First, our man in Minneapolis makes it clear he's against negative campaigning, as long it's against something he supports:
One ad has the seniors worrying that the politicians who “wrecked the economy” (seriously, that’s what they say)
Seriously! Can you believe these jerks? With unions dead, pensions non-existent, individual business ownership plummeting, savings rates at a national negative, a record number of people uninsured, a growing number of permanent unemployed, the budget deficit nearly unmeasurable, the trade deficit getting worse, real-dollar income stagnant, the manufacturing base vanished, the income gap higher than anywhere in the world, and the whole country, from the government to corporations to indviduals, living on borrowed money, a couple of gloom-and-doomers have the gall to say that there's something wrong with the economy!
are “talking about privatizing Social Security again.” Gah! Issues are being discussed! Alternatives proposed!
You bet! That's why people get so upset at the notion of privatizing social security: we just can't stand alternatives being discussed. We are filled with rage at the very idea of having options. It's not that privatization is a stupid, wasteful option that will totally screw low-income people and enrich corporations, NO! It's that we won't abide issues being discussed.
we cannot even bring up the matter of letting younger workers voluntarily exert private control over the property they are required by government to relinquish
Hi! My name is Paul Craig Roberts. Won't you join me for a discussion of how taxation is slavery, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the devil? That sentence has to be the most chickenshit, deceptive description of taxation I've ever read.
Like many, I’m resigned to losing most everything I’ve put into Social Security, or seeing the promised returns whittled away to farthings and ha’pennies.
Like many, I mistakenly believe that Social Security is in crisis. Or possibly I am lying.
So I save for my family, and invest.
Luckily for me, I am a famous nationally syndicated columnist and writer, and my wife is a corporate lawyer. But I assume that EVERYONE can afford to save and invest. Right? Right?
Well, I’m also told we don’t save enough; should I now save less? No, you say. Save more. Invest less. Okay, well, everyone invest less, and let’s see how that works.
Fun fact: The periods in American history marked by record highs in investment -- the early 1890s, the mid-1920s, and the late 1990s -- were immediately followed by crashes, recessions and/or depressions. And while they were prosperous eras, other periods of prosperity NOT followed by crashes and recessions -- specifically, the 1910s, the late 1950s, and the early 1970s -- featured only moderate or low investment levels. Of course, not being an economist, I draw no conclusions from that; I'll leave it to experts like James Lileks.
Likewise, the ascension of Keith Ellison will thrill the good and decent folk, because he is a Muslim, the first in Congress, a stately rebuke to George Bush, who hates Muslims and wants Jesus to come tomorrow waving the Danish cartoons and shouting BOOYA.
Ha ha! I have used an absurd exaggeration to make it seem like there is no such thing as prejudice in America, and the fact that there are almost five million Muslims in America and there has never been a single one elected to national office of any kind is JUST FINE AND NOTHING TO EVEN TALK ABOUT, no more than the fact that there are almost forty million blacks, represented in the Senate by Barack Obama. I bet if Keith Ellison was an astronaut, Jimbo would be happy for him.
Mr. Ellison’s past as a member of the Nation of Islam and his associations with CAIR are irrelevant
James is being sarcastic here, because he states later that these are "racial-supremacist organizations". CAIR is basically the Muslim version of the NAACP, and the Nation of Islam, while nutty to devoted atheist God-scoffers like me, is no more so than, say, the southern Baptists or the Mormons, and presumably Mr. Lileks would get pretty sniffy if anyone dared go around questioning the desirability of a white candidate based on nothing more than his membership in the LDS church.
his opponent is a Republican, which means he got this far by using the power of Satan to send crows to pick out the eyes of his opponent’s children
This is a hilarious bit of hyperbole, considering that in the exact same column he goes out of his way to imply that if we elect a Muslim to congress Palestinian suicide bombers will come over and spatter our childrens' brains all over the side of a bus. But can he top this with a gargantuan, whopping irrelevancy? You bet he can!
Mr. Ellison has stated that he is for gay marriage, and I kept waiting for someone to poll the people at his mosque about that. I see many churches in my neighborhoods with rainbow flags, for example, and I’m truly curious how many mosques are gay-friendly. You’d think it would be a story, but it just sort of...doesn’t exist. It’s not that hard: go to the mosques or the coffee shops, say “Keith Ellison is for gay marriage; do you approve?” and print the reaction.
Let's look in some depth at why this is stupid.
