Next you'll say Palin had nothing to do with the Giffords shootings.

_____________

Tweet of the day.

Hell, they're trying to blame Palin for these.

I never thought I would live to see the day when half the population was insane.

Hey Amy, I was wondering when we were going to hear from you on this...thanks for posting this! You'd never know any of the above to listen to the mainstream media...all we hear is "Christian" terrorist who was on a "Crusade" and was virulently "anti-Muslim." Hell, look at all the articles about "this is where Islamphobia gets us", etc. What a bunch of crap.

@brian, I don't know that half the population is insane...would like to believe that there's more common sense out there than that, but maybe I'm just too optimistic. I think the nut jobs just have bigger mouths...and of course the internet provides the forum.

Beth - Obama won with 52% of the vote. At least 52% of the American voting public is out of their minds.

Brian, yeah I know...but I keep hoping at least some of that 52% has woken up from the hope and change induced coma to some cold, hard reality?

Obama won with 52% of the vote.

But even with "high" turnout, that's still not most adults. American voter turnout is pathetically low. Quote:

About 130 million Americans voted, up from 122 million four years ago. Still, turnout fell short of the 140 million voters many experts had forecast. With a little more than 61 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, the 2008 results also didn’t match the record 63.8 percent turnout rate that helped propel President John F. Kennedy to victory in 1960.

A significant chunk of Obama's supporters were starry-eyed young voters, who have (hopefully) learned the same lesson-of-a-lifetime that my generation learned in the Carter years.... If that's true, Obama's presidency will have the long-term effect of generating another generation of conservative voters.

Shock therapy is probably the only way such a message could cut through years of PC indoctrination.

You are not sticking to the narrative comrade! This will be reported.

*****

Beth and Brian,
I did not vote in the last presidential election because I refused to vote for the lesser of two evils. I have since stopped being a complete retard. Probably I will be throwing my vote away on a third party candidate, but that's several shades less dumb. Or at least several shades less cynical.

I actually said something about this in the comments yesterday on an entry:

A commenter asked: Are you going to blog about the Norway terrorist? You always say the fanatical Christians are much less of a concern than Muslims, but this dude did a good job showing any religious nut is bad.

Nuts are bad. Loughner, McVeigh, the Norway mass murderer.

Here's the thing: the Quran, unlike any other book, is to be taken literally and unquestioningly as the word of god, and it commands the death or conversion of the infidel. Most Muslims will not go around slaughtering the rest of us, but far too many understand that that is their duty, as per the Quran, in order to be good Muslims. This is a problem. I also have problems with Muslims slaughtering homosexuals, and women who are raped or adulterous. Don't you?

Do you see comparable beliefs and activities in Christianity or Judaism, or Quakers or the Amish?

There have been about eight abortion clinic bombers -- in decades. People will use religion (or other forms of fundamentalism -- like communism) to justify horrible things, but there's only one religion that commands the murder of those who don't share their beliefs, and where we've seen many preaching this, and far too many willing to carry it out.

Do you notice little Jewish children being taught that the murder of Muslims is good -- the way Muslim children are? No. And Jewish hospitals in Israel save the lives of Muslims -- Muslims who leave healthy and vowing to live on to kill Jews. Sick.

A significant chunk of Obama's supporters were starry-eyed young voters, who have (hopefully) learned the same lesson-of-a-lifetime that my generation learned in the Carter years.... If that's true, Obama's presidency will have the long-term effect of generating another generation of conservative voters.

We shall see. Currently Americans seem to like neither party very much, and Obama is more popular than the Republicans.

christopher, show me one poll that tells you that obozo is more popular than the top republicans. Quit pulling facts out of your ass. You could run daffy duck against obozo and win. This is not to say I like any of the republicans so far.

We shall see. Currently Americans seem to like neither party very much, and Obama is more popular than the Republicans.

Because Obama is an actual person with an identity. "Congressional Republicans" are just a faceless blob.

It's harder to generate actual hate against an actual person.

It's why militaries try to dehumanize the other side. If they guy at the other end of your gun is a ______, he's not a guy with a wife, kids, day job, dreams, etc.

It's why politicians try to dehumanize or caricature their opponents. If John Boehner is an orange-colored, weepy, shill for "the rich fat cats," he's not a man with a wife, children, and a job to do.

That's why polls keep finding that people approve of Obama as a person and disapprove of the job he's doing. And why they find it easier to disapprove of Democrats or Republicans as a whole.

And it's why biased pollsters ask the questions the way they do.

christopher, show me one poll that tells you that obozo is more popular than the top republicans. Quit pulling facts out of your ass.

Obama vs. Romney:
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Obama vs. Palin:
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_palin_vs_obama-1169.html

Obama vs. Bachmann
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_bachmann_vs_obama-1941.html

Obama vs. Gingrich
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

This is not to say that Obama is especially well-liked right now. He's certainly vulnerable.

Because Obama is an actual person with an identity. "Congressional Republicans" are just a faceless blob.

Conan, you're correct, and make good points about Obama vs. Congress, and real people vs. faceless masses.

