Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for February, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 28, 2009

From the bottom of my … well, bottom, I assure you, that even if I was hoodwinked into believing that the Earth was trembling precariously on the brink of calamity due to the excesses and indulgences of human activity, I just couldn’t get this green – not in good conscience. And if ever I were forced to do so, you can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) it’s because someone either had a firearm pressed to my temple, I was a prisoner of war, or I was convinced that huge prize money was somehow involved.

What on Earth am I talking about?

toiletwipesReusable toilet wipes, of course – brought to you by the good folks at who encourage you to support “a natural lifestyle.”

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Wallypop also offers reusable monthly “cycle pads” for women, as well as more “conventional” items such as handkerchiefs, diapers and breast pads – all in pretty designs and patterns. They even have reusable Elvis Presley sandwich wraps and snack bags.

Here’s what they say about their toilet wipes:

As seen on The Drudge Report and Australian News!

“Alright,” you say, “You’ve convinced me about cloth diapers, and I understand using cloth gift bags and napkins. But toilet paper??” For some people, making the switch to cloth toilet wipes is a huge leap, that’s true. But it doesn’t need to be!

Using cloth toilet wipes actually has many advantages. For one, it’s a lot more comfortable and soft on your most delicate body parts. It’s also more economical, uses less paper, and saves you those late-night trips to the store. And cloth wipes can be used wet without any of the sopping disintegration that regular toilet paper is prone to.

And for those of you who may be thinking, “You know, this sounds like something I might like to try because I love the Earth so much, but what about odor? I don’t want my Febreze bill to go through the roof.”

No need to worry. Wallypop has you covered.

Lately, with all the media attention, there’ve been a lot of naysayers talking about the stench. I can honestly say, our wipes don’t stink. They don’t go into a sealed container. They go into a little (lidded) garbage can in the bathroom. Many people use a wet bag … There is no odor.

Sighs of relief all around.

Wallypop explains:

But, really, you might be wondering, how do I use these?

Using cloth wipes for urine-only visits to the bathroom is so simple it’s hardly worth mentioning. Go, wipe, and then toss the wipe into whatever container you prefer.

Using cloth wipes for other toilet visits is not any more difficult, but there is a certain ick factor involved. Consider how much waste you’re willing to leave on your children’s diapers or wipes when you toss them in the pail. Use the same standards for yourself. Shake, scrape, swish, or squirt off anything you don’t want in your laundry, and then toss the wipe into the pail or container. (Personally speaking, we just wipe and toss in the pail. Our wipes have minimal staining.)

Thanks for sharing.

I certainly do not begrudge anyone for filling voids in the marketplace. More power to them. I wish them well.

But it reminds me …

I remember my grandfather would always keep a handkerchief in his back pocket. After using it, he would wad it up and stuff it right back into the same pocket. As a little boy, I remember thinking how disgusting that was.

“Why don’t you use a tissue, grandpa?” I would ask.

“I like to use a handkerchief,” he would say, which would effectively end the discussion.

I’m not sure how regular bathroom tissue is any less “natural” than reusable cloth wipes, seeing as they are both manufactured from materials found here on Earth, but it occurs to me that bad breath, arm pit odor and bad hair are also “natural” phenomena.

Sometimes a touch of “artificiality” (for the want of a better phrase) goes a long way.

I promise … this is not a slam. I know there are wonderful people out there who prefer cloth – and I know there are puppy-kickers and kitten-smackers who like paper.

I just thought you’d find this interesting.


Posted in environmentalism, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , | 12 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 28, 2009



Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009


Fielding e-mails about the Obama plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq by the end of August, 2010 to anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 troops, I am getting roundly attacked on the supposed naivety – or knee-jerk reaction – of my position in the piece I posted earlier today called “QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE BAM PLAN TO SCRAM.”

One close friend wrote: “What do you mean this one is ‘hard to take’? Are you aware that Obama is actually following the Bush plan here?”

I’m missing some of the finer nuances, I’m being told. This really isn’t a withdrawal, I’m being reminded. This is only a political move to make nice with the radical lefties who are starting to gripe a bit about Messianic campaign promises. Obama can’t really get out of Iraq completely, they’re saying to me, because he can’t let that country descend into chaos. If I’d just stop reacting from my ideological perch here on the right, and actually put some thought into these things, I’d be able to understand that.

Fox News even has a story about how some libs are feeling “Left Out” because of Bam’s war strategy.

(Left out? Have they paid any attention to anything Obama has done since taking office? Guanatnamo Bay? $787 billion in Pork? Funding overseas abortions? Trillions in spending?)

First off, the fact that people on the far left are probably going to be upset by The One consenting to leave troops in Iraq after combat operations have been declared over means what? That Obama is now suddenly doing the right thing? That people like me are overreacting and missing the bigger picture? That I should reconsider my contempt for the President’s decision to announce to the entire world the date the United States will stop fighting in a place that terrorist thugs are just chomping at the bit to infiltrate? The idea that wacky Leftocrats are going to be annoyed doesn’t make the President any less liberal or any less wrong for announcing his exit strategy to the world as he did.

Never in the history of this country has the date for the cessation of hostilities been announced by the President while combat with the enemy was ongoing and without unconditional surrender.

Second, if it had been left to Obama in the first place, who adamantly said “The Surge” would never work, Iraq would be a terrorist’s nirvana right about now. Frankly, Obama’s judgment leaves a lot to be desired (from his choice of pastor and associates to his concept of a “spread-the-wealth” society). Forgive me for not jumping up and down with glee at anything he may say regarding national security. Seeing as the man has already turned this nation decidedly toward Marxism, is spending astronomical amounts of money that doesn’t even exist, and has promised the closing of Guantanamo Bay, thus affording incarcerated terrorists the opportunity to go elsewhere – including back to being terrorists – it is not entirely unreasonable to be “down” on Obama after this announcement.

I ask the question again, as I did in my original article, how is America any safer for this?

Whether or not the right thing to do strategically is draw down American troop levels by August of 2010 isn’t the issue. If the “withdrawal” date for the majority of American troops in Iraq were set for next Tuesday, so be it. The decision to publicize it is where the President has shown radically poor judgment – again.

And note the President’s inability (or hard-wired unwillingness) to use the word “victory” today when addressing the U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in describing what the men and women of the United States armed forces have accomplished in Iraq. Quite telling. Democrats and “victories” only apply, I suppose, to pushing spending bills through Congress and paving the way for as many abortions as possible. “Getting the job done” certainly sounds nice, but “victory” is what the American military is really all about.

Remember, the only reason to send American troops into harm’s way is to make the United States safer. Period. I am, admittedly, one of those who believed that removing Saddam Hussein from the helm of a nation that openly supported terrorism – one that violated numerous UN resolutions while firing upon our military aircraft – and helping to secure an America-friendly country in the heart of a despotic region of the world would do just that. The war in Iraq – and our impending victory there – has made the United States safer.

Indeed, I supported the measure from jump street.

The majority of those on Capitol Hill did as well. Barack Obama did not.

And while that is no criterion in and of itself as to whether or not one can support victory once troops are deployed, recall Obama’s words on Inauguration Day: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause.”

This is what the Commander-In-Chief of America’s fighting forces believes.

What do you think would have happened had he made that statement today in front of a gathering of United States Marines?

Mr. President, the security of the United States emanates from a strong military.

It is a shame you don’t believe that, nor understand that.

I wonder if Al Qaeda (and assorted vermin) will believe that Iraq’s security emanates from the justness of their cause beginning September 1, 2010.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009

messed up the k-turn

messed up the k-turn


Posted in Picture of the Day | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009


The fundamental transformation of my country, the United States of America, continues unfettered under President Barack Obama – but this one is very difficult to take.

For almost six weeks I have seen the slow-and-steady dismantling of a shining city on a hill through extreme leftist policies that have drastically broadened the control of government. I have watched the new administration rape the individual of incentive by promising handouts to those who don’t deserve it while promising to punish the success of those who do. I’ve witnessed the wholly contrived and strategically effective spread of pessimism and fear during what is inaccurately being peddled as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I’ve shaken my head as successful war strategies against terrorists are changed while battles against the weather and drifting ice sheets are plotted.

The country was warned, time and time again, that Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in Washington – with shady associations that would have buried anyone else, and a resume as light and inconsequential as an Assistant Dog Catcher’s. Whatever delusions of “governing from the center” one may have had immediately following the Messiah’s anointment have all but died on the vine. Obama has taken a machete to the throat of national security with his contemptible gift to the enemies of this country.

To his credit, the President has, in fact, kept his promise of transparency here – but not to the American people. Instead, President Barack Obama on Thursday – in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief, charged with the task of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States – presented to the enemies of his own country the precise date when American combat operations in Iraq will come to an end.

The President might as well have invited some Al Qaeda bigwigs into the West Wing for Yodels and Ovaltine in order to mull over the details of the American exit strategy.

Obama didn’t just tip his hand, he gave the terrorists the deck.

Whether Iraqis will be ready to stand on their own by August, 31 2010 isn’t even the issue. They may be ready before then, or it may take longer. Oddly enough, war is unpredictable. The issue here is having the leader of the free world disseminate American military intentions in the midst of an ongoing war for anyone with open ears or internet access to ingest.

Thanks to one of the most asinine, arrogant and colossally bone-headed moves President Obama has made in what has thus far been a veritable leftist revolution, the entire world is privy to our war strategy – including not only the weak-kneed Europeans Obama so wishes to cajole into loving us again, but the death-loving terrorists he seems determined to make life easier for.

To the killers, August 31, 2010 is not that far away. They can bide their time.

And coincidentally enough, just in time for the 2010 midterm elections, too.

I’m wondering if American exit routes out of Iraq are posted anywhere … or if the precise times of retreat will be updated as the day approaches. Maybe an FAQ can be added to the Pentagon website detailing the withdrawal, with translations into Arabic to save time.

The President of the United States has officially empowered the enemies of his country – and I do not overstate it.

Major Garrett from Fox News gives some details on the Obama plan:

The president is expected to deliver a speech Friday at the Marine base in Camp Lejeune, N.C, in which he will order an immediate drawdown of the 142,000 Marines and Army personnel in Iraq. He has set a goal of reducing the U.S. military footprint in Iraq to no fewer than 35,000 and no more than 50,000 personnel after that date, congressional leaders were told.

The president met at the White House with top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, as well as the leaders of the National Security and Foreign Policy committees to explain his decision.

The president told lawmakers troops that remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, will carry out new missions and will be trained and organized in a way that de-emphasizes combat-readiness and intensifies the focus on these three missions:

• Train, equip and advise Iraqi security forces
• Support civilian operations in Iraq aimed at reconstruction, redevelopment and political reconciliation
• Conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions.

That there will be as many as 50,000 troops still in Iraq after “the date” apparently isn’t making Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid particularly happy. Said Reid, “I have been one who has called for significant cutbacks in Iraq for some time. And I am happy to listen to the secretary of defense, the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I had anticipated.”

baghdadThat these 50,000 troops will be “left behind” knowing our enemies are fully aware that “combat readiness” is being de-emphasized – and the fact that the President of the United States is volunteering that information to those who wish to slaughter them – is flat out astonishing. Can we then expect Al Qaeda to de-emphasize IED disbursal? Or to cutback on suicide bombings? And exactly how is the United States of America made safer if those who want to kill our troops are circiling August 31, 2010 on their calendars?

Some Republicans worry that the Obama withdrawal date may be too soon, while others (Democrats) are more concerned with troop levels left behind.

Senator John McCain said, “We must avoid drawing down troop levels there too quickly or risk jeopardizing the hard-won security gains.”

He’s correct.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009

Through the Drudge Report, from, comes this report:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.

President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

Now, whether or not this really puts an end to the idea of so-called “equal time” for liberals on talk radio is still a genuine question mark. I wouldn’t count it out. It may still rear its ugly head under a name other than “Fairness Doctrine,” in an initiative that creates “local boards” to monitor broadcast content. It may be sold to the American people under the guise of “keeping the federal government from interfering with free speech,” while ultimately accomplishing the same thing at the local level.

These are liberals we’re dealing with.

It ain’t dead until it’s dead … and even then, it ain’t dead.

And it doesn’t impress me in the least that Bam said he has no intention of reimposing The Fairness Doctrine. He also looked into the eyes of the American people and said that his stimulus bill was “earmark” free.

Go figure.

Posted in Big Government, Fairness Doctrine, Talk-Radio | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009


Never let the truth get in the way of good old-fashioned, down-to-the-bone, leftist hysteria.

Recall the amusing little story from late last week that flung yet another delicious dagger into the heart of the Global Warming industry – the report of a glitch in satellite sensors that caused scientists to miscalculate, i.e. underestimate, how much arctic sea ice there was by nearly 200,000 square miles. Some had apparently noticed that there was actually ice in areas listed by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) as “open ocean.”

The error was triggered by a problem known as “sensor drift,” according to scientists at the NSIDC. In short, it turns out there’s actually more ice up there than originally thought – an area that equals the size of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and all of New England combined.

This story, indeed, received a fair amount of play over the weekend and into early this week.

However, one thing in the story that went largely unnoticed (written by Alex Morales) was this little paragraph:

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The hilarity – and absurdity – of what is being said here cannot be overstated.

In 2007, according to the NSIDC, the Arctic ice cap shrank to its lowest levels ever. (All Arctic ice cap measurement data covering the years 2,000,000 BC through 1843 AD were lost in a flood, I believe). The following year, 2008, the Arctic ice cap posted its “second lowest annual minimum.”

Second lowest.

For those who are Al Gore, that means there was more ice in 2008 than in 2007.

Yet, the NSIDC went on to say conclusively that the error does not, in any way, contradict the assertion that Arctic ice continues to dwindle. In other words, the fact that the ice is growing does not mean the ice isn’t shrinking.

(I’m thinking of the scene in the movie Animal House, where a young Kevin Bacon is standing amidst the exploding chaos of the “disrupted” homecoming parade, screaming, “All is well!“)

If the Arctic ice in 2007 was at its lowest extent, and the following year it was at its second-lowest extent, i.e. more than the year before, how exactly does one draw the conclusion that Arctic ice, despite “sensor drift,” is still retreating?

