You, Mr. Krugman, are the unadulterated partisan pig

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?em

Krugman mentions nothing concerning Obama's lies, such as the suggestion McCain plans on carrying out military action in Iraq for 100 years, and he provides no context or proof for his claims of McCain lies, such as the fact that most of the talk concerning the "lipstick" had to do with Obama's judgement and lack of immediate correction when he saw how his audience responded to the comment -- I have yet to read where McCain stated that Obama called Palin a pig, but the association, intentional or unintentional, was obvious. The McCain ad was silly and suggested that Obama allowed the association to stand, which in all fairness Obama explained but didn't quite alleviate the suspicions, but it was Obama's bad judgement that set him up -- that's pertinent context. Had McCain made such a gaffe, he would be crucified by the New York Times, and all other tenacles of the lefty media.

 What Krugman does is write  an attack piece with no objectivty or even pretense of objectivity. He mentions only the lies of Republican administrations and nothing of the lies of Democrat administrations, as if there is not a plethora of examples during the Clinton administration. He's a hack - a pathetic hack. It's a piss-poor example of an editorial from a dead rag that should have been buried long ago.

I'm no apologist for McCain or Palin and I'm working on an article that spells out where I'm at with the election hoopla, but fair is fair, and Krugman is a punk. He's a soulless puppet, a pig with or without lipsick, a hack, a second-hand charlatan posing as someone of importance, a snob, a gutless shill, a one-dimensional dufus with the gravitas of a Whoopi Goldberg, a spineless weasal who's a disgrace to weasals, a wimp in cheap clothing, a weakling partisan weilding a fly swatter because he can't raise a sword --- that's enough for now.

Yes, they are both liars, but...

McCain is lying more than Obama at this point. Oh, fer heaven's sake, it's just politics -- they're all a bunch of liars, wink-wink. But now we are making progress, getting down to rating candidates by the quantity of their lying. Hopefully, soon, we can begin rating the quality of their lies.

Is Obama or McCain the best liar? I have to say Obama is a smoother liar, although McCain can display that goofy grin after a lie that just makes you want to hug the old trickster -- then the little "henh-henh-henh" of a laughter and you want to go to a ballgame with him and wipe the mustard from his cheeks.

Obama has that Harvard-like, airy  ability to palm off  a lie as the sealed truth passed down from the academic towers of esoteric knowledge, with a little fire of the Great Reformer thrown in to make you want to follow with a bowl of water in case his feet get muddy.

Biden can lie like a mechanic with the down-home insistence that you really do need a new transmission, four tires and and a valve gasket.

I don't know Palin's style of lying, but if they all coach her, she can convince the forgotten that Jane from Ludowici, Ga can rise from her five kids, dirty pots and pans, a drunk husband and pilled-up bills to be Secretary of State if she tries hard, pulls her hair back, applies some lipstick and kills a moose (there are no moose in GA, but a rabbit might do).

I think McCain is ahead 42 to 40 according to my point system, but if Obama can crank up his lies over the weekend, he might capture the lead by Monday. Here's one I will throw out at no charge -- McCain has a secret plan to bomb Russia and Iran -- and parts of Viet Nam, just for closure. 

For God's sake, somebody stop Geraldo!

Before he kills himself or somebody else. I don't know what's lacking in his life but it's left a huge hole he needs to fill with sensationalism and hyperbole, risking his ugly ass and making a fool of himself in the process.

Someone needs to stop him, seriously.

Building toy soldiers

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/11/youll-get-served/

Does anyone else get a queasy feeling in their stomach from all this talk about national service? I don't want to go all paranoid and start shopping for tinfoil at Walmart, but this emphasis on national service gives me the creeps.

I'm sure there are millions of good citizens who applaud the selfless sacrifice asked of youth to serve their country in one form or another, but it's getting dangerously close to mandatory service. The fact is that people should have the freedom to decide whether they want to sacrifice or not. The idea of compulsory sacrifice is dangerous. We don't even need the government to give incentives to sacrifice especially when the incentive has to be paid for by tax dollars. If work is needed someone will pay for it -- if communities have needs, they will fill them, but not as long as government is doing it for them.

This is an intrusion into private social life that is way out of bounds. If we want to teach young people a lesson let's give them a good grounding in economics and the business world, but even that is none of government's concern.

All the social programs already in place have weakened communities, voluntary associations and the spirt of self-sufficiency. Now we want to further indoctrinate the young that government is vital to social well-being and that this noble sacrifice to country is somehow a duty imposed on us by a higher authority, an abstract diety called the "nation" somewhere far away in a heavenly place called Washington DC.

It seems this country is trying it's damndest to destroy the individual, free spirit of youth before it has a chance to grow and mature by sending this message of sacrifice. And, which ideology rules? The idea that men and women should  become soldiers to fight for freedom or should they become soldiers to fight the evils of selfish capitalism? What about free young men and women who individuate and go out and create a living for themselves, one that they choose and prosper in?

The US doesn't need more social workers, nannies and soldiers, it needs scientists, mathmeticians, engineers, programmers, doctors, entrepreneurs, businesspeople, plumbers, builders, educators and so forth -- people with a strong sense of self and courage to handle problems. I know that the "service" is temporary, but it sends the wrong message by being wrapped up in government do-goodism. It sends a message that the nation has a right to use you, that it's your duty, rather than viewing government as working at the people's consent to protect our rights. It also makes communities lazy and indifferent when they aren't forced to deal with their own problems -- government will handle it.

If young people want to freely choose government work to be a part of that service we pay for to protect our rights, then that is fine, but to try to enlist all young people into a service they wouldn't  normally choose is abhorable. All it does is give government greater license to interfere and influence and decide for us what is important in social life. The potential for abuse is much greater than any benefit. We need a nation of strong indiividuals not a nation of toy do-good soldiers.

Playing the game: Google needs to cough up the money

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10036948-38.html

Buying Washington influence has become so prevalent that the media easily acknowledge it with cynical, winking comments and hardly any outrage. It's become common knowledge that politicians have more love and compassion for companies who contribute large sums of money to campaigns. Many companies are covering their potentially targeted asses by sending out money left and right.

Google has obviously not sent enough, a couple of hundred thousand dollars is obviously an insult to campaigns with expensive needs. According to the article above from CNET, the money that has been sent has been sent to Obama who promises to fully push Anti-Trust laws. So they bribed the wrong party with too little money.

To make it more interesting, Eric Shmidt, Google's CEO, was one of the crybabies at Novell who wanted Big Brother to beat up Microsoft because Bully Bill was stealing his lunch money.

Google may get what they have asked for, not what they deserve. In spite of themselves they deserve to be left alone because of overriding principles of free market economics. But from a practical standpoint, their stingy contributions won't buy them as much as a nod, and from a poetic justice standpoint their socialist hipness might become a harsh reality that creates a capitalist pig. Googleoink, Googleoink. Red or blue lipstick?