the same day I pipe up here... ;)

Prairie Dawg said...

Yeah, don't STFU, whatever you do.

I'm the kind who can't listen to a democrat speak without rolling my eyes after a minute. Not that I am against their philosophy (I would consider myself a "classic" liberal, or a "Cold War democrat") so much as I despise class warfare, identity politics, and the setting up of the US as the world's greatest sinner for which we all must repent, ostensibly with cash and some new program that we'll never be able to get rid of.

Around 5 years ago I turned on the radio and caught a guy in mid-speech. I actually stopped and stayed in the car because I said "Who IS this guy? He GETS it."

It was B.O.

I truly don't think he's going to be Jimmy Carter, or usher in the socialist overlords, or otherwise be the Manchurian candidate. He strikes me as sensible.

The only people I'm against having guns are criminals, and me--which would probably resemble nothing so much as Rick Moranis doing Woody Allen-as-Travis-Bickle.

DC Liar said...

How in the fuck did this turn into a debate on guns?
My bad, that's what happens when I drink and blog.

Anyway, what I (apparently) failed to convey was that Our Dear and Benevolent Leader (elect) has a legislative record of "government knows best" regulations that diminish our current liberties. The gun thing was just the most blatant and wide-sweeping example that sprung to mind.

I'd have thought that we'd had enough of that shit after G-Dub wiped his ass with the 4th amendment (repeatedly).
I guess "change" just signifies getting repeatedly kicked in the teeth by a different boot.
---

Oh, and P-Dawg. My biggest problem with Obama right now is that he's made so many promises to so many people that he won't be able to keep half of 'em without doing some serious damage to our already fragile economy.
Bush fucked-up HUGE (and continues to fuck things up even further with one foot out of the door), I don't see how another "big dreams, big government" president is going to make this situation any better.

F1.4 said...

They are saying the bailout is going to be like 3 trillion now....
While a sick part of me wishes the big three automakers would die, it would only take a minute fraction of that number to keep them going. How does a banking industry that doesn't actually do anything but move fucking electrons around rate 700 billion plus!?

PYLB said...

Between "SELL! SELL! SELL!" and "You wouldn't give a wet shit, you say?" is where you made this about semi-automatic weapons. Which, if I may say so, is a ridiculously narrow and obtuse perspective on any president elect.

Here's a thought: if you really believe the Constitution shouldn't be messed with, throw out all those Amendments you keep quoting. They're not part of the original Constitution; they're the first round of changes to it. Your right to bear arms, interpreted any way you like, is itself a CHANGE to the CONSTITUTION! Either you are for amendments or you aren't, but you can't have it both ways and expect all these wildly hypothetical arguments to bear any fruit. [Guns are not a parallel to speech. Speech cannot render anyone dead; speech is a bodily (and necessary societal) function, shooting guns is not.]

Realistically, we should redraft the Constitution. What other document can you name that can be changed, but from which you cannot delete any existing text? You can only build so many additions onto a house before it falls down / needs to be rebuilt from the foundation up.

suzanne said...

Ahh, I’m not so sure though, I think I might be able to draw one (the whole “Guns are not a parallel to speech. Speech cannot render anyone dead; speech is a bodily (and necessary societal) function, shooting guns is not” PYLB deal) …don’t overlook speech as being a weapon in its own right. Some of the most dangerous figureheads in history were damn fine speakers and their “honeyed” words might as well have been bullets. An example please you say? Well let’s go with a big one….say Hitler. A word is not equivalent to a gas chamber you say? Well something had to encourage the building and use and I’m pretty damn sure it started with talk, most things do and that SOB charmed the S.S. uniforms onto a hell-ova-lot of folks and subsequently, the life out of a hell-ova-lot of others. So if we begin banning everything we deem risky or dangerous…where does that leave us with free speech (because that can be…and yes, I know very few people have dropped dead as a result of some muttered barbed phrase the instant it left the body (oh and it may indeed be a bodily function but it is not a physical necessity) it originated in …but that has often been a call to action…and let me remind you guns require action too…they don’t shoot themselves…you are familiar with “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”? Yeah that’s frightfully old school but still true when you get down to the root of the thing) hell, where does that leave us with free thought? And before I go into a 1984 “thought police” tangent I’ll say this… That crap doesn’t do a damn bit of good anyway…if you cut out someone’s tongue and they really have something to say they are going to find another way to speak…if you put a ban on semi-automatics and someone really has something dubious in mind involving one, assuming they cannot get their hands on one (which they probably could anyway) they will just find another weapon (I could draw a “parallel here with castration and sex offenders but I won’t). Here then is your parallel – both speech and guns are vehicles and rights that can be taken away.
However, I think DC was probably just using all of that as an example or symbol or vehicle to illustrate his thoughts on the president (elect) whom, incidentally, I voted for because I had similar concerns but about the other choice…I disagree with DC on several issues...but I do get where he’s going with this, this being an analogy of sorts, the aforementioned “vehicle” if you will.

PYLB said...

I see your point, in that DC is merely creating a scene in which to flaunt his gripes. But I still completely disagree that speech and guns are rights that can be taken away. You're arguing "speech" as spoken word, yet you must be aware that "free speech" pertains to the written word as well.

I was born with a mouth and vocal folds - these are normal parts of human anatomy. Guns are not. [No comparison here.] It was not speech per se, but action that made Hitler dangerous. If you want to mince words, it's technically the ideas he transmitted via speech to his countrymen that became dangerous when acted upon -- not when spoken, per se. Speech is a vehicle to transmit ideas - when there are ideas people don't like, folks say speech is dangerous. (This is a parallel to your "guns don't kill people..." cliche: Speech isn't dangerous, but acting on it can be.) It's such a stretch of logic to equate this to the manner in which guns are dangerous. Having a gun makes it more likely that you can act on bad ideas and stupid impulses; more likely that you can deny another citizen of his right to life (along with liberty and pursuit of happiness). Guns are physically dangerous; speech is not. Speech is an anatomical function of the human body that evolved in the service of our culture; owning and/or firing a gun is not a bodily function. Words are never actually bullets, however poetic it may be to claim otherwise. No death certificate ever cited "language" as a cause of death, but there are innumerable death certificates citing "gunshot wound" as a cause of death.

Speech (by which we actually mean "language") is a medium through which ideas can replicate themselves in a culture. There simply is no logical comparison between this and semi-automatic weapons. Without speech, there could be no right to bear arms, no Constitution, no references to books like "1984" or European history textbooks, and certainly no blog post posing drunken arguments.

Think of semi-automatic weapons as the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That's a more logical parallel. You can't legislate intent, but you can legislate the means by which one might act on intent. Speech is an expression of intent; guns are a means by which to act on intent. BIG difference. Apples and oranges.