True, I have no degree in climatology, nor do I play a meteorologist on television, but I’m obviously missing something here.

The finer distinctions and nuances have clearly gone over my head.

Maybe I need to stop trying to comprehend the amazingly explicit and stick to the merely explicit.

Pesky data.

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , | 9 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009

let's be friends again

let's be friends again

Bush bashing.

Gee, how original.

The new CIA Chief has decided that Congress needs a big hug, maybe more – and he’s ready to start dispensing the love. According to the agency’s new chief, Leon Panetta, all of those years under President Bush saw a nasty rift fester between the CIA and Capitol Hill – a relationship Panetta says was “badly damaged” with W in the lead – and the time has come to make it all good again. In other words, those lousy Bush-era policies that kept this nation safe from attack for over seven years need to be tossed onto the Ash Heap of History in favor of some new-fangled, open-minded, back-rubbin’ DC lovin’. Panetta is calling for what amounts to bureaucratic make-up sex to “to restore the trust between this Agency and Capitol Hill.”

Mike Allen at the Politico writes:

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says the relationship between the intelligence agency and Congress has “had a lot of problems” under the last administration and “has to be repaired,” which he said is one of his top priorities.

“Frankly, I can’t do my job unless I have their trust.” (Panetta) said. “And since I’m a creature of the Hill and understand what it means to be a member up there and have this kind of information, I’m prepared to try to do whatever I can to try to repair that relationship.”

“This country has to operate by a set of rules that are in line with our Constitution and in line with the laws of this country. … We swear to support and defend that Constitution in taking these jobs … If we stand by our ideals, if we stand by the beliefs that we have about what this country is all about, I think it makes us stronger, not only here but throughout the world.”

And, of course, what the world thinks of the United States is far more important than whether or not the United States is upholding those values that make her the greatest nation the world has ever known. To liberals, being loved is as much a value as healthcare and equality of outcome. Securing the favor and approval of the world’s nations is a foundational American liberal tenet. It far outweighs doing what’s right and just.

Personally, I couldn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of the United States. Remember, as I have written many times, as a rule of thumb, whatever world opinion is on a given matter, go with the opposite.

Allen continues:

For one thing, (Panetta) said, “We are closing black sites,” a reference to secret prisons abroad used to hold and question suspected terrorist combatants.

The phrase “war on terror,” a hallmark of President George W. Bush’s White House, is rarely used in the Obama administration, but Panetta (says) that “there’s no question this is a war. There are those who threaten us to come here and kill Americans. … CIA is engaged on the front lines to try to develop the intelligence necessary to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”

In his opening remarks, Panetta said: “Al-Qaeda has obviously suffered some key setbacks in recent months and with the …strong support of the president, the vice president, national security director, we are not going to let up on [counterterrorism]. We are going to continue to pursue. We are going to continue to bring pressure.”

Heaven help the terrorists now.

Panetta has surely instilled fear in them by announcing that the United States is going to “bring pressure.”

Hold me.

If nothing else, it was surely nice of Mr. Panetta to acknowledge the existence of the war – and to once again announce to the world that “black sites” are being shut down – just for good measure. That’ll certainly get the bad guys to take pause and reconsider their murderous ways.  The kinder, gentler approach to those who crave death is bound to melt icy hearts all across the Islamo-fascist world.

But if the goal is to undo Bush-era intelligence policies – the very policies he acknowledges has inflicted key setbacks to Al Qaeda – how can he and the Obama administration realistically expect the same kind of successes?

And why would he – or anyone – want to undo policies that have kept the country safe?

(Rhetorical meter spikes into the red).

This hackneyed and tedious “blame-Bush-for-everything-wrong-in-the-world” approach to life that has been the fuel of liberal motivation for eight years is literally going to cost innocent American lives. It precludes the ability to acknowledge anything Bush did right – like his prosecution of the war against Islamo-fascism – and it will, without question, lead to a disaster that will make 9/11 pale in comparison. 



Posted in Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2009


As disappointing as Governor Bobby Jindal was last evening in his response to President Obama’s non-State of the Union address, I harbor as much disappointment in myself for expecting too much.

From the moment Jindal began speaking, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was sitting on a thumbtack or if someone was applying a nutcracker to his pinky toe – particularly at the beginning of his talk. The lighting and the background were, at best, unflattering, and his delivery was as smooth as large curd cottage cheese. It pains me to say this because I am a huge fan of Governor Jindal. (This past summer, for example, while working at a well-known broadcasting outlet, I was impressed to see how Jindal handled the hurricane emergencies that wreaked havoc in his state (Louisiana). He was strong, decisive, unwavering. He was a leader. Unfortunately, that Bobby was MIA last evening).

Since last night’s talk, the adjective truck has been heavy with words like “cardboard,” “awful,” “akward” and “wooden” to describe the Governor’s performance. Throw in “lackluster,” “boring,” “unimpressive” and “flat” and we’ve almost got enough for a baseball team.

In a perfect world, “substance over style” would have rendered Barack Obama a poll worker instead of an election winner – but that’s not how it works in the real world, sadly. Indeed, much of what Jindal said last evening was spot on. He is, indeed, a good conservative who normally comes across much better than a slab of gefilte fish on a paper plate. Unfortunately, if opportunities such as this – with the world watching – are squandered, especially following an Obama-teleprompter spectacular as we saw last night, Jindal will quickly see his star begin to lose some of its luster.

First off, it was painfully ineffective – and frankly weak – to have an Obama congratulatory love fest as part of the Republican response more than five weeks into Obama’s term. Obama-mania already leaks from every orifice in this country. The last thing that I, as a conservative, need to hear again are blithering accolades for a President who just signed into law the largest slab of pig-meat in human history. The honeymoon is over. The real world has arrived.

Second, anyone who is going to go up against The Messiah will need to be at least as effective at speaking to the people, not at them. Governor Jindal was less than personable when it was his time to shine on the national stage.

Some comments on Jindal’s performance from the great Free website include:

– I’ve read about Jindal for months now, but this is the first speech I’ve seen him make. An unmitigated disaster. People who say “What about the substance, he had that” can pat themselves on the back for being about substance if they want, that’s not the issue. If no one listens to you, it doesn’t matter what you say. -Darkwolf377

– I have no idea what Jindal was rambling on about. That was bad. -Rodney Dangerfield

– There was no problem with the message. Jindal is a true Republican, not a RINO. The problem was the presentation which looked totally amateur. Also, Jindal seemed “handled” the same problem that Palin ran into last fall, despite the fact that she’s the most genuine conservative libertarian republican we’ve seen in years. -libertarian9

– Jindal’s speech was a stinker. To begin with, I’m sick of hearing republicans going on and on about how the election of 0bama was so so historic. Jindal’s delivery was poor, and his attempts at personalizing stories kind of fell flat. I’ve heard him speak before, he’s a smart guy, but he’s very dull. If he were to get the nomination in 2012 he’d draw McCain size crowds, maybe a bit bigger. Bored, unenthusiastic crowds don’t volunteer, don’t donate, and sometimes don’t even vote. –Euram

For my money, this certainly doesn’t disqualify Governor Jindal from any future considerations for national office. I believe with every fiber of my being that he is a good conservative and, most important, a very good man. If the Governor Jindal who led Louisiana during the summertime hurricane emergencies ever shows his head at the national level – and with a bit more seasoning – he will be a force to be reckoned with.

I mean that.

This morning, however, I have a bit of a pasty taste in my mouth looking back at Jindal’s appearance – or as one Freeper put it: “The man had all the interest of a cold mashed potato sandwich. With out salt.”

This forgettable performance by Jindal happened early enough in the Obamacratic regime to be rendered ultimately meaningless down the road – that is, if the Governor learns to how bring his “A-game” to the national stage.

In other news, the President spoke about stuff, hope, whatever, blah, blah …

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2009

free market, baby

free market, baby

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009

time to get a cat, mikey

time to get a cat, mikey

No one can tackle the toughest societal quandaries like a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. They don’t monkey around … or chimp around … or ape around. (I promise, Mr. Sharpton, I am not conjuring up images of black people here).

I’m not sure exactly why the approval ratings of the United States Congress are as low as they are – especially with the breakneck efficiency they have been operating under since The One took over at the White House – but ladies and gentlemen, quicker than you can ask, “Is that a monkey in your living room or are you just glad to see me,” the Captive Primate Safety Act is that much closer to being the law of the land. (Let your cerebral fanfare bellow out across the fruited plane).

And while there was no signaling white smoke billowing from the Capitol Building chimney to indicate to the world that the bill had actually cleared its first hurdle, a young page was said to be seen ceremoniously tossing bananas from the roof.

The House of Representatives was clearly not fooling around. There was no time to waste. (They were probably told to treat this bill as an Obama stimulus package). By a vote of 323 to 95, with America still in the grip of chimp chatter, and monkey-talk still dominating blogs everywhere, the House passed a bill that puts an end to the interstate commerce of primates for private domestic use.

In short, no more monkeys as pets.

It is a new day in America.

Ben Smith at the Politico writes:

“There is no reason for any private citizen to keep a primate as a pet, and this trade is driven by unscrupulous dealers who sell primates across state lines for thousands of dollars,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). “Congressional action on this animal welfare and public safety issue will complement our efforts at the state level to dry up the trade and the practice of private ownership of chimps and other primates.”

I have absolutely no problem with the legislation, nor with the Humane Society.

It’s just that with a bill of such historic proportions clearing the House – and surely on its way to easy passage in the Senate before getting the Bam seal of approval – it’s hard to truly appreciate what a triumphant first month its been under the Obamacrats.

Couple this monkey bill with the extra $13 a week Americans will be getting as handouts- er, tax cuts – thanks to Obama’s crapulous spending bill, and it is, indeed, morning in America once again.

Or is that “mourning?”

In other news, rock and roll pioneer Chuck Berry was asked earlier today what the hell he was thinking when he wrote the 1956 classic “Too Much Monkey Business.”

Mickey Dolenz and Peter Tork were also picked up for questioning, but were soon released when they explained that the 60s pop group they were members of spelled ‘Monkee” with an extra “e.”

Posted in Animal News, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009

i'm sorry ... so sorry

i'm sorry ... so sorry

Earlier this morning, CNN had a link to this blog – specifically to an article I “penned” called “Race Baiter On The Attack.” It was part of CNN’s “From The Blogs” section, underneath the headlining story of Rupert Murdoch’s apology for publishing a cartoon deemed “offensive” by old-school racists and victimized societal dinosaurs.

My “inbox” and I may never be on speaking terms again.

After all the ruckus of what should’ve been less than a non-story, it occured to me that it may, indeed, be time to resurrect and redefine the term “yellow journalism” for the twenty-first century. Fear, intimidation, apology and appeasement are becoming the cornerstones of today’s free press. The mainstream media exists almost entirely to reinforce the protective cocoon that surrounds Barack Obama. The Messiah is, for now, untouchable, and any reference to anything that could even appear critical is roundly disposed with.

Let’s be truthful … if anyone other than Barack Obama – and I mean anyone – got up in front of the media and said that federal spending was out of control and needed to be tamed after signing a nearly one trillion dollar porkfest into law, they’d be skewered (and rightly so) by every journalist, pundit, blogger, talk-show host, cab driver and columnist in creation.

The “objective” American press is a disgrace.

I was disappointed – but not surprised – to see that Robert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post (NewsCorp), felt it necessary to issue yet another apology for the now infamous dead-chimp cartoon published last week that some took as a racial attack on the President. Never have so many been so outraged over so little. It is both disturbing and embarrassing.

The paper already apologized for this, you may recall, immediately after the cartoon was originally published.

But like the less-than-relevant sniveling radio speck Don Imus did a couple of years ago, Murdoch caved.

Does Mr. Murdoch truly believe that this latest apology will finally be the end of this saga? Does anyone honestly believe that these disgraceful race merchants will go away now? Sharpton and Crew have been empowered. There’s blood in the water. They won’t stop.

When do liberals ever stop?

The haters have already called for the firing of the editor-in-chief of the Post as well as the cartoonist. What next? Will they be satisfied to see those who did the actual printing of the paper canned as well? Or the folks who supplied the ink?

As expected, many happy readers of CNN are in line with Reverend Al:

-Sharpton was right on about this one. The Post has a history of using monkeys to portray black people. Because of this I hesitate to only call it thoughtless.     –Matt

-Another neocon speaks. I thought you people died off like the dodo bird. Yes Sharpton is extreme and can be a race baiter however even a klansman would have seen the NYP’s cartoon to be racist. Rupert gave a half assed apology by saying he was sorry if anyone was upset by the cartoon; which is the equivalent of apologising for your emotions rather than his racist content … Thanks for writing your blog, you have reminded me why I left the Republican party. It was once a party of intelligent people, real conservatives (not neocons) who had complex solutions to complex problems. Now it is populated and supported by monosyllabic idiots who see everything in either black or white and hate anything different.     –Andy H

-If you’re so offended by Al sharpton then i would have to assume the sight and sound of the prejudice, racist and all out black race hating commentaries of Sean Hannity, Rush limbaugh and the rest of the ”white race is superior posse” makes u want to puke. It amazes me how people such as yourself get so upset abt sharpton but dont say or condeem any of the bigotry and racist comments tht come out of their mouths. The cartoon was racist and offensive and sharpton had every right to complain.     –Tammy

Another Neocon, says the other Andy. Too funny.

And isn’t it interesting, as demonstrated by Tammy, that all roads (naturally) lead to Rush Limbaugh?

Speaking of Rush, a blogger by the name of Ben Sprouse said he actually agreed with my assessments of Al Sharpton as a racist. However, being an a confused moral relativist, Ben attempted to paint Rush Limbaugh with an equally unflattering racist brush, going so far as offering a series of “direct quotes” from Limbaugh that supposedly illustrated his hatred of non-whites. These quotes included:

-I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

-You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

-The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

-They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

-Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

Valiant effort, Ben, but no dice.