But Obama is also more popular than many Republicans with real name recognition, like Palin and Romney. That won't remain static, of course. He will certainly have a tough fight on his hands given the state of the economy, and the slowdown that will result from the spending cuts (or worse) to come out of the debt ceiling fight.

If the Republicans can manage to nominate someone who is not perceived as an extremist, like Romney, I suspect they win. If they nominate a radical like Bachmann, they probably lose. If they nominate a stealth radical, like Perry, it's probably a toss-up because the media are likely to offer Democrats an assist in portraying him as a radical.

"Brian, yeah I know...but I keep hoping at least some of that 52% has woken up from the hope and change induced coma to some cold, hard reality? "

I have a theory that every generation of Americans has to experience a bit of socialism first-hand, in order to see for themselves why it's a bad idea. For my generation, it was Carter... we watched as our fathers, who had held good jobs when we were younger, had to take jobs as store clerks and fast-food slingers. We watched our President tell us that we were the cause of all of the world's problems, that we had to sacrifice without end, and that our decline was inevitable and we would never live as well as our parents. That's when we decided that when we were old enough to vote, we would never vote for Carter or anyone like him.

So we saw Obama coming from a mile away. For anyone that remembered Carter's 1975-76 campaign, Obama was a movie we'd seen already. But we couldn't convince our kids and younger relatives. They had to see for themselves. Well, now they've seen. We won't rub it in. Well, not very much.

Dave, you may be on to something.

But I intend to rub it in good and hard. These ignorant pukes have put everything my friends and I have worked for in jeopardy because some punk-ass from Chicago said "Yes We Can!".

Never said what they could, though.

". . . But we don't. We're not even close. So Americans should just shut up and watch. It could do us some good to see how a civilised society handles such a horrifying crime."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/norwegian-v-american-justice

Also, Cousin Dave, I agree that Obama has been a disaster, but re jobs let's get real: "our fathers" had to take jobs as clerks and hash-slingers because Corporate America outsourced all the manufacturing jobs overseas. The plutocrats sucking on champagne and smoking cigars while laughing at how they made money off junk bonds and derivatives are the ones who got rid of those jobs. That's the nasty side of capitalism Americans conveniently forget.

..."our fathers" had to take jobs as clerks and hash-slingers because Corporate America outsourced all the manufacturing jobs overseas.

And why did Corporate America do that?

Why did Corporate America incur additional logistics costs and the headaches of distance management instead of leaving jobs local where the manufacturing process be overseen easily and products shipped to market relatively inexpensively by rail and truck?

Because Corporate America is Eeeevil! Eeeevil, I tell you.

Or ... could it be because legal and union demands made a $25/hour job cost more than $65/hour? Toyota makes $1,500 per car sold. General Motors makes less than $500. Skewed wage and benefit scales account for almost the entirety of that disparity.

And, what's even more troubling, we're witnessing the same thing now with minimum wage jobs. At almost $10/hour, it's not worth a company's time to hire an inexperience newbie and train him.

So, the inexperienced worker is forced to bear the training costs himself, finding a way to put himself through a trade school or community college.

But some of those jobs for inexperienced workers are gone forever. The jobs requiring very little skill and only the ability to show up on time are all but gone.

Roger Miller sang about "two hours of pushing broom" buying an "8x12 four-bit room." Today, the employment overhead and minimum wage requirements mean the broom pusher costs more than a cleaning service or the owner simply doing it himself.

And, thanks to burdensome regulations and wage inflation, even two hours work at minimum wage won't buy a room for the night.

Like eliminating Social Security, eliminating the minimum wage is going to be painful ... at least for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Costs have been driven up for so long that sellers of goods and services, even when relieved of burdensome minimum wage and additional labor costs, are not going to immediately lower the costs of their products to a level that those making the lowest wages can afford. Until things adjust, a Big Mac will a luxury for the guy making it.

That's what we get for creating a welfare state.

That's the nasty side of liberalism Americans (and liberals) conveniently forget.

"...because Corporate America outsourced all the manufacturing jobs overseas."

Lisa, may I safely assume that all of your clothing is made in the USA? That you never go to WalMart?

The consumer demands low prices, and market communication allows a company unfettered by Federal regulations to make those products.

The public asks for consumer protection and fails to limit it. They demand more and more laws from their elected reps while excoriating them for failing to do what they have, in fact, forbidden. They want high wages and cheap goods. OF COURSE that means a change in the market.

BTW, there is still lots of manufacturing going on in the USA, but trivial jobs in those plants are gone.

I have, within the past 18 months, hired 6 people for jobs that must, due to export controls, be performed by American citizens. Otherwise, they and I would all be unemployed.

It's not "the greedy corporations." Do you really think following environmental regulations, and labor rules and EEO laws and affirmative action and compliance with all those other good rules is free?

You, and every other person living in this country, pays for them. Why would greedy corporations voluntarily incur increased shipping costs, and the difficulty of setting up new factories, and training a new labor force, and dealing with other cultures and languages and governments? Answer: Because it is better, cheaper, and easier than dealing with ourselves.

Sorry, Lisa, they don't hate you. They'd hire you in a second if your labor provided value to the shareholders. You know, the people who put a few bucks in the 401K and own the company.