1. It is possibly the most irrelevant thing I have ever heard. What possible difference to Keith Ellison's suitability as an elected official does it make whether or not Muslims approve of gay marriage?
2. Why would it be a story how many mosques are gay-friendly? Is it a story how many temples are gay-friendly? (The answer: not that many.) Is it a story how many Catholic churches are gay-friendly? (The anwer: even less.) Is it a story how many Baptist churches are gay-friendly? (The answer: none.)
3. Assuming that this apparent media cover-up of the Muslim gay marriage stance issue were unveiled, and reporters scoured every one of the mosques in St. Paul and reported on the evening news that indeed, the majority of Muslims in Minnesota did not support gay marriage, Lileks would smile smugly and make a 'voila!' gesture with his hands, having proven...what, exactly? That Muslims, like a majority of Americans of all kinds and a vast majority of all religious people everywhere, oppose gay marriage? Who doesn't know that? Or that Keith Ellison, a Muslim, holds opinions at variance with other Muslims? Who cares?
4. In fact, isn't that a GOOD thing? Lileks cowers in fear behind his basement water-sculpture because he's afraid the Islamists will come and impose their vile, backwards religion on America, so shouldn't he support a Muslim candidate who doesn't toe the party line on these matters? Surely he's not admitting that he'd be happier if his own stereotypes where fulfilled and Ellison was up there shouting "Death to America" next to his veiled wife and daughters and his handless ex-shoplifter brother-in-law.
5. Can he possibly be suggesting that Ellison is a hypocrite for holding views at variance to that of most people of his faith? That he's some kind of phony Muslim because he supports gay marriage? Because, man, I got news for you, Jimbo: this sort of thing, it's actually pretty common. Why not do a poll of all the elected southern Baptists in America who are willing to admit that, according to the explicit teachings of their faith, all Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and agnostics -- and possibly even Catholics and Mormons -- are going to go to Hell where they will burn in fiery torment forever and ever. NOT MANY I BET! Or, here's a fun thing for you to do, with your outrage against the media cover-up of how Muslims don't like gay marriage: go conduct a poll about how many mainstream Catholic churches are officially in favor, thus defying the teachings of their faith and the infallible judgment of the Pope. (I'll save you some time: the answer is "zero".) And yet -- AND YET -- there are a large number of Catholics, some of whom are elected officials, who are in favor of the death penalty! It's a scandal! Someone call the National Review!
6. Besides, even if this did somehow make Ellison a hypocrite, James Lileks wrote a column recently, during the Mark Foley scandal, in which he said that hypocrisy was no big deal, and that there was absolutely nothing surprising or wicked about the fact that some people exhibit behaviors that are at odds with the official teachings of the organizations to which they profess allegiance. So, surely he is not turning right around and making the exact opposite of that argument against a political opponent, because that would make him a giant asshole.
7. Or...or...and I don't even like to think of this, because it's so fucking dumb, but honestly, it's the only possible alternative explanation to this batshit paragraph I can think of...does Lileks think that Ellison is some sort of Muslim mole, who's just SAYING he supports gay marriage to get elected but once he's in, he'll peel off a rubber mask to reveal Osama bin-Laden underneath, and say "HA HA HA, American fools! In fact, I, like 99% of the other members of Congress, actually oppose gay marriage! But now that you've elected me, I will force my hardcore jihadist beliefs into law, with the help of the other 434 members of the House, who, I'm assuming, will vote with me on stuff like gas chambers for Jews and mandatory Ramadan fasting, since we're together on the whole gay marriage thing."
This has gone on way too long, and it kinda makes me think I need to leave the guy alone for a while, but let's let him finish with a delightful bit about how electing Democrats will lead us down the road to national extinction ONE GODDAMN DAY after he wrote that it probably won't even matter who wins:
I expect the next two years to go poorly, I’m afraid. Then again, I’m often wrong; perhaps it’s possible for a country to win a war with apologies and investigations. Perhaps we’re not at war at all; perhaps Iran and the jihadists are merely an illusion conjured up by the puppetmasters, just as they turned Iraq – the veritable Monaco of Mesopotamia – into a Threat, and just as they defended Israel against the brave Defenders of the Apartment Buildings in Lebanon. I really should relax. I mean, if you’re driving down the road and you see a car coming towards you head on in your lane, there’s no reason to worry. You’re in the right. What else matters?
Thanks for putting up with my ramblings about this utter jackoff. My next post will have presents.