First off, most of these so-called direct quotes are not even correct. Second, they are taken completely out of context – to such a degree that Ben ought to be embarrassed for attempting to use these as a point of argument. These “quotes” were used either to illustrate the absurdity of others who regularly attributed comments like these to Limbaugh (without proof) or they were used in demonstrating the ugliness of racism itself.

These things are verifiable with minimal effort.

There is no one in all of conservative talk radio to whom race matters least than Rush Limbaugh.

To those on the right, overwhelmingly race is a non-issue. Not so on the Left.

Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course.

But no one group finds more ways to interject matters of race into more different issues in more different ways than the modern American liberal.


Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

Should've put down more salt

Should've put down more salt

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

sharptonThis is one of those instances that force me to come clean. On Friday, I predicted that the re-emergence of the deplorable and wholly repugnant Reverend Al Sharpton onto the public stage would be short-lived – perhaps a couple of days at best – once America remembered how entirely irrelevant he really is.

I was wrong … and I wish to extend both my apologies and some cherry Maalox chewables to those who put any validity in my assertion.

The race-baiting, riot-inciting, hateful, “civil rights” windbag – who is often far from civil and hardly ever right – is in full “don’t-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-skin” mode. He has not only called for a special session of the New York City Council to keep the city from advertising in the odious, conservative-leaning New York Post, but he is also asking the FCC to give a look-see at a waiver that currently allows Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (owner of the New York Post) to own more than one newspaper and television station in the same city.

And all because of a dead chimp, a very bad spending bill and knee-jerk racism.

From WPIX TV in New York:

Outrage and protests continue to mount over The NY Post’s controversial cartoon interpreted by many as comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee that was shot and killed by police in Stamford, Connecticut last week.

“I think that they have sadly tried to reduce this to some personal fight than to really understand the level of offense,” Sharpton at a press conference on Sunday. “It seems that we cannot have a true level of democracy in terms of how the newspapers and airwaves are used in this city.”

The New York Post issued an editorial on its website last Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, and apologized to those who were offended by it.

The chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, spoke out about the cartoon on Saturday, and called for the firing of both the cartoonist and the editor-in-chief of the New York Post.

Of course he did.

While you’re at it, Mr. Bond, why not strip them of their citizenship, have them hung by their short-hairs in the village square and set them adrift on a wooden raft?

These are the same people (Bond, Sharpton, et al) who say that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay are entitled to a fair trial in this country, yet demand that a newspaper editor and freelance cartoonist lose their jobs for “offending” them.

First off, just about everyone – outside of a few crotchety, insignificant old race merchants locked in disgusting antiquity – knows what the New York Post cartoon was supposed to represent. Everyone with any sense of reality (and honesty) knows damn well that the cartoon was not meant in any way to be a racist slam at President Obama. I would wager the deed to my house that Sharpton, too, knows this.

The truth is … if it was meant as a racial incursion against Barack Obama, it wasn’t particularly smart, because President Obama did not write the bloody stimulus bill.

How much more clear can this possibly be?

If intended to denigrate Obama, it should have said, “They’ll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill.”

It was, in actuality (as has been explain thirteen million times) a direct hit at the “monkeys” in Congress – in other words, the real authors of the $787 billion pork-meat extravaganza. The bill, as seen by folks like me, was a stupid bill (to say the least), beneath the sensibilities of those who are charged to serve the American people. It was so dim-witted and ill-conceived, the cartoon lampooned, it could have been written by a temporarily world-famous chimp that just got killed in Connecticut.

It was satire.

Do the race-baiting haters think the cartoon’s artist, Sean Delonas, was just sitting around waiting for something – anything – to come across the news wire so that he might cleverly craft it into a timely racial attack on President Obama?

bondSecond, Sharpton and Bond – and all of the other melanin-obsessed whinycrats – are only happy if they believe they have the power to see people’s lives ruined on demand. It affords them credibility. That they can insist the livelihoods of people be stripped at their whim bestows upon them a position of influence they should have long ago lost.

These haters seek to control the content of what’s published and – yes – what’s broadcast.

Can there be any doubt that Sharpton has been waiting for something like this to pounce on ever since the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho” scandal of 2007?

As I wrote back then, the Imus affair was the first real battle in the war that will be waged (and is now under way) in attempting to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine“:

In the aftermath of this incredibly overblown controversy, the gauntlet has officially been thrown down by Al Sharpton in his successful attempt to vanquish Don Imus from public view. With an authority vested in him by the state of his own love of publicity, speaking like he was FDR addressing Congress after Pearl Harbor, he has fired the first real shot in what is the latest, full-bodied, unexpurgated revival in the battle to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

With Imus (temporarily) excommunicated from the church of tolerance, Sharpton has decided there are bigger fish to be fried. Said Mr. Sharpton,”It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves.”

Thank goodness he’s around.

Translated, using my Sharpton/English dictionary, his rousing words read like this: The “our” he is referring to is, of course, himself, his crony race-baiters and petrified guilt-ridden white liberals. The term “only the beginning” is self-evident – there are a whole bunch more evil, racist, sexist, whatever-ist radio talk-show scum who need to be examined and dealt with. When he uses the phrase “broad discussion,” he means that he and his ilk will dictate what is acceptable for the airwaves while the media continues to do all they can to demonstrate how unbiased and straight up the middle they are. The word “airwaves,” naturally, means talk radio.

The progression is a natural one.

Julian Bond also said, “This is tastelessness taken to the extreme and its something you expect from this publication. But for the publication to suggest that the only people who object to it are constant critics of the New York Post is beyond ridiculous.”

If not for bona-fide racists like Bond and Sharpton manufacturing this scandal and making this a “story,” would any of this really be an issue?

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , | 26 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

Political correctness has always been a malignancy to the body of truth – whatever that truth may be. The willingness of some law enforcement agencies – particularly those directly involved in the security of this country – to shun the practice of “racial profiling” in the name of fairness and objectivity, i.e. political correctness, is not only antithetical to common sense but a genuine threat to security.

In that spirit of inanity, here is a two-minute audio spot – a parody – that helps to demonstrate the absurdity of it all.

It’s an audio-only ”commercial” that runs a little over two-minutes long.

A million thanks to AT!

Posted in humor, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

women-love-apesGutless recreants. Or as Michelle Malkin puts it, “Behold a nation of cowards…”

And so it was yesterday, the Washington Post issued an apology – on Page A02 – for a cartoon issued the same day in its Sunday magazine. Call it a pre-emptive move, if you like. Say it was cautionary, if it suits you.

I prefer any of the following: intimidated, terrified, frightened, whipped, scared, owned, yellow, lily-livered, liberal … it all works.

Indeed, master (race) baiter Al Sharpton has suddenly become important again, screeching racism as only he can do, muscling the FCC and the New York City council, along with the New York Post, after a completely racially benign cartoon published last week has given relics like him something to do.

The Washington Post decided to bend themselves over the davenport voluntarily – before being bullied into doing so by Sharpton and company – by issuing the following apology for a cartoon that is about as racist as Sean Penn is conservative:

The headline, illustration and text of “Below the Beltway,” a column in The Washington Post Magazine today, may cause offense to readers. The magazine was printed before a widely publicized incident last week in which a chimpanzee attacked and badly mauled a woman in Stamford, Conn. In addition, the image and text inadvertently may conjure racial stereotypes that The Post does not countenance. We regret the lapse.

Lapse. Funny word to use there.

Here’s the thing …

The story that this cartoon is attached to has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with politics, President Obama, blacks, or anything of the nature. There is nothing about race anywhere in this article, nor is it implied in any way. It is actually a piece written by Gene Weingarten called “Monkey Business – The good news for men: Women love apes.” It’s all about a scientific study dealing with what arouses men and women.

The study suggests that while straight men were only aroused by images of women (and gay men aroused only by men), women “were turned on by absolutely everything … including videos of bonobos having sex. Bonobos are apes.”

Yet, the spineless Washington Post decided that it was prudent to cut off the race-baiting brigades at the pass before the Sharptonites started strong-arming them.

Such courage.

Word has it that the WaPo research team is combing through Post articles dating back to 1877, so that they might prepare apologies for the use of such phrases as “black eye,” “monkey around,” “ace of spades,” “guerilla warfare (before spellcheck)” and “dark chocolate.”

Retroactive apologies are also in the works for any and all articles about filmmaker David Lynch published through 2009, and any articles dating back to 1991 in the arena of computer technology that insensitively made reference to master drives and slave drives.

Posted in American culture, Animal News, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 21, 2009

obama-jesusTwenty-first Century America … where a man who associated with a known-terrorist can land the top spot in Washington; where an unaccomplished community organizer who was mentored by a racist anti-American reverend can become the Big Cheese; where a man who lied to the American people on numerous occasions about “earmarks” in the largest wasteful spending bill in all of human history can lead the free world; where a man who has done nothing but fear-monger Americans with falsehoods on the state of the economy can be called “leader;” where a man who has suspended ongoing trials of known terrorists at Guantanamo Bay can be called Commander-In-Chief; where a man who has been President for a little less than five lousy weeks is polled as being more of a hero than Jesus, Ghandi, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – that according to a new Harris Interactive Poll.

Ladies and Gentleman … Meet President Barack Obama – the greatest human being that has ever existed.

Allow me to summon some of that “courage” and dispel any misgivings about any “cowardice” I may be perceived as having, at least according to an intellectual relic, Attorney General Eric Holder (who called America a nation of cowards when it comes to matters of race).

How’s this for being brave – and let’s see how much honesty liberals are willing to face …

Three words … because he’s black.

If this poll of “heroes” had anything to do with substance, President Obama would be among those tallying the poll, not topping it.

One thing that was somewhat surprising in this poll of over 2,600 Americans … George W. Bush (hated and ridiculed in story and song) apparently made the top ten – and ahead of God, who ranked 11th.

And one absolute travesty of note in this poll … George Washington, arguably the greatest American of them all, ranked 16th – tied with (grab your air sick bags) Bill Clinton and Colin Powell.

According to Fox News:

Of the multiple reasons participants gave to explain their choices of heroes, the ones most cited is, “Doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences” with 89 percent, “Not giving up until the goal is accomplished” with 83 percent and “Doing more than what other people expect of them,” with 82 percent. Also popular were “Overcoming adversity” and “Staying level-headed in a crisis.”

In the first Harris Poll asking this question in 2001, Jesus came in first, followed by the Rev. King, Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresea.

Seeing as Obama’s pig-meat spending bill has only just been signed into law, the excuse of “not giving up until the goal is accomplished” is meaningless – unless simply passing the damn thing, regardless of what was in it, counts as accomplishment. (See my article BAM’S BILL HAS (SLIM) MAJORITY SUPPORT … 37% SUFFER FROM DO-SOMETHING DISEASE).

And what’s this nonsense about “overcoming adversity?”

Are they serious?

Exactly what adversity did Bam have to contend with in his run for the Presidency? Faulty teleprompters? The inability to eat his waffles in peace? This man was The Chose One from jump street. He was elevated, protected, anointed and coronated by America’s free and objective press. Even longtime Democrat bed buddies like Hillary Clinton didn’t stand a chance against the Messianic tide. The maverick, John McCain – once the darling of the New York Times – was tossed back to our side of the yard like so much moldy bread. Before Obama even took the oath of office, streets and schools were being renamed for him. Holidays were even created in his honor.


Number 11 help us.

Update: February 21, 2009 – 5:05 PM

A blogger at Free called mcjordansc commented:

Read the article. There was no list of names from which to choose. When asked who your hero is, most people, of the top of their head, would say their father or mother. If naming famous person, the sitting President always has an advantage. Take the same poll and offer names – Jesus, Obama, Reagan, Lincoln, Washing, etc. from which you have to choose and I doubt Obama places in the top three. This is a non-story.

Respectfully, the idea of whether it is a “story” or not is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and I admit to seeing it as such – and an interesting one at that.

It’s true that a list of names was not provided to those who were polled, but it is interesting to note that when those who were polled were asked who they admired enough to be a hero, only 8% said “father” (down 5% from 2001), and only 6% said “mother” (down 3% from 2001).

(To be fair, the percentage of those who chose a “public figure” as a hero did also go down in this poll from the 2001 poll – by 8%.)
To the best of my knowledge, this poll was an “off the top their head” poll.

It’s sad that so few thought to choose “father” or “mother” off the top of their heads when asked to pick a hero without the benefit of a list.

See the report here.

Posted in American culture, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 21, 2009


Because Vice President Joe Biden hadn’t said anything uncommonly obtuse in a couple of days (as of Thursday morning), I took a few minutes to scour news sites and blogs to be sure he wasn’t ill or out of the country. Admittedly, Biden media absences make life a little less fun. Like a swear jar, I have a Biden gaffe jar. (I’m only seven gaffes away from a plasma TV).

My concern was real.

I feared he might have fallen asleep somewhere without a working alarm or was possibly caught in the Dupont Circle roundabout in Washington, D.C. looking for the his opportunity to exit onto Massachusetts Avenue. (It’s not easy being Joe). True, there’s always Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to induce a good chuckle (or acid reflux), but no one quite embodies cerebral cobwebs and tumbleweeds like our new Vice President.

And so it was, that during a visit to the CIA on Thursday to swear in Leon Panetta as the agency’s new director, that Vice President Biden demonstrated why liberals simply cannot be trusted with matters of national security. Speaking at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, Biden said the Bush administration’s intelligence policies “gave Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool.”

Among his many soaring talents – plagiarism, for example – is not only his ability to show how classless he is by openly criticizing a previous administration’s policies (that have kept us safe for seven years), but his knack of grasping real world situations with the skill-set of a college freshman in a “World Cultures” class.

Think about the unbending brilliance of what the Veep is saying here. Because of President Bush and his beastly, mean-spirited, hideous, inhumane, war-hungry intelligence policies, otherwise peaceful or agnostic Muslims who most likely spent their days watching soccer matches on televisions at the local hookah bar were suddenly inspired to become bomb-strapping, baby-killing, plane smashing evil terrorists. Bush’s policies weren’t just your everyday off-the-rack recruiting tool – they were a powerful recruiting tool.

This malformed, gullible – and frankly, dangerous – way of thinking suggests that the opposite must be true – that is, treating members of Al Qaeda (or any terrorists) with the utmost kindness and consideration will keep recruitment low and work toward forging peace.

It’s Democrat-speak.

How about looking at Guantanamo Bay to see how a fuzzy-bunny approach works toward subduing human debris?

The prisoners there, by all accounts – including one of the most fascinating and comprehensive looks at Gitmo written by Colonel Gordon Cucullu in a book called Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay are afforded everything they request. Their comfort levels are tended to with a degree of consideration rivaling some high-end health spas in the United States. These vermin are treated far better than they deserve to be by the highly trained and stupendously disciplined guards of Gitmo – who for their good work, are regularly pelted with feces, semen, urine and are often subject to physical abuse.

Bush must’ve really made them mad.

How dare the Cowboy from Crawford disrupt the halo and falafel garden parties that were taking place in the Islamic world before America’s intelligence policies became a powerful recruiting tool.

Thus, as we have seen during the new administration’s first month of command, the responsible road to travel – the way to truly ensure American safety – is to order the facility at Guantanamo Bay closed, put an end to “harsh interrogation methods,” make it mandatory for the CIA to report all “detainees” to the Red Cross, order the cessation of CIA secret overseas detention programs, and state publicly, with the world watching, that the United States was wrong to make the poor terrorists angry.

We’ll do better this time.

That’ll make them love us.

(That sound you hear is laughter cascading from terror cells the world over).

Oh yeah … and one other thing … Biden also said:

The proliferation of dangerous weapons and technologies threatens our security. New challenges to the established order, such as climate change and other not yet known to us challenges, will emerge.

Actually, the proliferation of terrorist thugs who need to be dead, as well as bad value systems, threaten our security, Mr. Biden.

But probably not as much as climate change … or second-hand smoke.

Posted in Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 20, 2009

sharpton_caricatureLike cockroaches and reality television, old race-baiters die hard. The truth is, however, there just hasn’t been a whole lot for Al Sharpton to do in recent times, except maybe tinker around with his Turbo Tax software. The papers simply aren’t plump with bogus stories of young black girls being raped by white cops anymore, or of nooses being hung from trees by young whites.

Not like they used to.

Those were the days, eh Al?

Today, it’s hard to imagine anyone more insignificant or more detached from the societal realities of American life than Reverend Al. After all, what’s an old blowhard with bad hair to do now that a black man has been elected President of the United States and Donald Trump has already chosen the cast of Celebrity Apprentice?

Visions of Sharpton wandering the floors of his home waiting for something – anything – to happen that would require him to spring into action as a civil rights crusader aren’t difficult to conjure.

Enter the New York Post – my candidate for the Attaboy Award for February 2009.

The Post has decided not to take the crawling-on-hands-and-knees-for Sharpton’s-forgiveness approach mastered so brilliantly by radio talker Don Imus in 2007 after he made his silly – and now infamous – “nappy-headed-hos” comment (in reference to the Rutgers girls basketball team) that cost him his jobs at both MSNBC and CBS Radio.

The Post is not rolling over.

On Wednesday, they published a cartoon by artist Sean Delonas that brought Big Al scurrying (or rumbling) out of his Rice Chex and Twinkie hibernation to cry racism. (Fancy that). The cartoon was nothing more than effective commentary on a very bad spending bill signed by President Obama coupled with the very bizarre story (that has captured headlines everywhere) of a chimp shot dead by police in Connecticut after it attacked a house guest. Al and Company have called it offensive, because it supposedly depicts President Obama as a chimp, and also because it depicts him as dead.

These people really need something more to do with their days.

In truth, the most “offensive” aspect of the whole thing is that the Post cartoon will keep Sharpton’s face (and voice) in public view for a couple of days until America is reminded of how irrelevant he is.

On Thursday evening, the Post responded to the absolute inanity surrounding this cartoon and its phony controversy:

Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon – caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut – has created considerable controversy. It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.


But it has been taken as something else – as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize. However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.


The cartoon is very funny and very smart … but let me correct the nothing-better-to-do Sharpton race warriors on something.

Obama didn’t write the bill.

True, it is certainly his in the sense that he is the President and it was written with his blessing and misguidance, but the “chimps” here – in the most literal sense – would be Pelosi and company (and all of the other Capitol Hill morons who shaped it into what it was when it was signed).
Another thing … can so-called legitimate news outlets stop affording this lying, hurtful, riot inciting, unapologetic, race-jockey credibility as some sort of arbiter of all that is just and fair?

To CNN, for example, he is a civil rights activist:

A New York Post cartoon Wednesday drew fire from civil rights activist Al Sharpton and others who say the drawing invokes historically racist images in suggesting an ape wrote President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.

Barf bag, please.

Sharpton is as much a civil rights activist as Al Gore is a scientist.

Sean Delonas, creator of the extraordinarily clever cartoon, said in a brief interview with CNN, “Absolutely friggin’ ridiculous. Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon. It’s about the economic stimulus bill.”
I applaude the New York Post for not throwing Delonas under the bus and for taking the correct steadfast approach. Some may legitimately argue that the Post shouldn’t have even offered the apology they did, but that didn’t bother me.

I have no problem with it because the Post ultimately asserted what we all know to be true in no uncertain terms – that whenever there is any segment of the media that expresses a conservative point of view, it is swiftly criticized, labeled and attacked by any number of victims’ groups, special interest brigades, publicity-starved leftists or Oprah Winfrey with the predictable arsenal of “-ists” and “-phobes.”

Good for you, Post.











Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2009

pork_steaksIn a Fox News poll released today, a slim majority of Americans – 51% – support Barack Obama’s $787 billion pig meat bonanza, signed into law on Tuesday (four days after it had to be passed by Congress, lest the nation disintegrate into oblivion). The poll also says that 40% of Americans oppose it.

But here’s the kicker.

As Dana Blanton writes:

For those supporting the stimulus bill, the top reason is because it was seen as the best option and we “have to do something” (37 percent). Other main reasons include the spending included in the bill (17 percent), belief in Barack Obama and the Democrats (14 percent), and simple belief the plan will work (11 percent).

That should be astonishing to me, but it isn’t. (After watching the salivation and bootlicking adulation at Obama’s Fort Myers townhall meeting last week, nothing surprises me). 37% of Americans say that Obama’s craptacular spending bill was the best option because something – anything – had to be done. It didn’t matter what it was, apparently, just as long as something got done. The Obamacrats could have allocated billions of dollars to the study of Appalachian toe jam, or the nasal mucus eating habits of Berkeley, California city council members, and it wouldn’t have mattered, as long as something was done.

Yes, the dreaded “do something” virus, fabled in story and song.

Please note this actual e-mail exchange between myself and a liberal friend whom I will call “Dexter,” (because he doesn’t want me to use his real name, Len). My assertion in the e-mail is untrue, by the way. I was only having some fun.

Me: Have you read this thing at all? Be honest. You haven’t. Look on Page 822, Dexter. There is almost $700 million dollars being directed toward the study of “Pityriasis capitis prevention” – dandruff! Are you kidding?

Dexter: You’re a one-trick pony, my friend. Gripe, gripe. Deal with it. It’s the law. And when the economy comes around, it’ll be interesting to hear your complaints then.


The idea that nearly a billion was being spent on dandruff seemed not to phase him. Only after four or five more exchanges did he realize that I was making it up, to which he wrote, “But do you disagree that medical research is a good thing at least?”


Note that, according to the poll, less than one-fifth of Americans cited actually having any faith in the Obamacrats as their main reason for supporting the bill, while just over ten percent said they supported the measure because they actually believe it will work.

Lord, help us.

Also interesting to note is that while 58% of Americans believe some sort of legislation was necessary, almost one-fourth of them were against the plan that Obama signed into law. And better than one-half of Americans say the bill is best characterized as a “spending bill” instead of a “stimulus” bill.

Blanton also writes:

Another word about pork — or specifically “porky amendments” as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called them when he said recently Americans “really don’t care” if the stimulus bill included earmarks and pork spending. The poll finds Americans disagree with Schumer, as a large 79 percent majority says they do care, including most Democrats (76 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (78 percent).

Charles Schumer misspoke?

You don’t say.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 18, 2009

rinoFrom the “What The Hell Is Happening To My Country” file … or the “Phony Republicans, Get Lost” file …

I have to believe that somewhere in this nation are people who have actually lived through a recession before. The people of the United States cannot possibly be this frail, this spineless, this whiny and thin-skinned. A nation of rugged individualists simply could not have been fundamentally transformed into a dominion of unsure, frightened, dependant crybabies this quickly. The realities of an economic downturn cannot be so unique and so extraordinary as to inspire such intellectual depravity and idiocy from those charged with power. The so-called leadership in Washington already has enough of its citizens thinking that the country is teetering on complete collapse. Do we now need terrified, jelly-spined Republicans going along with the Obamacratic vision of nationalizing banks?

Dammit, we are not Sweden … or are we?

From the Financial Times of London:

Long regarded in the US as a folly of Europeans, nationalisation is gaining rapid acceptance among Washington opinion-formers – and not just with Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman. Perhaps stranger still, many of those talking about nationalising banks are Republicans.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agree with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” says Mr Graham.


Simply stunning.

By all means … if it worked in Sweden – whose entire population totals less than half of New York City’s metropolitan area alone – it ought to be a cinch to click here in the United States. After all, the efficiency with which government has been shown to operate speaks for itself.

How dare these petrified, lily-livered Republicrats lend any credibility whatsoever to Obamacratic big-government ideas by even suggesting that nationalizing American banks is an option. That such concepts are even considered as viable solutions in challengeing times is more frightening than the suggestion itself – particularly from those in the Republican Party.

It’s interesting how some on “our side” are instinctively quick to relinquish liberties when times are tough.

I’m curious where Senator John McCain falls on this issue.

President Obama said that the signing of the $787 billion porktabulous spending bill into law would not immediately turn the economy around, but that it was, in fact, the “beginning of the end.”

Sadly, he may be right.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

Spread it out, and they will spend … that’s what Democrats say.

Okay then.

I’m ready to do my part by giving this economy a good swift kick in the pants.

Let’s see … Eight dollars will almost get me a pack of cigarettes in New York City – and at some places in town, a full one. Eight bucks, however, will not be enough to get me across the Verrazano Bridge into Staten Island by car (that’s $10.00), but I would be able to take four subway rides. It’ll also score me a McDonalds double quarter-pounder value meal in Manhattan, or a week-and-a-half of New York Times home delivery at fifty percent off the regular subscription rate. For that kind of money, I can take home about a third of a pot roast, or just under two jars of Manischewitz Premium Gold Gefilte Fish.

In other words, I’d better start reworking my budget now … the Obama “tax cut” is coming to town.

To be fair, the Obama “tax cut” plan – similar to George W. Bush’s “stimulus rebate” check dispersal in 2008 (but only spread out over time) – is slated to afford taxpayers about $13 a week in extra spending cash beginning in June, but then fall back to about $8 at the beginning of next year. That means for the second half of this year, people like me will be able to afford an extra box of Bubba Burgers and a roll of Viva paper towels … or three heads of lettuce and a couple of gallons of diesel fuel … or almost fifteen boxes of chicklets.

Look out, economy … here we come.

And how do we know this will work? 

Because the illustrious and never-interesting Charles Schumer, Senator from New York, gave his ringing endorsement to the plan. Drawing eloquently from his bag of crippled cognition, he said, “Instead of giving one paycheck at once…” (as opposed to giving one paycheck twice, I suppose) “… which George Bush did, and it really didn’t stimulate the economy, the economists said ‘stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going.’ ”

Whether or not America’s retailers are bracing for a stampede of eight-dollar power shoppers is unclear.

What is clear is that Democrats simply don’t get it.

Schumer is right in that George Bush’s ridiculous stimulus debacle did nothing to jumpstart the economy … but being a Democrat, Schumer lives and operates by the credo “If something fails, do it again!”

While it is true that people will tend to spend more if they see more money in their paychecks on a regular basis, insignificant rebates such as these over a limited stretch of time is hardly the way to get people digging into their wallets. Remember, the entirety of each Obama “cut” is a mere $400 for each individual and $800 for each couple.

I hate to be the one to sneeze on someone’s Pop Tart, but this is sheer idiocy. The impact of such “cuts” will be barely perceptible, if at all.

Not only is this $13 a week nonsense not a “tax cut,” but the fact that these “cuts” are not permanent will dissuade people from the kind of purchases needed to get the economy rolling again.

From Fox News:

Some worry the cut is not enough to encourage consumers to go out and spend. And since two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, the effectiveness of the tax cut in spurring workers to open their wallets is key to an economic revival.

“The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C. “We created more new government than we did jobs and the substance and process cannot repeat itself.”

Moody’s economist Mark Zandi also says the nature of the tax cut could reduce the number of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus package.

“With regard to how much of the tax cut’s going to spent for individuals, the White House, I think, is assuming that people are going to behave as if that tax cut is permanent, and I doubt that will be the case,” he said.


The ability of people to buy an extra box of Swiffers on a weekly basis thanks to distributed rebates that will total far less to each working person than what George Bush offered in his failed attempt at stimulus will do positively nothing for the economy.

Compare someone who is given a genuine tax cut – that is, an actual reduction in the percentage of the tax being paid resulting in the ability to keep (and spend) more of one’s own money – with someone getting miniscule rebates for a limited period of time. People are less likely to spend when they know the boost in take home money – in this case, a whopping $13 a week through the end of the year – is temporary.  However, if a genuine cut in taxes is made permanent, then people can more reliably count on that extra money being there and budget accordingly. People are more likely to spend when they have more of their own money.

I’m wondering if Chuck Schumer is openly advocating for struggling taxpayers to take on additional monthly payments for items such as washing machines and big screen televisions using “stimulus money” knowing that it will run out long before the items have been paid off.

Then what?

More outstanding debt on top of growing debt?

I guess if it’s okay for the government, it’s okay for Johnny Lunch Bucket.


Update: February 17, 2009 – 5:35 PM

A blogger at FREE REPUBLIC.COM called theDentist commented on my observation that the $8.00 a week “tax cut” wouldn’t even be enough money to get across the Verrazano Bridge, from Brooklyn to Staten Island, seeing as the toll is $10.00.

He wrote:  “Well, that’ll get you 80% across. From there, you jump like the rest of us.”

Too funny.


the fact that it costs $10.00 to cross the Verrazano Bridge from Brooklyn into Staten island

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009



These pictures of what remains of Shea Stadium were taken today by Tom Kaminski from WCBS-AM’s Chopper 880. You can see more of Tom’s photos of Shea Stadium on its death bed here.

Thanks also to Metsblog.

Rumor has it that what remains of Shea will be gone by tomorrow.

Alot of memories were made there over the years. They haven’t always been the most noteworthy of moments, but they were – for better or worse – mine … and I cherish them. From the highest highs to the most miserable, heart-shattering lows, I admit that I am going to miss that third-world, cookie-cutter ball park I used to call my second summertime home.

Thanks for the memories.

Now, stop choking, okay?

Posted in New York Mets, Sports | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009


With the Obamacrats in charge of things now, one thing this country does not need is a new idea from a foreign nation on how to raise revenue in the form a brand new tax. Heaven knows that American liberals are practically second-to-none – veritable trendsetters and mold breakers – at attempting to siphon money from the private sector in the name of reinvestment and stimulus.

In that spirit, one can only hope that Democrats aren’t paying too much attention to the news coming from Down Under, namely that Australia wants to attack its water shortage woes by charging its citizens by the flush – a genuine toilet tax.

From Perth Now:

The scheme would replace the current system, which sees sewage charges based on a home’s value – not its waste water output.

CSIRO Policy and Economic Research Unit member Jim McColl and Adelaide University Water Management Professor Mike Young plan to promote the move to state and federal politicians and experts across the country.

“It would encourage people to reduce their sewage output by taking shorter showers, recycling washing machine water or connecting rainwater tanks to internal plumbing to reduce their charges,” Professor Young said.

“Some people may go as far as not flushing their toilet as often because the less sewage you produce, the less sewage rate you pay.”

The measure is meant to curb water usage as Australia deals with drought.

Admittedly, it is interesting to know that under current conditions, it is cheaper for Aussies to “use the facilities” in a slum than, say, in an upper middle-class three bedroom home.

In short, if you live in a nicer place, you pay more for the privilege to poop.

This new proposal, by contrast, would be a pay-as-you-go system (pun intended).

Professor Young said a sewage pricing plan, like the one proposed, was already used in the US.

“In places like the City of Bellaire, Texas (a virtual suburb of Houston), they do it and the system seems to work,” he said.

“As nearly all of (the homes in) mainland Australia’s cities and towns already have water meters, introduction of a volumetric charge, such as that used in the City of Bellaire, would not be difficult to implement.”

This sounds like the type of thing that Democrats would sing about around the campfire.

It wouldn’t even be inconceivable to hear Vice President Joe Biden equate patriotism with a little less flushing – or to corrolate one’s allegiance to America with a substantial cutback on bathroom tissue.

I can say this … if my Uncle Burt (rest in peace) was still here, and the flush tax had been implemented while he was alive, the family would have went bankrupt in 1973.


Update:  February 17, 2009 – 6:27 PM

Based on some interesting comments over at FREE REPUBLIC.COM, I wanted to clarify why this story is both funny and concerning to me.

Indeed, here in the United States, the vast majority of Americans pay their water and sewage bills based on usage. But that’s not exactly what this Australian measure aims to do – not in the same sense that most Americans understand it.

Along with a yet to be determined base rate, Aussies are going to be taxed, quite literally, by the flush. And don’t think for a moment this will be any sort of money saver for Aussies. Nowhere in the story is there any mention of how this will ease sewage rates or how its projected to be good for consumers economically.

There’s no question that the old way of charging people based on the value of their property is about as whacked as it gets, but does anyone honestly think that Australia is now willing to give up on some of the revnues generated from sewage fees with this new proposed system?

This is only about (supposedly) saving water … and ultimately, more government involvement in the most personal of activities.

Note that in the story, a suburban community of Houston, Texas was cited as an example of where such a pricing scheme has worked. If this were your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, everyday sewage pricing scheme – as is used practically everywhere across the United States – the story would have specified that Australia is trying to move toward a system commonly used all over America.

It did not.

This is a tax-per-flush scheme.

I sincerely hope Democrats are not paying attention.

Posted in Economy, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009

Probably not a good choice

Probably not a good choice


Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2009

Topeka, Kansas - state capital

Topeka, Kansas - state capital

Politically speaking, I find that Republicans are far more likable when they behave like Republicans.

And when they actually take principled stands on issues that will almost certainly prove unpopular with large segments of the population, they’re downright adorable.

There aren’t a whole hell of a lot of Republicans here in New York – and I am including those who actually have “R”s after their names – which is why it behooves many of us Empire Staters who wish to find principled Republicans to look southward or westward into the vast expanse of “flyover” country – where the soul of America really resides.

Today, I invite those of you taking notes to take a look at Kansas. (For those on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, it’s one of America’s 57 states, located west of twelfth Avenue, where the corn and stuff is).

Kansas is out of money. In fact, they’ve put a halt on issuing income tax refund checks. They’re even facing the possibility of not being able to pay state employees, this according to the State’s Budget Director.

(Here’s where Republicans act like Republicans).

Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, has suggested that nearly a quarter-billion dollars be transferred from other state accounts to cover the money shortages.

Kansas Republicans have said … no way, baby.

John Hanna from the Associated Press writes:

Budget Director Duane Goossen said that without the money, he’s not sure the state can meet its payroll. State employees are due to be paid again Friday.

GOP leaders are hoping to pressure Sebelius into signing a bill making $326 million in adjustments to the budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
Legislators approved that bill last week, but it has not reached her desk.

The council was scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. Monday, but Goossen said Sebelius canceled the meeting because Republican leaders told her that they would not authorize the internal borrowing.

In other words, Sebelius had better agree to start getting Kansas’ financial house in order by signing the legislation designed to tend to Kansas’ budget issues before Republicans agree to the immediate measure of borrowing from Peter’s account to keep Paul afloat.

Hanna explains:

Some Republicans question whether that borrowing would be legal. When the state issues a certificate, it must promise that the money can be paid back by the end of the fiscal year. But the state already is projected to have a deficit in the current budget.

The legislation approved last week is designed to fix that.

Goossen said Republicans told Sebelius they want her to sign that bill first. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, called the tactic “blackmail.”

Damn right it is.

And more evidence that it really does matter who We The People put into the legislature, whether it be at the state level or the national level.

I’ve got 787 billion reasons that prove I am right.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Good Republicans | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2009


What do John Lennon and Barack Obama have in common, you may ask? (There isn’t enough bandwidth in the Western Hemisphere to sufficiently respond).

The answer … they both rejected Winston Churchill.

Lennon did so when he publicly renounced his birth name of John Winston Lennon in favor of John Ono Lennon, although never legally. (His mother named him Winston after being overcome with an irresistible wave of patriotism as the Battle of Britain waged in 1940).

Obama rejected Churchill by returning a prized bronze bust of the great statesman and wartime leader (created by Sir Jacob Epstein) that was loaned to the White House by Great Britain after the 9/11 attacks.

It was displayed proudly and prominently in the Oval Office through all of President Bush’s two terms, but when the Brits graciously offered the new President the opportunity to keep it for another four years, Barack Obama opted to send it back.

A bust of Abraham Lincoln now sits where Churchill did in the Oval Office.

And why, pray tell, was President Obama so quick to give the heave-ho to Churchill’s head?

The answer may be very personal.

Tim Shipman from the UK Telegraph writes:

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill’s second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President’s grandfather.

The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.

The President is certainly entitled to feel as he wants. For all I care, he can keep a head of lettuce carved to look like Keanu Reeves on his night stand.

I simply find the liberal mind fascinating – like I do a derailed subway car, or the lives of dung beetles.

The article makes reference to President Obama’s affinity and high regard for Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, as Shipman writes: “Mr Obama … prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln,” while many American politicians are wont to quote Churchill.

Again, he is certainly entitled to do so, and I have no qualms about it. Lincoln is very quotable, obviously.

But it fascinates me to try and pinpoint reasons behind what people do – particularly powerful leftists who associate with known domestic terrorists, racist clergy and corrupt community organizations.

For instance, one thing conservatives do far better than liberals is place a correct context on historical events. Leftists, by contrast, frame every argument and every position around how they feel at any given moment. Emoting is the general mechanism by which liberals set policy.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, as an example, are seen as nothing but dead white slave holders to many on left – certainly by most of the Chomsky/Zinn intelligencia that dominate the overwhelming vast majority of American universities – which automatically discredits everything else they (and many of the other Founding Fathers) ever accomplished in their remarkable lives.

Therefore, I wonder if Obama’s “liberal context filter” is functioning properly when it comes to Abraham Lincoln. (If he weren’t a lib, I wouldn’t even ask).

Here are two Lincoln quotes I wonder if we’ll hear come from the lips of our President anytime soon.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan A Douglas - debating slavery

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan A Douglas - debating slavery

The first is famously taken from the fourth Lincoln/Douglas debate of 1858. The second actually comes from a letter Lincoln wrote to renouned newspaper editor Horace Greeley in August, 1862.

My point is neither to denigrate Lincoln nor play “gotcha” with President Obama.

Like most conservatives, context is everything. I am perfectly willing (and able) to read these quotes in their proper context. These words – well known and oft-quoted – do not diminish or elevate what I already think of our 16th president. I am capable of taking them for what they were in the period they were spoken and written. Thus, any reasonable thinking person would have to assume, given Obama’s admiration of him, that Lincoln’s controversial views on issues of race and slavery are perfectly known. Lincoln is, after all, the Great Emancipator.

So the question … if those words were spoken by anyone other than Lincoln, would that person still be held in high regard, or just thrown in with Jefferson, Washington and other Founders who had slaves?

Would Lincoln’s head be allowed a coveted place in the Oval Office?

Let’s face it … Honest Abe didn’t exactly erect statues to American blacks. He certainly wasn’t their unabashed cheerleader during America’s most divisive period. Maybe because he didn’t own slaves he is given a pass. (It’s hard to make sense of the liberal mind sometimes).

An interesting point to ponder is the fact that Obama is not descended from American slaves, so perhaps Lincoln’s words are less “personal” to him then the events of the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya and Churchill’s role in what happened to his grandfather . Perhaps Obama is able to keep some of Lincoln’s “less than embracing” words about blacks in proper historical context and admire him for other things.

Obama is a liberal’s liberal (and then some) … and like dung beetles, somehow intrigue me … like a tumor … sort of.


Posted in American History, Obama's first 100 days, Slavery, World History | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 15, 2009

foreclosureIt pays when someone else pays.

I initially thought President Obama was going to turn a blind eye and neglect the housing crisis in his porktabulous $787 billion spending bill in favor of doorknobs, STD awareness, hybrid cars and abandoned mine sites. It looks like I couldn’t be more wrong … and it took an article I read at the Indy Mind blog to bring it to my attention. (Thanks a million, Arkady).

Nothing apparently gets by President Obama – that is, except the truth, American values and the need to keep terrorists caged. Housing, as it turns out, is a huge priority for our 44th Chief Executive. To that end, Obama is, in fact, going to push a boatload of money toward housing – $13.5 billion in total, according to the bill he is expected to sign on Tuesday.

However, in the spirit of clarity, it should be noted that all of that critical stimulus money – needed, we were told, in short order to keep the United States breathing- is being directed toward “section 8 housing, low-income and public housing.” And two billion of that money is going toward “abandoned and foreclosed homes.”

How nice.

Now, that’s what I call stimulating.

(Boy, do I feel like a sucker. I should have let the house go into foreclosure).

The first question that comes to mind is … if a home has already been abandoned, what is the federal government  supposed to do with it, to it, or for it, to stimulate the economy?

The second question that pops into my head is … if the home has been foreclosed on, what is the federal government  supposed to do with it, to it, or for it, to stimulate the economy?

Whatever it is … it is going to cost at least two billion bucks.

Please explain it to me. I’m willing to learn.

Pouring money into Section 8 housing and inner city housing projects, funded by taxpayers who actually pay their mortgages on time, for such inspiring economic catalysts as “Grants and loans for green investment” (for example), to the tune of over a half-billion dollars, seems to concern no one outside of conservatives and people who think. In Obama-speak, this is stimulus, and it will save America.

Admittedly, the bounds of my imagination may be more stunted than the visionaries on Capitol Hill, but what on Earth exactly is “green investment?” And how is it to be implemented in Section 8 housing? And how in hell is it stimulus? What exactly are we talking about here?

Solar-powered food stamps?

Reusable bathroom tissue?

Carbon credit magnets for the kitchen?

As Arkady at Indy Mind writes, $13.5 billion housing dollars breaks down this way:

-Public housing capital improvements: $3,000,000,000
-Public housing renovations and energy conservation investments: $1,000,000,000
-Native American housing block grants: $510,000,000
-Community development funding: $1,000,000,000
-Emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes: $2,000,000,000
-Additional capital investments in low-income housing tax credit projects: $2,250,000,000
-Homelessness prevention and re-housing: $1,500,000,000
-Assistance to owners of properties receiving section 8 assistance: $2,000,000,000
-Grants and loans for green investment in section 8 properties: $250,000,000

Homelessness prevention and re-housing” dangles a $1.5 billion price tag?

And thank the Lord those “Native American Housing Block Grants” are finally coming through. It is unlikely this country would see an economic recovery without it.

Arkady finishes his post this way:

Call me old fashioned, but I do not believe that this country amounted to greatness due to punishing and robbing those that do everything right only to reward those that did everything wrong. A trend like this cannot continue and must not continue, America’s stability depends on it.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009

obama_liarI cannot even imagine the magnitude of the cacophonous outcry all of us would be hearing right now from every seedy nook and cranny of the main-stream media had Republicans been in control of both the White House and Congress while an unread, unscrutinized, unvetted, who-did-it-and-ran spending bill passed both houses before anyone could as much as inhale.

Democrats orchestrated a legislative drive-by shooting for the ages, with the fleetness of a goose suffering from dysentery, sending to the President’s desk a hunk of burning pig-meat over a thousand pages long that no one outside of speed readers and time travelers could possibly find the time to go through before it was put up for a vote. As quickly as it appeared from the joint committee, it was shoved through the House, and by Friday evening, it was in and out of the Senate.

Just like that.


Thanks for coming.

And now, Nancy Pelosi and company are gone, scattered about – off to Rome, or wherever.

Had such a thing occurred under the watch of, say, George W. Bush, the scale of outrage and disdain that would be emanating from every Democrat able to gurgle into a live microphone would be literally unimaginable.

And because the mainstream media share a bunk and toothbrush with Obamacrats, we the people would never hear the end of it.

Just think of how many blood vessels Senator Chuck Schumer would explode carrying on about fascist Republicans. Nancy Pelosi would spring a leak yelling about right-wing tyranny and a culture of corruption unlike this nation has ever seen. Barney Frank would be speed-bitching about totalitarianism to the point that he would actually be pronouncing his “r”s and “w”s correctly. Talk would begin in earnest about impeachment. Television talking-skulls would be whining about checks and balances and dictatorships and the death of democracy. Hitlerian references and Stalinist comparisons would be running rampant. There’d be Christiane Amanpour documentaries on CNN.

But this hijacking was not a GOP affair. It was, rather, a study in expedience conducted by the party of change – or “fundamental transformation,” as it were.

With endless promises of unprecedented transparency and openness with the American people as their hallmark, the Democrats have set the gold standard for scare tactics, using the so-called impending collapse of the entire American financial system as leverage, running the most expensive spending bill the world has ever seen, stuffed and puffed with billions upon billions of non-stimulating pet projects, through the United States Congress at breakneck speed without affording politician or civilian alike the opportunity to read the damn thing.

And why?

Because it was necessary to save the country from certain ruin.

They said so, despite example after example proving that government interference of this nature is detrimental to the American economy. Something had to be done, they said, despite the fact that this recession does not even compare to the one that Ronald Reagan faced in the early 1980s. “Catastrophe” they cried if this pig-meat was not passed. “Irreversible” they screamed if Congress did not act … immediately.

And with a precision of a crack commando unit, the Democrats rammed over a thousand pages of undeciphered, irresponsible gobs of back-breaking pork through both houses of Congress without a scintilla of the lucidity and honesty they promised this country.

This little exercise of trickery and deceit will never have the word “tyranny” attached to it … although it should. Rest assured that if Republicans had conducted themselves in such an underhanded and dishonest way, “tyranny” would be among the more docile terms being hurled at them.

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009



Wishing my wife a Very Happy Valentine’s Day. It is our 18th together.

Love you, sweetie.

Posted in Personal | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009


Police have released this sketch. If you’ve seen this man, contact the authorities right away …

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2009

back in the day

back in the day

From The “I’m With You, Reverend Joseph Lowery” file …

The naivety of Americans who believe that blacks are not still being asked to get in back, or that brown is not given the chance to stick around, is astounding. No matter how much we shake America, she is not responding to our wake-up call. Racism abounds, along with a veritable rainbow of other juicy “isms.” The reality that our President is black, that the majority of American athletes and pop music stars are black, that our favorite motion picture stars are black, that the most powerful star and TV talk-show mogul in all of the country is black, is irrelevant.

NBA Hall-of-Famer Elgin Baylor apparently agrees.

Baylor, who played from 1958 to 1971 and subsequently spent twenty-two years as the Los Angeles Clippers’ Vice President of Basketball Operations, is suing not only the Clippers, but the NBA and team owner Donald Sterling for alleged employment discrimination based on age and race. Baylor was released by the team last fall.

From ESPN:

The lawsuit maintains that Baylor was “discriminated against and unceremoniously released from his position with the team on account of his age and his race” and that he was “grossly underpaid during his tenure with the Clippers, never earning more than $350,000 per year, when compared with the compensation scheme for general managers employed by every other team in the NBA.”

The NBA is named in the lawsuit, according to Douglas’ fax, as “a joint venturer/partner of condoning, adopting and ratifying this discriminatory practice since the league is fully aware of salaries paid to all of the general managers.”

It’s interesting how Baylor never mentioned anything about unfair treatment or discrimination during his tenure or in the months following his departure from the Clippers. He was certainly in the position to do so while he was there, and he would have been allowed to say whatever he wanted about any racism he perceived.

I might add that in twenty-two years with Mr. Baylor serving as VP of Basketball Operations, the Los Angeles Clippers made the playoffs three times – three lousy times. That he kept his job as long as he did is by itself astounding. That one could make the case the team bent over backwards to avoid any appearances of racism by keeping a wholly unsuccessful man employed for that long is reasonable.

Clippers attorney Robert H. Platt said in a statement Wednesday night that he had not seen the lawsuit and couldn’t comment on Baylor’s specific allegations.

“However, I can categorically state that the Clippers always treated Elgin fairly throughout his long tenure with the team. Prior to his decision to leave the team last October, Elgin never raised any claims of unfair treatment,” Platt said.

“It’s hard to believe that he would now make these ridiculous claims after the organization stood by him during 22 years and only three playoff appearances. It would be hard to find any sports team that has demonstrated greater loyalty to its general manager.”

“I can’t imagine because Elgin has always been very, very close to me,” the owner said in the team’s locker room. “He’s a fabulous person. I think there’s some mistake.”

Since, 2003, Elgin Baylor made $350,000 a year – more than the vast majority of white Americans make – after several salary increases over the course of his career with the Clippers. Is it possible – I say, possible – that he wasn’t paid as much as others in the NBA because of his less-than-stellar performance record as General Manager?

Baylor said, “I did not retire. I have so much more to give. The way I was treated by the NBA and the Clippers was unfair, and many ways discriminatory.”

Was it unfair that he held onto a position for more than two-decades with a track record that would have had him expunged anywhere else much sooner?

What exactly was discriminatory, Mr. Baylor?

Does anyone honestly believe that the Clippers deliberately chose to pay Mr. Baylor less than others after realizing that the melanin level in his skin was too high to warrant more salary? And if it wasn’t deliberate, how will Mr. Baylor’s disgusting publicity-seeking lawyers prove it?

Shameful, Mr. Baylor.

Posted in American culture, Racism, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2009


Liberals are keen on making the rest of us uninformed, self-absorbed bundles of God-obsessed narcissists, i.e., conservatives, “aware” of things. (“National School Backpack Awareness Day,” “National Pit Bull Awareness Day,” “National Self-Injury Awareness Day” – all real). New York Governor David Paterson, if nothing else, has made us all “childhood obesity aware” now that his “fat tax” proposal looks like it will fail in blue-state New York.

I appreciate the Governor’s willingness to open my eyes, but I happen to drive past McDonalds, the Greek diner and the impoverished who live in the housing projects on my way into Manhattan almost daily – I know what obesity is.

Yesterday, the Governor spoke to college students saying that his plan to slap a “fat tax” on sugary beverages is going down in flames. He says the Empire State legislature will not go for it.

From CBS-TV in New York:

In meeting with college students over his budget, Paterson told the young New Yorkers not worry about his soda tax because the Legislature won’t go for it. But he said it has served its purpose of raising awareness of childhood obesity.

His proposal would put an 18-percent tax on soda and other sugary drinks containing less than 70 percent fruit juice. His analysis showed it would raise a projected $1 billion in revenue over two years and reduce use of sugary drinks by 5 percent.

The fat tax was the subject of articles, editorials, polls, talk radio and TV commentaries.

The plan had been supported by New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden.

“Every can of regular soda has the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar – 150 calories. Children that cut down on their soda intake cut down on their risk of becoming overweight or obese,” Frieden said.

Here are a few additional proposals:

Totalitarian Liberal Awareness Day (celebrated daily)

Leftist Jackass Awareness Day

Stop Ruing My Country You Stupid Dems Awareness Day

I am loathe to ever lavish any sort of praise on anything related to New York politics … but if New York’s legislature is giving this “health is the new morality” idea the thumbs down, good for them.

Posted in Big Government, Health is the New Morality | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 12, 2009

"...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

"...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863


At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.    -January 27, 1838

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other  – June 16, 1858 

Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.   -April 6, 1859 

I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot.  -February 14, 1861

In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just – a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless. -December 1, 1862

That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.  -March 21, 1864  

I have not permitted myself, gentlemen, to conclude that I am the best man in the country; but I am reminded, in this connection, of a story of an old Dutch farmer who remarked to a companion once that ‘it was not best to swap horses while crossing streams.   -June 9, 1864

I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.  -August 22, 1864

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations  -March 4, 1865.

Posted in American History | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


Nearly one-third of the Fort Myers, Florida police department was assigned to “body removal patrol” – that is, clearing away those who had fainted. Fully one-half of all EMT personnel in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties were called in to resuscitate those for whom it was too much. From Southwest Regional Airport, all the way to the Harborside Events Center where HE spoke last evening, all along the route – and for three miles in each direction off his motorcade path – businesses were ordered closed, residents were ordered to leave, pets rounded up and kept out of sight, and nearly thirty-two million people lined the streets to get a glimpse of HIM.

On Daniels Road, thousands were seen licking the black top where HIS limo had driven once the motorcade passed. Others were stretched across the median crying loudly, flailing their arms, while others wept silently. All along HIS travel route, worshippers struggled to break security lines to be able to inhale some of the exhaust fumes of HIS car. One even wrapped herself in a giant burrito and covered herself in sour cream and picante sauce and dangled herself from a “Yield” sign on US 41 when she heard that HE liked tex mex. The blind and physically handicapped were brought to the parking lot of the Harborside Events Center to touch full-color Xerox copies of HIS image. The deaf were allowed to watch a young man wearing a rubber Obama mask communicate articulately in sign language the way HE might do if he couldn’t hear.

Before HIS arrival, devotees were ushered in by the droves, from all walks of life, from the very sick to the young and healthy, wearing “Obama Is King” t-shirts, carrying “Heal Me Obama” signs, wearing “Bend me, Shape me, Obama Baby” buttons, pulling in their Bam-O-Matic Messiah Brand dialysis machines and diabetes test kits. As many as two-hundred million Americans crammed into the Publix parking lot across the street and into the field behind the Circle K adjacent to the venue to be able to say they exhaled the very carbon dioxide that fed the palm tree by the back entrance of the building where HE was going to conduct a townhall meeting.

The excitement was immeasurable. In the aisles, obstetricians were inducing labor on pregnant women so that HIS voice would be the first their babies heard upon entering the world. The dead were exhumed and wheeled in so that HE might inject life into them. Hundreds of children were singing songs of praise to HIM in four thousand different languages. The swimming pool in the center of the arena was cleaned one last time so that HE would have unsullied water to walk on during HIS presentation. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was seen picking out Drake’s Coffee Cake crumbs from the grill of the microphone HE would use (Michael Moore spoke there the night before), while Keith Olbermman had Charmin Ultra Soft bathroom tissue wound up in hand at the ready should HE need to visit the facilities.

Just moments before HE made his appearance, the roof of the venue opened up to sounds of clapping thunder so deafening that the dead began to stir. Forty-four streaks of lightning then came from the heavens, illuminating the night sky with a brilliance the likes of which had not been seen by human eyes until then. The audience at once fell to its knees as a beam of paisley hot light rose from the depths of the swimming pool, morphing into a violent red vortex of flame, eventually reaching through the open roof, into the night sky, beyond the clouds.

More sounds of calamitous thunder echoed across Lee County and into the Gulf of Mexico as HE appeared.

At first no one dared to lay eyes upon HIM until HE said that they all were permitted to look.

He told them to raise their eyes, and they did.

The applause lasted eleven hours, eighteen minutes.

As President Barack Obama eventually began to speak, nearly thirteen thousand women lost consciousness instantaneously. Another ten thousand – including men – became woozy from constantly mouthing the words “I love you, Barack” over and over again. Tears flowed down every cheek in the hall.

Paraplegics stood up.

The halitosis-inflicted had minty fresh breath.

They came to see HIM, to sniff HIM, to be hugged by HIM, to have their gaping wounds touched by HIM, to have their electricity bills paid by HIM, to have their homes financed by HIM, to have their food supplied by HIM, to have their infections cleansed by HIM, to have their souls healed by HIM, and to ask HIM questions.

And they did.


Q: “Mr. Obama, why?”

A: “Uh .. because.”


Q: “Mr. One, how can I be a better person?”

A: “Uh .. you definitely can.”


Q: “Mr. President, things are tough for me. Can you pay my mortgage?”

A: “Let me hug you.”


Q: “Oh Great Obama, does this shirt make me look fat?”

A: “There are no fat cats here.”


Q: “Do you love us? Will you save us?”

A: “I won.”


Q: “Can you give me stuff?”

A: “Yes we can.”


HE fielded six thousand, two-hundred seventeen questions at the Harborside Events Center in Fort Myers, Florida last evening – and shared his tongue and onion sandwich with everyone who came to see him.

When it was all said and done – after all the waffles had been eaten, and long after the last healed cripple jogged home to wait by the mailbox for his stimulus check – The One spoke to reporters about what was truly a magnificent evening, saying, “Are you the Huffington Post guy? Or is it that gay looking dude?”

One thing is for certain … He left an everlasting impression upon those who came by car service and Subaru to see him.

Next up at the Harborside Events Center, the Frank Cox Gem and Jewelry Show, February 13-15, 2009.

Posted in American culture, Obama-Mania, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


It’s good to be left out sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, Republicans unanimously pulled themselves out of the fun of passing Obama’s stimulus bill in the House – and they took eleven Dems with them. Yesterday, save for three legislative wastes of space, Republicans said “no” to the Senate version. Now, comes the word that Republicans are being left out of the House-Senate negotiations on finalizing the bill by the all-inclusive, unity-happy, postpartisan Democrats.

Politically, I say “good.” Let them have it. All of the credit for a bill that everyone with at least a few working synapses knew would pass know matter what Republicans did can stay with the Obamacrats.

Republicans shouldn’t want any credit for this disaster. I comment on this only because its fun to point out all of the “change” and “bi-partisanship” Democrats have showered upon Washington during in their eventful first three weeks in complete power.

From the Great Human Events website, Connie Hair writes:

Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report.

They intend to attempt to shove this $1.3 trillion spending bill through in the dead of the night without Republican input so floor action can take place in both chambers on Thursday.

Fox News is reporting that a tentative $790 Billion stimulus bill deal between Congress and the White House has been reached:

Congressional leaders and the White House have crossed a first hurdle, tentatively agreeing to a $790 billion price tag on President Obama’s economic stimulus bill. The new price tag reflects a cut of nearly $50 billion from the Senate version.

Among the considered cuts to the bill, according to numerous Democratic aides involved in the talks, is a trim to Obama’s tax credit — $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple — with a phase out beginning sooner than originally written: at about $70,000 per individual and $140,000 for couples.

You mean the coveted, much talked-about Obama “tax cuts” are being tossed aside?

No way.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009



Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


When anyone on the payroll of the Associated Press actually bothers to veer away from Interstate Obama and earn their pay by doing some genuine reporting, i.e., legitimately questioning some of the claims put forth by the Messiah himself, it is definitely worth acknowledging. (It happens so rarely). AP reporter Calvin Woodward has actually done a fairly nice job fact checking some of The One’s assertions made in Elkhart, Indiana on Monday, while the President was attempting to build up support for his pig-meat spectacular, ultimately passed by the Senate yesterday. . The problem is, while doing a respectable job checking some of the President’s spending ishkabibble, Woodward falls into the “earmarks” trap Obama himself created – something I have been writing about a lot in recent days.

First off … the fact checking.

Said Obama:

“I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. … I made a mistake … I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules. Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration.”

As we know, two Obama appointees, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, dropped out when it came to light that both had failed to pay taxes. (Obama’s vetting machine needs vetting). There is also Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury, who decided not to drop out when it was revealed that he had some IRS difficulties of his own – that is, until he paid his $34,000 IRS bill.

As far as lobbyists go, Woodward writes:

Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner’s choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

Then there’s Obama’s stimulus-bill promise of creating (or saving) millions of new jobs.

Note the word “save.

Said The One:

“The plan that we’ve put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.”

Woodward counters:

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Clever Democrat-speak, to be sure. The President has spent the better part of the last two weeks talking about the impending “catastrophe” of allowing his spending bill to die. That didn’t happen, of course, but had the bill not passed, job losses across the country would have been massive, he told us. Naturally, Obama never actually defined just how massive “massive” really is. Thus, no matter how many jobs are lost over the next two years, Democrats will assure the public that the total is not nearly what it would have been had the recovery bill not passed.

Viola! Saved jobs.

Then there’s the “earmark” thing.

Said Obama:

“I know that there are a lot of folks out there who’ve been saying, ‘Oh, this is pork, and this is money that’s going to be wasted,’ and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. … There aren’t individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill.”

Here is where Woodward forgets how to be a reporter:

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added: “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

President Obama is playing a dishonest game, and Mr. Woodward did not do his homework.

First off, as I have said repeatedly – and will continue to do when facts are deceitfully manipulated – “earmarks” are not a process – as Obama suggested on January 6th, when he said, “We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

The President seems to think – or wants us to think – that because “pet projects” were not inserted into the bill individually by members of Congress after the fact, as is often the case, they are not earmarks. In my article “President Liar and Company – Confirmed,” I used this analogy:

Let’s say, for instance, I declared to the world that there will be no profanity used in this article. After that, I went on to say that I describe profanity as the process by which an offensive word is inserted it into this piece. The guidelines I lay out speficially state that a profanity is only such if I type the word myself, using my keyboard. Then, with that newly created criterion in mind, instead of physically typing a four-letter-word into this article, I simply browsed the internet until I found the desired curse word on someone else’s website and cut-and-pasted it into my article. I could then claim that based on how I defined it, there is no profanity in this piece because I didn’t type it myself. Using the Obama method, I defined profanity based on the process by which it found its way into my piece – not the word itself.

pinocchiobamaOf course, the President contradicted his own assertion on Friday of last week when he said, “Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

The fact of the matter is there are earmarks in the bill, no matter how many times the President looks America square in the eye and says otherwise. There can be no doubt about it. Americans are not stupid – at least many of us aren’t.

The definition of “earmark” according to the Federal Office of Management and Budget is money provided by Congress for projects where the destination of that money, whether in bill form or in legislative reports, is specified or managed by Congress (as opposed to the Executive Branch).

Where Woodward stumbles is in neglecting to point out that there are two types of “earmarks” – hard earmarks and soft earmarks. Hard earmarks are those that are actually written into the bill (like those in Obama’s crapulous package), while soft earmarks – the most common and the kind Woodward is referring to – are written into reports that “suggest” where spending bill money should go.

If I can do the research to find such things out, certainly a professional like Mr. Woodward can.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2009


Think of the free market as a fire hydrant and President Obama as the dog about to shower it with contempt. The President told America – and the world – last evening that only government is capable of fixing the economic problems this country faces. The very concepts that help to define America itself – rugged individualism, personal responsibility, liberty, entrepreneurialism – all found themselves thrown under the Obama magical misery bus during his first prime time press conference as President.

The leader of the free world sent the message that it isn’t the individual who can make things right. It isn’t the free market that can set things straight. It is government – big, bumbling, inefficient, unaccountable, tyrannical, fingers-in-everybody’s pie government – that can save this country. With his ringing endorsement of an all-powerful, all-intrusive Washington as problem-solver and healer, the President of the United States made it clear that he possesses no confidence in the American people.

Such inspiration. Such leadership.

Contrast these two quotes:

Ronald Reagan:Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”

Barack Obama: “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.”

If that doesn’t serve as the quintessential distinction between right and left, then nothing does.

What Bam also did last night was add to his ever-growing list of contradictions, inconsistencies, half-truths and downright lies. He said during his less-than-impressive performance that he found it difficult to accept criticism of his porktabulous spending bill from the people (Republicans) who helped double the size of the deficit during the previous administration. Yet, with his $800 billion-plus pig-meat bill, he wants to propel to deficit into uncharted territory with a spending spree that would put Bush’s recklessness to instant shame.

I’m not sure if his handlers and preparers are this obtuse, or if he is just the worst out of the box thinker America has seen since John Kerry, but he embarrasses himself when he is away from the nestling warmth of his teleprompter.

No one likes to give a hard time to those who have come down off the cross to save humanity, but how about some honest analysis?

This works part and parcel with the President’s fractured view of his own country – his misguided, university-constructed, leftist take on the greatest country the world has ever known.

It is frightening, but no one should be surprised now. The tone for the Obama-Nation was set on January 20, 2009 in what was an otherwise sleepy and forgettable inaugural address.

Recall The One said:

“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

How many of you, when you heard those words, took pause to say to yourselves, “Wow, the Bush years really are over.”

If ever something more provably untrue were uttered by a President, it’s not immediately popping into my head. How exactly is the safety of the United States enhanced in any way because of how just our cause is? Where in all of human history has a cause served to strengthen the security of a people? That such a statement can be made without any serious scrutiny or backlash (outside of conservatives who pay attention) is utterly astounding. No country’s security ever emanates from the justness of a cause.

Security emanates from a strong military. Period.

Were the Jews of Nazi Germany more secure because of the justness of their cause?

Can I now keep my doors unlocked at night because I am a just man?

What poppycock.

The security of the United States emanates from the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

Then, there was this little ditty, extracted directly from the multiculturalist’s songbook:

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

This country may be comprised of people from every corner of the world, but it is patently false – and in no way defensible to assert that this country has been shaped by every language and culture.

How exactly?

Undoubtedly, one could probably find just about every one of world’s languages spoken somewhere in the United States, but the influence of Hindi and Latvian on the United States is nil. The role of Farsi and Burmese in forming the cultural landscape of America is nonexistant. Even the effect of Zulu on American life is negligible.

And as deplorable as it is for anti-religious revisionists to have to admit any prevailing Christian influence, this country has not been shaped by Hindus or Muslims, despite ongoing attempts to reconstruct American history into an all-inclusive, everybody-influenced-everything fairy-tale.

Culturally, this country exists in the English tradition, shaped by its Judeo-Christian value system. Period.

This is not a matter of opinion.

But worry not … just a little while ago, the Obama spendulous bill passed in the Senate, 61-37. America is well on the way to a “fundamentally transformed” future filled with big government band-aids,  astronomical deficits and encroaching tyranny.

Yippee, eh?

Piece by piece, America is going away.

America is falling down and going Bam.

Posted in American culture, Big Government, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2009


The Senate is on the brink of passing President Obama’s cavalcade of pig-meat.

With the word “trillion” being tossed around these days like hiccups at a Kennedy family barbecue, the very magnitude of how much that really is can be easily lost on the human brain.

A few days ago, Senator Mitch McConnell gave a marvelous example of how large “one trillion” actually is by saying that if one had spent $1 million a day since the day Jesus was born, he or she would still not have reached a trillion dollars.

That’s hard to ingest.

A caller to Dennis Prager’s radio show yesterday may have come up with an even more effective way of illustrating how big a trillion is.

If one were to go back in time one trillion seconds, he or she would be going back nearly 32,000 years.

32,000 years!

Or another way to say it … If one could count to one trillion, at one number per second, without any breaks, it would take them just over 31,688 years to get there (assuming each year is 365.25 days, accounting for leap years).

The math:

There are 60 seconds in a minute.
There are 60 minutes in an hour. That’s 3600 seconds per hour.
There are 24 hours in a day. That’s 86400 seconds in one day.
There are 365.25 days a year. That’s 31,557,600 seconds in a year.

If you take the number ONE TRILLION – 1,000,000,000,000 and divide it by 31,557,600 you come up with 31,688.0878 etc …

In other news, the Obama administration is “fundamentally transforming” my country into a socialist state, dammit.

Posted in Big Government, Economy | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2009

Painted by one of Robert Reich's unskilled, non-white infrastructure employees.

Painted by one of Robert Reich's unskilled infrastructure guys?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

Go away

Go away

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican (by registration), says it is very simple. He is supporting President Obama’s spending bill because the United States cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing. He said so himself in a column he wrote for the Washington Post, published this morning.

I think it’s simple, too. Senator Arlen Specter is getting too old to let his knees jerk that violently. He could rupture a patella.

With inaction, he warns, it could be too late for the United States. In other words, this crisis – which you’d have to believe is close to being worse than the Great Depression or maybe the worst ever to befall homosapiens anywhere – could potentially destroy almost two-hundred-thirty-three years of existence unless we incur astronomical amounts of additional debt.

Along with some nearly incoherent references about MovieTone news reels, he laid out his reasons why the Obama bill must be implemented to save America. Said the rambling Rino:

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater — or it may be too late.

This is one of those instances where a clueless, misinformed politician believes that just saying something automatically gives it credence. If given the chance, I would ask directly … what exactly makes it clear that failure to act could bring down the country, Mr. Specter? What do you base that on? That the President dramatically used the word “catastrophe” to describe what might happen if the pork never hits the grill?

Fear mongering, thy name is Specter.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

Yes, I feel better now. Thanks Big A.

Why the Republican National Committee is not commissioning the construction of statues to Specter and the Mods for heroically slashing over a hundred billion bucks from the bill (after the price tag went up over a hundred billion) is beyond me.

Please feel free to read the article in its entirety, if you like. My nausea level peeks into the red when I cut and paste his pathetic attempts at rationale.

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office predicts this nation-crippling recession will end by the start of 2010without passing Obama’s craptacular spending bill.

No kidding.

See the report in PDF format here.

At the Indymind blog, Arkady writes:

Specifically observe that by 2010 Revenues are projected to increase. GDP also jumps after completely flat lining from 2008-2009 and more importantly deficit dramatically drops. Do yourself a favor and peruse the 9 page document.


Mr. Specter, it is time for you to go away now.

Take your patella and go home.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Being a Democrat can mean several things – possessing the ability to emote as a means of creating policy, having the facility to substitute feelings for wisdom, or the innate instinct to never think what happens next. It’s a cushy intellectual life, to be sure.

Take the President’s signing of the so-called S-CHIP bill into law last week – a measure which expands (fancy that) the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by roughly $35 billion over the next five years.

President Obama may not have asked anyone to read his lips, but you’ll recall he did promise no new taxes of any kind to those making under $250,000 a year.

Well, feel free to add another tick into the Obama-lama-ding-dong column of Lies and Redefinitions.

Back on September 12, 2008 – when the word “trillions” was still more freely associated with how many reality shows were on television than with bailouts and stimulus – the President said:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

One fourth of all smokers are below the poverty line.

Respectfully, the President can take his ” firm pledge” and put it in the same place his “no earmarks in the stimulus bill” promise rightly belongs.

The only thing “firm” is the grip America has had on its ankles since January 20, 2009.

To pay for this idiocy, the federal excise tax on tobacco will increase 62 cents per pack of cigarettes. In short, Obama is taxing smokers to pay for the healthcare of children – many of whom have absolutely no business being covered by this nonsensical piece of … legislation.

But Democrats are so cute.  They do everything in their power to make cigarette smoking as morally deplorable as possible, systematically legislating it from American life “for our own good,” yet rely on it to save the children.

Taxing cigarettes, as we’ve been told, is a genuine deterrent to purchasing them. Once the price gets too high, it stands to reason that less people will smoke. Yet without those who do smoke, many of America’s children will apparently be deprived of the healthcare they deserve or can afford. Without these yellow-fingered, second-hand smoke producing, nicotine fiends feeding their disgusting addictions, innocent kids across the map will be shut out of the medicine supply line and forced to exist (somehow) on antiquated home remedies and penicillin derivatives made from household bread mold.

Is the risk of what would essentially amount to the government having to support some cigarette smoking – and thus condoning the infliction of second-hand (and third-hand) smoke on an innocent population, which we’ve been told kills tens of thousands annually – worth funding health care for those children who would otherwise be forced to rummage through garbage cans for Robitussin residue and half-sucked Halls cough drops?

What a predicament to be in.

Maybe what the government should do is raise the excise tax by twenty-thousand percent on each pack of cigarettes and buy up all the smokes needed to fund the S-CHIP bill themselves.

Viola! Instant funding!

That’ll keep the mint busy.

(And it’ll take only forty-two generations of Americans to pay it back).

Then, perhaps the government can sell their newly acquired smokes back to the public at a discounted price, thus generating even more revenue – or to China.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 8, 2009



Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 8, 2009


The American Kennel Club (AKC) and the Ku-Klux Klan are probably two organizations that don’t draw any immediate parallels in the minds of most Americans. When the 133rd annual Westminster Dog Show airs on the USA Network next week, it is probably a safe bet that the last things that will pop into the skulls of the sane are burning crosses, lynchings and white hoods.

Then, of course, there’s PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) – the radical organization of unhinged moonbats that advocates moral and legal equality between human beings and animals. This is the same fanatical group of dangerous malcontents with direct ties to domestic terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

Their latest campaign of dementia equates Klansmen with AKC dog breeders – not unlike the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign from earlier this decade that associated steak and slaughtered Jews.

They’ve taken what they obviously think is a brilliant approach to a problem that, to them, is as serious as any facing America right now. They’ve created a flyer that they intend to hand out in front of Madison Square Garden during the Westminster Dog Show, written from the perspective of the KKK commending the AKC for promoting “pure bloodlines” and eliminating “mixed breeds.”

In part, it reads:

… did you know that if dogs’ coloring isn’t just right, they may get “culled”? No, they aren’t hanged from a tree, but they are killed. Sound familiar? We believe what really matters aren’t silly things like being able to breathe instead of having a squashed-in Pekingese face, being able to walk without pain instead of having hip dysplasia, and being able to see instead of having congenital eye problems from being inbred—it’s what an individual looks like on the outside that counts!

We like the way the AKC thinks. At the KKK, we advocate the idea of a “master race,” and the AKC promotes genetic manipulation to create a “master pedigree.” Master race, master pedigree—same thing, different species. Love it!

We tip our hoods to breeders who are responsible (oh, they’ll modestly say that it’s only “indirectly”) for the number of mixed-breed dogs who never make it out of the animal shelter alive. AKC officials don’t rub out these “inferiors” directly, but they know that every “purebred” puppy bought from a breeder means “lights out” for another mutt at the animal shelter. And the AKC doesn’t have to lift a finger!

The leaflet front has a drawing of a Klansman shaking hands with an AKC member with the title: “The KKK and AKC: BFF? In Some Respects, Yes!” (For those not text-saavy, “BFF” means “best friends forever.”)

Quoting their website: “Purebreds only? Wrong for people. Wrong for dogs.”

There is also a video that PETA is particularly proud of – part of their Animal Birth Control Campaign – featuring a Klansmen in his full hood/sheet ensemble walking in to enjoy a meeting of the AKC.

That there are controversies associated with the American Kennel Club is nothing new. Complaints abound from “animal rights” groups about the AKC’s unwillingness to discourage the practice of docking tails and cropping ears – a custom that is condemned in most other countries. Activists blast the AKC for not having what they call specific health standards for breeding, other than the 8 month old age restriction. They also kill the AKC for supposedly cozying up to large scale puppy farm commercial breeders.

No one I know of approves of genuine puppy mills. The AKC has been second-to-none in condemning them. Yet, PETA seems to classify all breeders of purebred dogs as puppy mill proprietors. This is patently false. Yes, puppy mills exist, but there are a multitude of top quality breeders out there – dog enthusiasts to their cores – who care just as much about the welfare and safety of dogs as the noodleheads at PETA, if not more. These are dedicated breeders who genuinely care where the dogs they raise go. Countless numbers of these AKC breeders have fallen in love with their breed.

PETA, however, is apparently focused on doing away with purebred dogs altogether, making the warped connection (as only they and their ilk can) between breeding purebreds and the KKK.

So then, what is the natural conclusion to PETA’s solution? Should every dog be a mixed-breed shelter adoptee?

I obviously have absolutely nothing against adopting pets, but let’s be fair. I have known people who have experienced problems with dogs they have rescued from shelters, while others have had absolutely wonderfully fulfilling experiences with adopted dogs.

Call it what you may, like it or not, there are many who prefer purebred dogs to pound muts. People are entitled to feel that way, PETA.

I happen to be a bona-fide, dye-in-the-wool dog lover. My wife and I bred Lhasa Apsos for a time when we were first married. We tended to those dogs with the utmost consideration and affection. Only the birth of our own children kept us from continuing.

Today, I have a sheep dog, Harry. He is my fuzzy buddy. He is as much a member of the family as anyone else in the house, and he is AKC registered.

His breeder was meticulous and had a heart of gold.

And he didn’t wear a hood, if you can believe it.

Hey PETA … the AKC is not trying to create a master race of dog or discriminate against mixed breeds.

Whatever problems these whackjobs believe need to be tended to by the AKC does not excuse what is a vulgar, misguided, nauseating attempt by the vermin at PETA to be “cute” using something wholly inappropriate.

It is inexcusable.

Posted in PETA | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 7, 2009


Once upon a time, when radio was still paying my bills, I took the calculated risk of veering away from all of the easy Monica Lewinsky chatter and dedicated an hour of airtime to the idea of retiring the number “3” throughout Major League Baseball in honor of the game’s most important – and arguably greatest – player of all, Babe Ruth. Jackie Robinson’s “42” had recently been retired – something that seemed perfectly fine to me – but it occurred to me that if Robinson was being honored by such an unprecedented move, it made at least as much sense to retire the Babe’s number the same way.

That was eleven years ago. I stand by it today.

Baseball was America’s game in the 1940s. It wasn’t even close. That Robinson broke the twentieth-century color barrier in Major League Baseball had more of an impact on the desegregation of America than anything could have at the time. It cannot be overstated. It is hardly deniable.

Yet, Robinson’s tribute – rightly deserved – was based on his skin color. That doesn’t belittle it. I don’t begrudge it. It is what it is. I applaude it.

Indeed, in purely baseball terms, he did have some very good years with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He was the very first Rookie of the Year in 1947. Between 1948 and 1954 he never finished with a batting average below .308. In 1949 – his best year – he was the league’s most valuable player, hitting .342, knocking in 124 runs and scoring 122 times. He was the catalyst for six pennant-winning teams, including the Dodgers’ only world title in Brooklyn in 1955. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1962. Perhaps most significant to the game itself is the fact that Robinson brought a faster, sleeker, more dynamic style of play to Major League Baseball – a style imported from the Negro Leagues. He was one of the most exciting players ever to put on spikes.

Let’s be clear, I love Jackie Robinson. I have a shrine to him and the Brooklyn Dodgers here in my office (baseball geek that I am). He ushered the way for the best black baseball players to finally take their rightful place along the game’s best white ball players in the Major Leagues.

Still, it was his societal imprint – as important, profound and influential as any during the “Civil Rights” era – that prompted the retirement of his number “42.”

With that in mind, I’d like, for a moment, to talk about the game itself.

Two decades before Robinson crossed the color-line in baseball, the country was Bambino crazy.

George Herman “Babe” Ruth’s impact on both the game of baseball and the American culture is unparalleled in all of sports history. Think of Michael Jordan at the height of his fame and multiply it ten fold. (More on the “fame” aspect of Ruth in a moment).

My argument for the retirement of Ruth’s number is founded on how he impacted the game. It is impossible to overstate what Babe Ruth did.

Babe Ruth owned the game of baseball like no other ever has. He was so dominant that rules were actually changed because of him. He, in fact, single-handedly revitalized the game after the dark days of “Black Sox” scandal threatened to bring baseball down for good. He put up numbers that put entire teams to shame. To this day, he is the benchmark of excellence, the gauge by which all others are measured, and is synonymous with being the best. “That guy is the Babe Ruth of ________________________”

Seventy-four years after he retired, he still holds many records.

Twelve times, Ruth led the American League in home runs (Eleven of those times, he tied or led both leagues). His dominance was such that in 1920, when he hit 54 home runs, he had more dingers than every other team in the majors, except for the Philadelphia Phillies, who cracked 64. To further put his accomplishments in perspective, through Ruth’s first six seasons, he had only 49 career home runs (He predominantly pitched in those years). Over the next 15 years, he would average 44 home runs a year.

Ruth led the American League in slugging 13 times (12 of those years leading the majors). Between 1920 and 1924, Ruth’s slugging average was an unheard of .774. Ruth’s lifetime slugging percentage is .690 – still the best of all time. Eight times he led the league in runs scored and six times in RBIs. He led the league in walks 11 times, OPS 13 times and still holds the record for highest career OPS at 1.164. He has an amazing career on-base percentage of .474, number two all-time behind Ted Williams.

When Ruth called it a career, his total of 714 home runs was not only the all-time record, it was almost twice as much as the next person on that list, Lou Gehrig, who had 378 at the time.

He still sits in the top five of many all-time offensive categories. (Remember that he really didn’t start batting with any significant regularity until his fifth season – and in his last season, he had only 72 at bats).

He is fourth in all-time runs scored (2174), Third in home runs (714), Second in RBIs (2217), Third in walks (2062), Fourth in extra-base hits (1356).

Arguably the most impressive statistic considering all of the Babe’s accomplishments is the one that probably gets the least amount of play – his batting average. He wasn’t just good – he was phenomenal. He was simply one of the greatest average hitters of all-time. Only eight players in all of baseball history have higher lifetime batting averages than Ruth’s amazing .342.

That’s right … .342!

That’s four points better than Tony Gwynn (.338), and fourteen better than Wade Boggs (.328).

During a seven year stretch between 1920 and 1926, Ruth hit .357 – including one year where he hit a painfully “average” .290 and another where hit “only” .315.

Debatably, the greatest single season in baseball history is Ruth’s 1921 showing.

In 152 games, Ruth hit .378 with 59 home runs and 171 RBIs. He scored 177 runs, walked 145 times, had 44 doubles and – yes – 16 triples! (You go, big guy!) His slugging percentage that year was an astronomical .846. He even stole 17 bases. His 457 total bases that year is still a single-season record.

Unbelievably, Ruth only ever won one batting title – in 1924 when he hit .378. He had the great “misfortune” of playing at the same time as George Sisler, Al Simmons and Harry Heilmann.

In 1923, Ruth hit .393 and did not win the batting title. In fact, seven times Ruth hit .356 or higher and did not snag the batting crown.

He is still the only player to have a season with at least 200 hits and 150 walks.

From Wikipedia :

In 1969, he was named baseball’s Greatest Player Ever in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. In 1998, The Sporting News ranked Ruth Number 1 on the list of “Baseball’s 100 Greatest Players.” In 1999, baseball fans named Ruth to the Major League Baseball.

ruth-retired-numberTo this day, towering homeruns are still referred to as “Ruthian.”

At a time when the game’s future was, at best, uncertain, he saved the game of baseball.

By himself saved it. Gave it new life. Brought it into the game’s golden age.

That alone makes this discussion legitimate.

In terms of celebrity, Ruth was, indeed, “the Beatles” of his time, and then some. He was the first real American sports hero – and he rewrote not only the record books, but he changed the nature of “fame” itself. People from all walks of life wanted to be seen with him. Every schoolboy wanted to be like him. He was a larger-than-life attraction, drawing crowds wherever he went. He was a star of the highest order. His fame far transcended the game he played.

He is firmly woven into the rug of American culture.

Retiring Babe Ruth’s number “3” is something that will almost certainly never happen – and maybe it shouldn’t. Who knows? It certainly makes for a lively discussion.

But if there is any number that deserves to be retired, in my most humble opinion, it’s the man from Baltimore who changed America’s game forever.

Yesterday was the Babe’s birthday. Happy belated birthday, Babe.

Posted in American culture, Sports | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 6, 2009

You were right, Al Gore!

That carbon credit stuff is real, people!

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 6, 2009

Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.
“Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
– October 27, 1964 (“The Speech”)

“Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”
– January 7, 1970

“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
– 1980

“Let us resolve tonight that young Americans will always … find there a city of hope in a country that is free…. And let us resolve they will say of our day and our generation, we did keep the faith with our God, that we did act worthy of ourselves, that we did protect and pass on lovingly that shining city on a hill.”
— November 3, 1980

“No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
– January 20, 1981 (first inaugural address)

“…peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever.”
– January 20, 1981 (first inaugural address)

“You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?”
— January 20, 1981 (first inaugural address)

“We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
— January 20, 1981 (first inaugural address)

“I hope you’re all Republicans.”
– March 30, 1981 (to surgeons in the operating room following his assassination attempt)

“The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.”
– October 5, 1981

“We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems.”
January 26, 1985

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
August 15, 1986

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
– June 12, 1987

“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
– September 25, 1987

“When people tell me I became president on January 20, 1981, I feel I have to correct them. You don’t become president of the United States. You are given temporary custody of an institution called the presidency, which belongs to our people.”
— August 15, 1988

“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”
– January 11, 1989 (farewell address)

“Our friends in the other party will never forgive us for our success, and are doing everything in their power to rewrite history. Listening to the liberals, you’d think that the 1980s were the worst period since the Great Depression, filled with suffering and despair. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting awfully tired of the whining voices from the White House these days. They’re claiming there was a decade of greed and neglect, but you and I know better than that. We were there.”
– February 3, 1994

Below is a link to one of the most important speeches ever given by Ronald Reagan – “Rendezvous with Destiny.” It is the speech that put Ronald Reagan on the political map. It was delivered on October 27, 1964 in support of the Republican candidate for President of the United States, Barry Goldwater.

It is a remarkable speech.

This clip features “The Speech,” as it is often referred to, in its entirety, 27 minutes long. Bookmark it for future reference. If you have not heard it, nor seen it, find time to watch it. It is essential viewing/reading/listening.

It is as relevant today as it was then.

He was still sixteen years away from the White House, but this is what being “Presidential” is all about.

(It is mislabeled as being from the 1964 Republican National Convention, but it is not. The speech, however, is presented in full)

Posted in Ronald Reagan | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »